context: Calculation of the rate for prejudgment interest also "rests firmly within the sound discretion of the trial court." Courts commonly look to state statutory prejudgment interest provisions as guidelines for a reasonable rate.
citation_a.signal: cf.
citation_a.identifier: 100 F.3d 220, 224-25
citation_a.parenthetical: noting that because "ERISA is inscrutable on the subject" of the appropriate rate of prejudgment interest, "courts have discretion to select an appropriate rate, and they may look to outside sources, including state law, for guidance"
citation_a.sentence: See, e.g., Allison, 289 F.3d at 1244 (holding that “district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the Colorado statutory rate of 8 percent”); cf. Cottrill v. Sparrow, Johnson & Ursillo, Inc., 100 F.3d 220, 224-25 (1st Cir.1996) (noting that because “ERISA is inscrutable on the subject” of the appropriate rate of prejudgment interest, “courts have discretion to select an appropriate rate, and they may look to outside sources, including state law, for guidance”).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 289 F.3d 1244, 1244
citation_b.parenthetical: holding that "district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the Colorado statutory rate of 8 percent"
citation_b.sentence: See, e.g., Allison, 289 F.3d at 1244 (holding that “district court did not abuse its discretion in awarding prejudgment interest at the Colorado statutory rate of 8 percent”); cf. Cottrill v. Sparrow, Johnson & Ursillo, Inc., 100 F.3d 220, 224-25 (1st Cir.1996) (noting that because “ERISA is inscrutable on the subject” of the appropriate rate of prejudgment interest, “courts have discretion to select an appropriate rate, and they may look to outside sources, including state law, for guidance”).