With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". “convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise,” this court will not defer to the decisions of the intermediate state appellate courts. Herrmann Holdings Ltd. v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 302 F.3d 552, 558 (5th Cir.2002) (internal quotations and citations omitted). In two unpublished cases, the Dallas appellate court in 2001 twice held that while prejudgment interest was to be calculated on the total amount of damages at the time of judgment, the accrual date should be based on one point in time, regardless of whether the total amount of damages had occurred at that time. Am. Technical Res., Inc. v. Network Staffing Servs., Inc., No. 05-00-01124-CV, 2001 WL 969210, at *6 (Tex.App.— Dallas Aug.28, 2001, no pet.) (not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Basic Capital Mgmt., Inc. v. Phan, No.

A: holding that prejudgment interest is based on the amount of the judgment not the total amount of damages awarded by the jury because nonsettling defendants have no control over settlement negotiations and should not be forced to pay prejudgment interest on settling defendants parts of a damages award
B: holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a monthbymonth basis
C: holding that prejudgment interest should not be calculated based on a paycheckbypaycheck basis
D: holding that prejudgment interest may inelude compound interest
B.