note that the record shows that Safeway amended its by-laws to provide broader indemnification and entered into indemnification agreements with all its directors in anticipation of litigation over the merger. See E.R. at 227, exh. 5, p. 17, & exh. 6. 26 . This argument has been roundly rejected by the courts. See, e.g., Wayne County Neighborhood Legal Servs. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 971 F.2d 1, 4 (6th Cir.1992); Harbor, 922 F.2d at 366; Ameriwood Indus. Int'l Corp. v. American Casualty Co., 840 F.Supp. 1143, 1158 (W.D.Mich.1993). 27 . E.R. at 195, p. 18, 20. 28 . We assume that the district court acted under this subsection in denying Safeway's claim for prejudgment interest. See E.R. at 239, p. 14. 29 . See also Hansen v. Covell, 218 Cal. 622, 629, 24 P.2d 772, 775-76 (1933) (<HOLDING>); but cf. National Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Showa
holding that the insured was entitled to prejudgment and postjudgment interest and attorney fees as found by the jury holding that prejudgment interest should not be added to damages awarded for misrepresentation because the amount of damages were not liquidated or ascertainable before the verdict holding that prejudgment interest may include compound interest holding that plaintiff is entitled to prejudgment interest even though its ascertainable claim was reduced by defendants unliquidated setoff or counterclaim holding that prejudgment interest was appropriate when plaintiffs damages from securities fraud were ascertainable at the time of the sale in accordance with accepted standards of valuation