stage, the Class consisted of people who had purchased demand notes after February 15, 1980. The jury then determined that Arthur Young was liable for approximately $6.1 million in damages to the people who purchased demand notes after April 22, 1982. Because the district court fully credited the settlement proceeds against the jury’s verdict, the Class argues, Arthur Young gets the benefit of settlements with Class members who had no claim against Arthur Young. Under federal law, where a “settlement payment and the jury’s award pertain[] inseparably to one and the same loss,” the verdict must be credited with the payment on settlement. See Kassman v. American Univ., 546 F.2d 1029, 1035 (D.C.Cir.1976) (per curiam); see also Rolf v. Blyth, Eastman Dillon & Co., 570 F.2d 38, 50 (2d Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1039, 99 S.Ct. 642, 58
holding that rule 10b5 damages must be offset by amount of settlement holding that a liquidated damages amount set by contract is enforceable where the amount bears a reasonable relation to the damages actually sustained holding prejudgment interest is to be determined on the entire amount of compensatory damages and then reduced by the amount of interest which would have accrued at present value on the settlement amount determined before trial 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 holding that accused lawyer violated dishonesty rule by retaining double payment of settlement amount when second settlement check had been sent in error