that were favorable to counsel and which established that counsel had performed a valuable public service by taking on extensive litigation with significant risks and had obtained a substantial settlement allowing full payment of every claim that was filed. Fears I, 2005 WL 1041134 at *5-8. Because of these deficiencies in the district court’s explanation, we have no basis to determine whether it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to adhere to its initial award (as increased to reflect subsequent work) of fees equal to only around 20% of the fund and less than half of counsel’s lodestar, and therefore must remand to the district court for reconsideration of the appropriate award of attorneys’ fees. Cf. In Design v. K-Mart Apparel Corp., 13 F.3d 559, 568 (2d Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>) overruled on other grounds by Fogerty v.
holding that the plan administrator abused its discretion when it ignored contrary evidence without explanation holding district court abused its discretion in admitting state court findings of fact holding that agency abused its discretion by changing statement of purpose to eliminate all but one of the initial range of alternatives holding that trial court abused its discretion by denying a motion for rule 11 sanctions without adequate explanation holding district court abused discretion by changing characterization of defendants conduct without a reasoned explanation