and the lawsuit they had commenced. While Gotbetter represented to the Court that he did not initiate any of the publicity attending this lawsuit, at a minimum, as a result of Gotbetter’s and Katzman’s actions, Defendants have been made to respond to a patently meritless complaint and to suffer unwarranted adverse publicity. Both the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit have emphasized that the purpose of the sanctioning mechanism of Rule 11 “is not reimbursement but ‘sanction,’ ” “and that, accordingly, Rule 11 sanctions ‘shall be limited’ to what is sufficient to deter repetition of such conduct or comparable conduct by others.” Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 126, 110 S.Ct. 456, 459-460, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989); see also Eastway, 762 F.2d at 254 (<HOLDING>). Consistent with these holdings, Rule 11 was
holding that because counsels lumping of fees was not considered in  calculating the revised lodestar amount it could serve as a basis for adjusting the fee award holding that in determining the reasonableness of attorneys fees under federal fee shifting statutes courts may not enhance the fee award above the lodestar amount to compensate attorneys for assuming the risk of receiving no payment for their services if the lawsuit failed holding that the court has discretion to double check the reasonableness of the percentage fee through a lodestar calculation holding that where a contract for legal services fails to expressly provide for the amount of the fee a reasonable fee is implied holding that a fee substantially less than the lodestar amount is permissible