27 (1991) (“We review a court’s imposition of sanctions under its inherent power for abuse of discretion.”). We do not seek to determine whether we would have applied the sanction ourselves in the first instance. See Eavenson, Auchmuty & Greenwald v. Holtzman, 775 F.2d 535, 540 (3d Cir.1985). IV. DISCUSSION As discussed above, the bankruptcy court acted pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Bankruptcy Rule 9011 when it sanctioned FE & B by denying FE & B’s fees application. All parties are in agreement, however, that sanctions could not properly be imposed against law firms under the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the version of Rule 11 then in effect. See Pavelic & LeFlore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 493 U.S. 120, 110 S.Ct. 456, 107 L.Ed.2d 438 (1989) (<HOLDING>). The district court affirmed the bankruptcy
holding that a rule 11 sanctions award need only be appropriate thereby according broad discretion to the trial court holding that a motion for rule 11 sanctions is dispositive holding that rule 11 sanctions may only be imposed upon the attorney who actually signs the documents in question holding that rule 11 sanctions imposed by district court remained in effect after case was remanded to state court upon a finding that district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the case holding that misrepresentations in documents filed in state court in no way constituted a basis for imposing federal rule 11 sanctions