Accordingly, we vacate the award of attor- neys' fees and direct the district court to order the FDIC to produce its contemporaneous time records for appellants' inspection. Appellants oppose the inclusion of this sum on two grounds, both of them valid. This explanation is inadequate. In response, the FDIC asserts that the Bender I appeal involved issues in addition to the validity of the 15 percent provision. It also maintains that, because it was the prevailing party in the litigation taken as a whole, the award properly included fees incurred in connection with the earlier appeal.
Appellants prevail on the second argument as well.
Finally, appellants maintain that the district court erred in failing to allocate its award of attorneys' fees among the four notes that are the subject of this appeal, each of which has its own obligors and guarantors. The FDIC responds that appellants waived their right to complain about the court's failure to apportion the fees because they never asked it to do so. If this were the sole issue raised in this proceeding, we might not return the matter for further consideration. But as the district court will have to address a number of other issues on remand, we will add this one to the list. Therefore, if appellants raise this issue on remand, we direct the district court to allocate the fees.