enforce” this limitation. Pacemaker Plastics Co., Inc., 139 F.Supp.2d at 855. Here the trial court failed to “carefully enforce” this important limitation, and committed reversible error in doing so. Id. B. Factors to be Applied in Determining Fair and Adequate Representation in This Case ¶ 41 The question of whether a derivative plaintiff fairly and adequately represents the interests of similarly situated members re cher Indus., Inc., 52 Ohio St.3d 168, 556 N.E.2d 484, 489 (1990); see also Blum v. Morgan Guar. Trust Co. of N.Y., 539 F.2d 1388, 1390 (5th Cir.1976) (taking into account outside entanglements that i*endered it likely that derivative plaintiff would disregard interests of other class members); Newell Co. v. Vermont Am. Corp., 725 F.Supp. 351, 368-69 (N.D.Ill.1989) (<HOLDING>). Application of these factors leads to the
holding that an interest obtained through an agreement supported by consideration is superior to that of a named beneficiary who has given no consideration recognizing that the right of redemption is one of the most important rights provided by the states to owners of real property recognizing that the third factor permanence is the most important holding that the most important consideration should be the existence of an antagonistic economic interest recognizing floridas substantial interest in promoting tourism  one of floridas most important economic industries