application of the legal requirements of rule 23.1 to the particular facts of a case. Courts have identified a number of factors whose existence will disqualify certain parties as derivative plaintiffs. However, courts should focus on only those factors which are materially relevant in the particular setting of the dispute. Here, Highland Estates presented two reasons or factors that they argued would disqualify the LeVangers as fair and adequate representatives under the standards of rule 23.1. First, they argued that the LeVangers were in an antagonistic or vindictive position vis-a-vis Highland Estates. Second, they argued that the LeVangers were without any support by those they were attempting to represent. See Norris v. Weir, 35 Ohio App.3d 110, 114-15, 520 N.E.2d 10, (1987) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by Perry v.
recognizing that the primary issue to be considered in whether the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class is a determination of whether any antagonism exists between the interests of the plaintiffs and those of the remainder of the class holding that plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum holding that no fiduciary duty existed between the plaintiff and defendant because there was no evidence that the parties agreed that defendant would be acting primarily for the benefit of the plaintiffs holding that claim for breach of good faith and fair dealing was precluded but only because there was not an express agreement between the parties holding that the fair and adequate representation requirement was not satisfied because of litigation between plaintiff and defendant the antagonism between the parties and the lack of support plaintiff garnered in its claim