under Rule 23(a), the adequacy of the representative parties requirement, “has two components: (1) concerning the experience and performance of class counsel; and (2) concerning the interests and incentives of the representative plaintiffs.” Dewey v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, 681 F.3d 170, 182 (3d Cir.2012) (citing Comm. Bank I, 418 F.3d at 303). Essentially, the inquiry into the adequacy of the representative parties examines whether “the putative named plaintiff has the ability and the incentive to represent the claims of the class vigorously, that he or she has obtained adequate counsel, and that there is no conflict between the individual’s claims and those asserted on behalf of the class.” Hassine, 846 F.2d 169 at 179 (citations omitted); see also Dewey, 681 F.3d at 182 (<HOLDING>). In other words, “Rule 23(a)(4) serves to
holding that a a representative plaintiff acts as fiduciary for the others requiring the representative to act in the best interest of class holding that the court must consider the adequacy of the inquiry into the conflict the extent of the conflict and the timeliness of the motion holding that the claims of the class representative and class members must be based on the same legal or remedial theory 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 recognizing that the linchpin of the adequacy requirement is the alignment of interests and incentives between the representative plaintiffs and the rest of the class