the class representative: An Idea Whose Time Has Come,” 9 Class Action Reports 4 (1986), and authorizing $50,000 incentive award for class representative). Depending on the involvement of the class rep resentative, courts, including federal courts sitting in Pennsylvania, have allowed incentive awards in substantial amounts. See e.g., In re SmithKline Beckman Corp. Sec. Litig., 751 F. Supp. 525 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (approving award of $5,000 to each of several class representative); In re First Jersey Sec. Inc. Litig., MDL no. 681, 1989 WL 69901 (E.D. Pa. June 23, 1989) (approving award of $24,000 to class representative); Bogosian v. Gulf Oil Corp., 621 F. Supp. 27 (E.D. Pa. 1985) (approving award of $20,000 to each of two class representative). Cf. In re U.S. Bioscience, 155 F.R.D. 116 (<HOLDING>). This is not to say that payments to class
holding that a class representatives ignorance of the case is not a bar to certification unless it impairs the representatives ability to vigorously prosecute the action holding that class representatives cannot appear pro se recognizing that the number of class representatives is not significant under rule 23a holding that awards of 2500 to majority of representatives and 5000 to deposed representatives were inappropriate where representatives had borne little risk by participating in litigation and provided services that could have been provided by any other class member holding that district court erred by shifting burden to defendants to show that class representatives were inadequate