Opinion ID: 2524820
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Inadequate Representation

Text: The third requirement for intervention as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) is that the intervenor's interest be inadequately represented by the parties to the action. C.R.C.P. 24(a)(2). [12] The Investors argue that because the Commissioner sought relief for only some or all of the defrauded investors, he does not represent the interests of all of the Investors. The Investors also argue that the Commissioner does not adequately represent their interests because the government's interest can never coincide with private interests. We disagree. Wright and Miller describe the current test for inadequate representation under federal Rule 24(a)(2) in the following manner: If the interest of the absentee is not represented at all, or if all existing parties are adverse to him, then he is not adequately represented. If his interest is identical to that of one of the present parties, or if there is a party charged by law with representing his interest, then a compelling showing should be required to demonstrate why this representation is not adequate. 7C Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1909, 318-19 (2d ed.1986). [13] Under this test, we find that the Commissioner adequately represented the Investors' interests. The Investors' interest in being compensated for their losses coincides directly with the Commissioner's interest in protecting investors from fraud in securities markets. No adversity of interests exists here. Furthermore, the Commissioner is accurately characterized as a party charged with representing the Investors' interests because the Commissioner has been designated by the legislature to enforce the Act, whose purpose is to protect investors from fraud. Thus, in the absence of a compelling showing otherwise, [14] we conclude that the Investors' interests are adequately represented by the Commissioner. Accordingly, we hold that the Investors are not entitled to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2) in the Commissioner's civil enforcement action.