both prolonging this litigation and unnecessarily increasing the confusion and complexity already inherent to such actions. While the Court is not of the opinion that intervention as of right under Rule 24(a) is appropriate, permissive intervention shall be allowed under Rule 24(b). First to be considered will be the SEC’s position that, setting aside any inquiry into the demands of Rule 24, Section 21(g) absolutely bars intervention in any SEC enforcement action without the SEC’s prior consent. Section 21(g) states as follows: Notwithstanding the provisions of section 1407(a) of Title 28, or any other provision of law, no action for equitable relief instituted by the Commission pursuant to the securities laws shall be co iv.A. 95-1746-LFO, 1998 WL 29496, at *3 (D.D.C. Jan. 16, 1998) (<HOLDING>). As was noted in SEC v. Prudential Securities,
recognizing intervention is generally impermissible after entry of final judgment and exception allowing postjudg ment intervention in the interests of justice is limited to permitting intervention by affected persons so that an appeal can be taken holding that pursuit of a parallel state court lawsuit involving claims and parties common to the federal action does not justify the district courts intervention in state court proceedings holding that article iii standing is not a prerequisite to intervention holding that article iii standing is necessary for intervention holding that as applied to case in which applicants for intervention are already plaintiffs in another ongoing lawsuit and that the matter on which they wish to expound  is squarely before the other court section 21g bars intervention noting that allowing intervention would effectively allow coordination of enforcement action with lawsuit already pending in another jurisdiction