or coordinated with other actions not brought by the Commission, even though such other actions may involve common questions of fact, unless such consolidation is consented to by the Commission. 15 U.S.C. § 78u(g). A review of the authorities offered by both the SEC and the movants reveals that there is disagreement within the courts concerning the application of Section 21(g) to intervention motions. Compare SEC v. Flight Trans. Corp., 699 F.2d 943, 950 (8th Cir.1983) (rejecting Section 21(g) as bar to intervention in SEC enforcement actions); SEC v. Prudential Sec. Inc., 171 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. Mar.26, 1997) (rejecting Section 21(g) as a bar to non-consensual intervention in certain SEC actions), with SEC v. Wozniak, No. 92 C 4691, 1993 WL 34702, at *1 (N.D.Ill. Feb.8, 1993) (<HOLDING>); see also SEC v. Qualified Pensions, Inc., No.
holding that all evidence of sec investigation sec opinion and defendants acquiescence in sec opinion was inadmissible as irrelevant and immaterial holding that section 21g operates as impenetrable wall to intervention by victim of fraudulent scheme in sec enforcement action holding that although fraudulent scheme must be reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension the negligence of the victim in failing to discover a fraudulent scheme is not a defense to criminal conduct holding that the exception applies where a state administrative agency operates pursuant to a federal legislative scheme recognizing that a mailing must be sufficiently related to the fraudulent scheme to support a charge of mail fraud