According to the Supreme Court, an intervenor’s interest must be one that is “significantly protectable.” Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 531, 91 S.Ct. 534, 542, 27 L.Ed.2d 580 (1971). In defining the contours of a “significantly protectable” legal interest under Rule 24(a)(2), we have held that, ‘“the interest must be a legal interest as distinguished from interests of a general and indefinite character.’ * * * The applicant must demonstrate that there is a tangible threat to a legally cognizable interest to have the right to intervene.” Harris, 820 F.2d at 601 (citations omitted). This interest .is recognized as one belonging to or being owned by the proposed intervenor. United States v. Alcan Aluminum, Inc., 25 F.3d 1174, 1185 (3d Cir.1994) (quoting New Orleans P .1980) (<HOLDING>); Peterson v. United States, 41 F.R.D. 131
holding that a tort claim for abusive discharge was precluded by the existence of statutory federal and state remedies for discharge of an employee but not determining whether the mwhl sounded in contract or tort holding that six employees bringing suit under title vii were not in privity with the united states which had brought a previous suit against the same employer because the employees sought a type of relief which the united states had not sought holding that two attorneys who claimed an interest in the same funds sought by the united states in a suit against a congressman were entitled to intervene whether their claim sounded in contract or tort in law or equity holding that a majority shareholder was not entitled to a juiy trial on breach of fiduciary duty claim because claim sounded in equity holding that plaintiffs negligence claims sounded in tort and thus could not be transferred to the united states court of federal claims