impair or impede the movant’s ability to protect that interest; and (4) is not adequately represented by the existing parties. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(a)(2); see also South Dakota ex rel. Barnett v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 317 F.3d 783, 785 (8th Cir.2003). Rule 24 should be construed liberally, with all “doubts resolved in favor of the ee Utahns for Better Transp., 295 F.3d at 1115 (“The threat of economic injury from the outcome of litigation undoubtedly gives a petitioner the requisite interest.”). When a third party files suit to compel governmental agency action that would directly harm a regulated company, the company’s economic interests in the lawsuit satisfy Rule 24(a)(2)’s recognized-interest requirement. See, e.g., Kleissler v. U.S. Forest Serv., 157 F.3d 964, 972 (3d Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Sierra Club v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 106, 109
recognizing that where first suit is filed in response to notice of a planned lawsuit by the plaintiffs adversary that lawsuit may be dismissed holding that an injured former employees lawsuit was not barred by res judicata where he never authorized the union to represent his interest in a previous lawsuit over the same benefits holding defendants ownership interest in texas company that was not party to lawsuit was not relevant to specific jurisdiction holding that timber companies had an interest in a lawsuit aimed at changing their methods of timbercutting holding first lawsuit and allegations in second lawsuit part of same transaction for res judicata purposes even though different theory of recovery and harm alleged in second lawsuit