auntierooski,

What Judge Stark said in the Memorandum Order can be summarized in plain language as follows:

a) To have sufficient interest in the case at the District Court requires the party asking for relief from harm to show legal and/or equitable property interests or rights that must be protected by the Court. To have sufficient interest in a case gives the pleader Constitutional (Article III) standing in a court of law and requires the court  to either allow the pleader to be part of the case to protect his/her rights or decide otherwise how to provide the relief requested. U.S. Supreme caselaw instruct courts that harm for even a few dollars represents "injury".

b) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (Intervention of Right) controls who has the right to represent his/her interests in a civil case. It provides that a party has the right to intervene if s/he is not adequately represented by another party in the case with the same interests at stake. Put simply, Judge Stark concluded that KRY adequately represents the shareholders' interest in this case. Why did he come to that conclusion? Because KRY's legal counsel, on behalf of their client, indicated to the Court that the company and the shareholders have the same objective in the judgement collection case: to miximize the judgement collection amount in the CITGO shares auction. Judge Stark's Memorandum Order asserts then that what the company says is true until one demonstrates otherwise.