Whether a motion to intervene is timely when it is filed shortly after a would-be intervenor learns that the existing parties misrepresented that the would-be intervenor's rights would not be affected.

Whether an unrebutted statement of facts submitted in support of a motion to intervene must be accepted as true and considered by the district court.

Whether the prejudice test under FRCP Rule 24 (a) begins to run when the would-be intervenor clearly knows its interests will be affected after learning of a deception used to discourage intervention.

Whether a consent decree may affect statutory rights that are not specifically protected by a provision of the consent decree.

Whether a motion to intervene is timely when it is filed shortly after a would-be intervenor learns that the existing parties misrepresented that the would-be intervenor's rights would not be affected