No, they were listed as co-defendants.
No, they were listed as co-defendants.
The purpose of the case was to have the court tell Vanguard to give the money to particular person. A court cannot give such an order to an entity that isn't party to a proceeding before it.
As a party to the proceedings, Vanguard would have had the option to argue that it should not give the money to the plaintiff, and to introduce evidence to that effect. Had Vanguard sought to do so, Judge Alito's recusal would have been appropriate. From my understanding of the case, though, Vanguard's "case" was basically "Just tell us what to do, Judge, and we'll do it." Vanguard's main concern was that they didn't want to do anything they weren't ordered to do; had they given the money to one party without a court order and the other party could show it should have gotten the money, they could have gone after Vanguard. But if Vanguard was ordered to give the money to the first party, it could not be sued for having done so.