taxes that would arise out of the Asset Sale. On December 14, 1998, Scott filed a motion to intervene and for judgment on the pleadings. On December 17, 1998, the indenture trustee filed a motion for summary judgment, asserting that the order confirming the Delaware Plan barred the government’s recharacterization and equitable subordination claims. On March 9, 1999, the court granted Scott’s motion to intervene. On April 26,1999, the court granted the indenture trustee’s motion for summary judgment. See In re Scott Cable Communications, Inc., 232 B.R. 558 (Bankr.D.Conn.1999). The government appealed. On March 9, 2001, the district court reversed and remanded. See United States v. State Street Bank and Trust Co. (In re Scott Cable Commc’ns, Inc.), 259 B.R. 536, 547-48 (D.Conn.2001) (<HOLDING>). Thereafter, in response to a sua sponte order
holding a judgment aggrieves a party if it directly affects some pecuniary or property interest that the party possesses holding that when the government acts to enforce public rights the mere fact that the government has no pecuniary interest in the controversy is not sufficient to exclude it from the courts holding that even assuming government was a party in interest in the delaware case and that the party in interest status was sufficient to make the delaware plan binding upon it the government did not receive adequate notice that confirmation might affect its pecuniary interest holding the government waived its standing argument when it was put on notice the defendant would claim a privacy interest holding that when a state sues on behalf of its residents without a sovereign or quasisovereign interest it is only a nominal party and thus not the real party in interest