Plaintiff obtained a big judgment against Ningbo.  Before it could enforce the judgment, Celestron and Ningbo arranged an atypical $4.2 million payment from Ningbo to Celestron to pay in advance for product later to be delivered by Celestron to Ningbo.  The purpose of the transaction was to move assets from Ningbo to other Chinese companies to thwart collection of the judgment.  This decision holds that plaintiff could not state a viable claim against Celestron directly for fraudulent/voidable transfer or interference with prospective economic advantage.  The UVTA does not allow a creditor of debtor A to sue debtor A’s debtor for a fraudulent conveyance.  Also, a judgment is not the type of economic advantage to which the interference tort applies.  However, plaintiff could state a claim for aiding and abetting or conspiracy liability for Ningbo’s fraudulent transfer