Acme LLC makes widgets. Bob is a member of Acme.
Bob tries to take Acme's widget maker, thinking he can operate the machine himself, but breaks it in the process. Of course Bob has also violated his covenants as a member of Acme. Acme sues Bob and obtains a money judgment against Bob for damages – to the machine, to Acme's business, and for the costs of litigation. But Bob is as poor as he is stupid, so Acme can't collect on the judgment.
Acme had a contract with Charlie to supply widgets. In the course of suing Bob, Acme discovers that just prior to Bob's perfidy Charlie had entered an agreement to buy widgets directly from Bob, instead of from Acme. Charlie knew that Bob could only supply widgets by taking the widget maker from Acme.
In this scenario it seems like Charlie and Bob have committed some sort of tortious conspiracy. What are the correct legal terms? I think "tortious interference" and/or "tortious inducement," but not sure.
Charlie has plenty of money. In this scenario is Charlie liable for any of the damages that Acme was awarded against Bob? If so, on what common law basis?