(d) The trial judge made various errors in his acceptance of
evidence, including evidence based on documents that had not
been translated into English and on opinions from a non-expert,
which make his factual conclusions unsafe to rely upon.
 For the reasons which follow, I would dismiss the appeal.
As I explain below:
(a) The trial judge did not err in his conclusion that the claims
advanced in the action were causes of action that had been
held by SFC, had been transferred to the Litigation Trust by
SFC under the Plan, and could be pursued by the respondent
against the appellant.
(b) The trial judge did not err in his causation analysis or
assessment of damages. His determinations in that regard
were not the product of legal errors and there is no basis to
interfere with his factual determinations, which are subject
to deference from this court.
(c) There is no merit to the argument that the transfer of the
shares of SFC’s subsidiaries pursuant to the Plan was an
election that barred the respondent from suing for damages
arising from the appellant’s conduct.
(d) The complaints of the appellant about the trial judge’s
approach to certain evidence do not justify any interference
with the judgment the trial judge reached. The trial judge
assiduously reviewed the evidence given in a lengthy trial
and his factual conclusions were supported by the record.
II. The Facts and the Trial Judge’s Award
 In addition to the facts outlined above, the following facts
are important to appreciation of the issues on the appeal. I set
them out based on the trial judge’s findings, since on the first
three issues that the appellant raises, he contends the trial judgment cannot stand even on those findings. I then deal separately,
as the parties did, with the appellant’s complaints about the trial
(1) The appellant’s role and the nature of the wrongdoing
 The trial judge found that the appellant had ultimate
control over nearly all aspects of SFC’s and its subsidiaries’
operations, directly and through a small group of individuals he
directed on his management team (the trial judge referred to
them collectively as “inside management”).