$167.4 million. The appellant’s relationship with many of the
wood log suppliers was not at arm’s-length.
 The trial judge found the preponderance of evidence established that the wood log deposit transactions were a fraudulent
mechanism for diversion of funds out of SFC to entities controlled
by the appellant or acting under his direction.
(e) The Greenheart transaction
 The further transaction in which the trial judge found
a breach of fiduciary duty by the appellant was referred to as the
Greenheart transaction. Between July 2007 and July 2010, the
appellant caused SFC to acquire a majority interest in Greenheart
Resources Holdings Limited and its majority shareholder, Greenheart Group Limited (collectively, “Greenheart”), by purchasing
shares from shareholders of Greenheart, including several in
which the appellant had undisclosed interests. At the time of the
acquisitions, the appellant knew but did not disclose that Greenheart was in serious financial difficulties. SFC ultimately invested
$202.2 million, which was more than the amount realized when
the Greenheart interest was later sold.
 The trial judge found that the appellant had committed
a clear violation of his fiduciary duties through his nondisclosure.
In addition to causing a loss to SFC, he made an undisclosed personal profit of approximately $38 million on the transaction.
(2) The collapse of SFC, the fate of the funds raised, the
CCAA process and realizations on assets
 The events following the Muddy Waters Report and the
inability of SFC to rebut its allegations had a profound impact on
 In August 2011, the OSC issued a cease-trading order over
SFC’s securities, alleging that SFC had engaged in significant
non-arm’s-length transactions, its assets and revenues had been
exaggerated, and that the appellant and others appeared to be
involved in the fraud.
 SFC became unable to issue further financial statements.
In December 2011, it advised it could give no assurance it would
ever be able to do so. In January 2012, SFC issued a press release
which stated that its “historic financial statements and related
audit reports should not be relied upon”.
 By early 2012 SFC, the appellant and others had been
named in at least four class actions alleging that SFC’s financial
statements were materially false and misleading and claiming, on
behalf of classes of debt and equity holders, damages for amounts