made by investing the cash. This led to an available cash figure of
 On the basis that SFC would have had $3.065 billion in
cash available for investment in profit-generating assets, Steger
considered the effect of the appellant’s conduct, which saw those
funds invested in subsidiaries engaged in largely fraudulent businesses. To the extent there was value in the businesses that were
invested in, it was represented by the $438.5 million amount that
was actually recovered by EPGL from the sales of the assets
acquired from SFC under the Plan. The difference between these
two figures — $2.627 billion — represented SFC’s loss attributable
to appellant’s conduct.
 The trial judge rejected the appellant’s argument that
damages could only be calculated on a “transaction by transaction”
basis, both as a matter of law and because the appellant’s damages
expert, who criticized Steger for not conducting that analysis, did
not do it himself or “hint at a methodology” to do so.
 The trial judge considered two other damages calculations,
in case Steger’s primary approach was found to be incorrect. The
first was an alternative approach set out by Steger, which calculated
damages of $3.2 billion based on a write-down of assets methodology.
He then considered a specific loss approach, based on calculating
the losses resulting from specific proven acts of fraud or breach of
fiduciary duty, including the wood log cash gap fraud, the wood log
deposit fraud, the Greenheart transaction, the appellant’s profits on
the Greenheart transaction, the cost of SFC’s investigation following
the Muddy Waters Report and the appellant’s remuneration. These
amounts totalled $812.43 million. Deducting the net realization of
$438.5 million from post-Plan sales produced an alternative specific
loss compensation award of $373.9 million. However, the trial judge
concluded that the primary Steger approach, rather than either of
these other approaches, should be accepted.
 The trial judge awarded punitive damages of $5 million
Canadian on the basis of his finding that the appellant had
abused his fiduciary position to orchestrate a large and complex
fraud, resulting in billions of dollars of losses.
(4) The trial judge’s rejection of specific defences
(a) Duplication with class actions
 The trial judge rejected the argument that the respondent
could not recover any amounts because there was duplication
between the claims made in this action and claims made in certain
class actions (the “Class Actions”, as defined in the Plan) that had
named both SFC and the appellant, among others, as defendants.