that goal compared to what would be available through alternative
insolvency processes, such as liquidation or bankruptcy.
 The SFC Plan addressed those objectives. It provided in s. 2.1
that it was “put forward with the expectation that the Persons
with an economic interest in SFC . . . will derive greater benefit
from the implementation of the Plan and the continuation of the
SFC Business as a going concern than would result from a bankruptcy or liquidation of SFC”.
 And in keeping with this expectation, the Plan described
its purpose: to release SFC from the claims of “Affected
Creditors”;2 to transfer ownership of the business of SFC to creditor-controlled entities free and clear of all claims against SFC and its
subsidiaries, so as to enable the business to continue on a going-concern basis; and “to allow Affected Creditors and Noteholder
Class Action Claimants3 to benefit from contingent value that
may be derived from litigation claims to be advanced by the
Litigation Trustee”: s. 2.1.
 The Superior Court sanctioned the Plan, finding this
purpose and its implementation in the Plan to be in compliance
with the CCAA and its objectives: Sino-Forest Corp. (Re), 
O.J. No. 5958, 2012 ONSC 7050 (S.C.J.), at para. 79.
(f) The Plan’s operative terms
 The Plan provided two avenues for assets of SFC to be
realized upon and the proceeds distributed to creditors: (1) by the
transfer of SFC causes of action to the Litigation Trust; and (2) by
the transfer of the shares of SFC’s subsidiaries to creditor-controlled
entities, EPHL and EPGL: s. 6.4(h). The provisions of the Plan
implementing these transfers, as well as the release provisions of the
Plan, are key to assessing the appellant’s arguments.
 The Plan provided, in s. 6.4(o), that SFC would establish
the Litigation Trust. SFC and the trustees for SFC’s noteholders
would then convey to it the “Litigation Trust Claims”, defined by
the Plan as
2 Affected Creditors were defined by the Plan as including persons with Noteholder Claims. A Noteholder Claim included a claim for principal and accrued
interest under Notes (debt instruments issued by SFC when it raised financing
on the public markets) by the owner or holder of such Note or their trustee.
3 Noteholder Class Action Claimants were persons with Noteholder Class
Action Claims. These were defined as claims as Noteholders in class actions
against SFC and its directors, officers, auditors or underwriters, relating to
the purchase, sale or ownership of the Notes, but did not include Noteholder
Claims, i.e., did not include claims for principal and accrued interest payable
under the Note.