75 per cent by Affected Creditors4 and 25 per cent by Noteholder
Class Action Claimants.5
 In addition to their interests in the Litigation Trust, Affected
Creditors also received interests in EPHL, a holding company
which held the shares of EPGL, to which SFC transferred the
shares of its subsidiaries (and indirectly the assets they held and
businesses they carried on): ss. 4.1, 6.4 and 6.6. Included among
the assets transferred to EPGL were “SFC Intercompany Claims”
defined to include amounts owing to SFC by any of its subsidiaries:
s. 4.10. The Plan provides that all obligations and agreements
to which EPHL or EPGL became parties as a result of the transfer to them “shall be and remain in full force and effect,
unamended”: s. 8.2(j).
 All equity holders in SFC released their claims against
SFC: s. 4.5. Noteholder Class Action claims against SFC were
released: s. 4.4. Affected Creditors — comprised mainly of SFC’s
noteholders, whose claims had been secured by first-priority security
interests over the shares of SFC’s subsidiaries — released SFC from
their claims for payment of principal and interest on the notes: s. 4.1.
Article 7 specified individuals and entities also released by the Plan.
The appellant was not one of the specified individuals.
(g) Analysis of the appellant’s Plan preclusion arguments
 In light of the principles of interpretation, the factual
matrix, the purposes of the CCAA and the Plan, and the Plan’s
language, I turn now to the analysis of the appellant’s plan
( i) No right to advance claims advanced in the class
 The appellant argues that the claims made in the action
are not Causes of Action that were transferred to the Litigation
Trust because they are the same as, or overlap with, the claims
made in the Class Actions. He asserts that the claims in this
action on the one hand, and those in the Class Actions on the
other, rely on the same or similar allegations of wrongdoing by
the appellant and claim the same or similar amounts, based on
the amounts that SFC raised, as debt or equity, in the capital
markets. He also argues that there is an overlap in who will benefit from the claims, in that certain creditors are beneficiaries of
4 See note 2.
5 See note 3.