the Litigation Trust and class members in the Class Actions.6 The
“greater certainty” language of the Plan makes it clear, he
maintains, that these claims were not transferred.
 I would not give effect to this argument.
 The Plan, by the combination of s. 6.4(o) and the definition
of Litigation Trust Claims, transferred to the Litigation Trust
two types of Causes of Action held by two different persons. First,
it transferred Causes of Action of SFC against any and all third
parties. Second, it transferred Causes of Action of the Trustees on
behalf of Noteholders against any and all persons for certain matters. The respondent relies upon the first transfer only, that is,
the transfer of Causes of Action that SFC had against the appellant. The trial judge did not err in concluding that the causes of
action the respondent advanced in this action are Causes of
Action that SFC had against the appellant. This differentiates
them from causes of action of SFC stakeholders, which are being
advanced in the Class Actions.
 A wrong (such as a tort) done to a corporation is actionable
by the corporation, which is entitled to recover the loss it suffered.
The shareholders and creditors of a corporation cannot sue for
damage to the corporation, even though they are indirectly affected
by it: Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst and Young, 
2 S.C.R. 165,  S.C.J. No. 51, at para. 59; Meditrust
Healthcare Inc. v. Shoppers Drug Mart (2002), 61 O.R. (3d) 786,
 O.J. No. 3891 (C.A.), at paras. 11-16. Similarly, an action
for breach of a corporate director’s or officer’s fiduciary duty is
an action of the corporation, whether it seeks damages or an
accounting of profits: BCE Inc. v. 1976 Debentureholders, 
3 S.C.R. 560,  S.C.J. No. 37, 2008 SCC 69, at para. 41;
Midland Resources Holding Ltd. v. Shtaif (2017), 135 O.R. (3d)
481,  O.J. No. 1978, 2017 ONCA 320, at paras. 148-149 and
156, leave to appeal to S.C.C. refused  S.C.C.A. No. 541.
 On the trial judge’s findings, the appellant was a fiduciary
of SFC and he breached his fiduciary duty to it. SFC was the
victim of the appellant’s tort — his fraud — in that it was SFC
that was caused to record fictitious or overstated assets and revenues on its financial statements, SFC that was caused to raise
6 There is an overlap between this argument, and the appellant’s argument
that in assessing damages the trial judge awarded the respondent amounts
that could only be claimed in the Class Actions or were duplicative of those
amounts. However, I have addressed the points as distinct. One argument is
essentially about the respondent’s standing to assert certain claims. The
other is about whether, even if he has standing, the damages actually awarded