Accordingly, the trial judge did not err in interpreting the
Plan as allowing the respondent to advance the claims made in
this action against the appellant notwithstanding the claims by
noteholders and shareholders advanced in the Class Actions.
( ii) Excluded litigation trust claims
 The appellant’s second argument is that the claims
advanced in the action are Excluded Litigation Trust Claims. As
noted above, that exclusion applies where there is an agreement
between SFC and a category of its creditors that a particular
claim is excluded from those transferred to the Litigation Trust.
The Plan specifies one category of excluded claim, encompassing
certain claims against SFC’s underwriters. There is no similar
particularization of claim(s) of SFC against the appellant which are
 The only agreement to exclude a claim of SFC against the
appellant that the appellant points to is the “greater certainty”
language providing that claims advanced in the Class Actions are
not transferred to the Litigation Trust. The argument is therefore just a repackaging of the appellant’s first argument, as it
depends for its validity on the Plan having exempted claims arising
from facts asserted in the Class Actions from those Causes of
Action of SFC transferred to the Litigation Trust. As previously
discussed, the Plan does not have that effect.
 I would therefore not give effect to this argument.
( iii) SFC intercompany claims
 The appellant’s third argument is that the claims for
which he was found liable are SFC Intercompany Claims. He
argues that these were assigned under the Plan by SFC to EPHL
and EPGL, rather than to the Litigation Trust.
 I agree with the appellant that SFC Intercompany Claims
were not assigned to the Litigation Trust, but I disagree that the
claims for which the appellant was found liable in this action are
SFC Intercompany Claims.
 SFC Intercompany Claim is defined in the Plan as “any
amount owing to SFC by any Subsidiary or Greenheart and any
claim by SFC against any Subsidiary or Greenheart”. SFC’s
shares in each Subsidiary and in Greenheart were transferred
under the Plan to EPHL and by EPHL to EPGL. The SFC Intercompany Claims followed the same route: s. 4.10.
 Essentially, the appellant’s argument is that the respondent
is claiming money raised by SFC in the capital markets that was
invested in its subsidiaries and lost. In his submission, a claim about