funds invested in SFC’s subsidiaries and not returned is an SFC
Intercompany Claim, regardless of against whom it is made.
 I disagree. In my view, reading the Plan in accordance
with the interpretive principles noted above yields the conclusion
that what was transferred to EPHL and then to EPGL were the
debt obligations of subsidiaries or Greenheart to SFC and the
rights SFC had to claim against those entities. This makes
commercial sense in light of the words used in the definition of
SFC Intercompany Claim — “any amount owing to SFC by any
Subsidiary or Greenheart and any claim by SFC against [them]”.
It also makes sense in light of the fact that the shares of the Sub-
sidiaries and Greenheart were being similarly transferred. It would
not make commercial sense for EPHL and EPGL to acquire the
shares in SFC’s subsidiaries but to leave the subsidiaries exposed
to SFC’s claims against them. The concluding words of s. 4.10 of
the Plan make this clear: “[T]he applicable Subsidiaries and
Greenheart shall be liable to [EPGL] for such SFC Intercompany
Claims from and after the Plan Implementation Date.”
 SFC Intercompany Claims does not refer to claims
against the appellant arising from his conduct, even though that
conduct involved investing SFC’s funds in the company’s sub-
sidiaries. The transfer to EPGL of SFC’s claims against its
subsidiaries and Greenheart did not include the transfer of SFC’s
causes of action against the appellant.
 I would accordingly reject this argument.
( iv) Conclusion on appellant’s Plan preclusion
 I would not give effect to the appellant’s arguments that
the trial judge erred in concluding that the Plan transferred the
claims advanced in this action to the Litigation Trust and did not
preclude them from being advanced against the appellant by the
(2) Causation and damages
(a) The appellant’s arguments
 The appellant argues that, even if the claims made in the
action were SFC’s Causes of Action, that only takes the respondent
so far. As transferee of Causes of Action of SFC, the respondent can
only claim amounts that would have been properly claimable by
SFC. Thus, the only damages that could be claimed were damages
of SFC proved to have been caused by the appellant’s wrongdoing.
In interrelated arguments, the appellant submits that the damages
that were awarded by the trial judge are not damages of SFC, nor