(c) Analysis of the appellant’s causation and damages
( i) The trial judge’s factual findings appropriately
underpin his causation conclusion and damages
 The trial judge’s causation conclusion and his assessment
of damages are conceptually linked. They both are premised on
five core factual findings that he made.
 The first was that SFC’s raising of money in the debt and
equity markets was something which was caused by the appellant’s
wrongdoing, including his misrepresentation of BVI standing
timber as a valuable asset. The second was that “but for Mr.
Chan’s deceit, [SFC] would never have undertaken obligations of
this magnitude to lenders and shareholders”. The third was that but
for the appellant’s wrongdoing, SFC would not have “entrusted this
money [the funds raised on the capital markets] to [the appellant]
and Inside Management”. Fourth was his finding that the appel-
lant, “rather than directing [SFC’s] spending on legitimate busi-
ness operations, poured hundreds of millions of dollars into
fictitious or over-valued lines of business where he engaged in
undisclosed related-party transactions and funnelled funds to
entities that he secretly controlled”: at para. 1022. Fifth was the
finding, at para. 1020, regarding the impact of the fraud and its
When the fraud was uncovered, and the dust settled, more than half of the
money was gone. To the extent those funds went into the acquisition of
assets, the value of those assets was realized through the EPHL sales process.
What was left in cash on June 2, 2011 was largely consumed in propping up
and managing the enterprise during the extended crisis brought on by the
disclosure of the fraud and its ongoing investigation (including the ongoing
concealment by [the appellant] and Inside Management).
 These five findings underlie the trial judge’s conclusion
that what occurred was a chain of events all flowing from the
appellant’s fraud and breach of duty, which resulted in the loss of
the funds that had been raised. As he put it, “[t]he loss of these
funds to [SFC] was directly related to Mr. Chan’s fraud and
breach of fiduciary duty”: at para. 1022.
 In my view, these findings were available to the trial
judge on the record. The argument that the trial judge simply
presumed the appellant to be responsible for everything that led
up to SFC’s ultimate collapse is without foundation.