He is claiming the High Court erred in its findings on liability, cause and quantum and says he was not a director of Mainzeal between November 2004 and April 2009.
Had he and others resigned, that would simply have caused an earlier liquidation and greater losses to creditors, the appeal notice says.
Losses of $110m by Mainzeal could not be blamed solely on Yan: "The High Court erred in finding that Mr Yan's breach of section 135 [of the Companies Act] should nonetheless be regarded as the cause of an entire loss of $110m."
Factors other than his Companies Act breach caused Mainzeal's failure and the extent of its losses, the appeal says. The court was also mistaken in finding that had Mainzeal owner Richina Pacific been legally committed to supporting Mainzeal, then the failure would have been avoided altogether, the appeal says.
The court was also wrong to find that Yan was more culpable than Shipley, Gomm and Tilby.
No dates have yet been set to hear the matter but the Appeal Court is not expected to do so before early next year. Mainzeal's liquidators might also appeal but nothing has been said yet.
If a number of parties appeal the High Court decision, they will most likely to be heard in one Appeal Court case.
