Heath rated Doolan's role in the Nathan's debacle as "slightly greater than that of Mr Moses", however, the judge's comments on the latter's involvement are more revealing.
For example, Heath slates Moses for not pushing Nathan's to address its increasing debt to related firm VTL (hitting close to 85 per cent of the finance company's loan book in June 2007). As the judge notes, Moses had "articulated" concerns about Nathan's over-reliance on VTL loans on "many occasions over the years".
"At the end, actions speak louder than words," Heath says. "Your words, by the end of the day, represented no more than a whisper. Indeed, it was my impression that a degree of lip-service was paid to the issue."
The judge also zeroes in on a series of emails sent between directors and management that cut right to the nub of the issue: how Nathan's crafted the information it revealed to investors about the company's financial position.
Heath refers to an email sent by Moses on November 30, 2006, where the director sought a modification to the Nathan prospectus draft "to convey a true and realistic view of the risks without sticking it too far up the investors' noses ... so to speak".
"We need to tread the fine line between being open and up front, but not overly obvious," Moses wrote of a non-existent fine line.