his fear of control allow him to be manipulated .........
You sound like a wild conspiracy theorist to me. If it was 'fear of control' that was the issue then there was no need to appoint an MD in the first place; TD could have taken that role for himself. So he 'feared control' and that allowed him to be 'manipulated'(?) By who(?)
DH was formerly a big supporter of the board (that appointed him). I know because when the earlier spill was on I received a glossy flyer in the mail from DH (all shareholders got it) saying the company was on track and no need to change course. So to add to his other failings he must have been a poor judge of character if your tale has any truth.
BTW - I am as far from being an insider as it is possible to be. I was a shareholder but exited after DH did an ill-advised spruik which got wide coverage, but later wasn't supported by results announced. Another poster who was keen on the company exited as around the same time and it was his comments I took note of.
