Mark McInnes's legacy will be an embarrassing court case, and possibly foster further claims.
MARK McInnes's head and shoulders disappeared shortly after he was departed as David Jones chief executive on June 18. Now, as the furious shovelling continues, the hole he dug has begun to swallow the company's directors and the management he's left in tatters.
As the tawdry detail of the disgraced chief executive's behaviour was laid bare yesterday, there were reports McInnes had booked himself into The Meadows, the same clinic that treated fellow ''sex addict'' Tiger Woods.
If true, this would appear to contradict McInnes's recent denial that he was a serial offender when it came to sexual harassment, following extensive media reports of other alleged incidents since his dramatic departure. In that statement, he admitted only to two counts of ''inappropriate behaviour'', for which he was sorry.
Behind the scenes, however, there have been some furious efforts by a well-known spin doctor to revise the truth and resurrect McInnes's tarnished reputation.
First came reports that McInnes's services as an executive were in hot demand locally and that, after a short spell in the wilderness, he'd be snapped up.
More recently, there has been a repugnant attempt to impugn the character of the victim, Kristy Fraser-Kirk, the 27-year-old publicist who yesterday launched a $37 million damages claim against the company.
Again, that appeared to ignore the fact that McInnes had admitted wrongdoing and had been sacked for it.
Given that six weeks have passed since the revelations sent shockwaves through the market, it is clear that negotiations between the DJs and Fraser-Kirk have irretrievably broken down at a reasonably advanced stage.
There were suggestions yesterday that the company believed it was close to a settlement that would have avoided further legal action and ongoing embarrassment.
Clearly, there is a wide gulf between what the company believes is an appropriate settlement and that claimed yesterday.
One of the more disturbing complaints made by Fraser-Kirk was that she notified her immediate superiors after the first incident, on May 23, at a company function, but was told that next time she should be more forceful in resisting his advances.
If true, that would indicate a breakdown in company policy relating to sexual harassment and a bizarre view that ''no'' only means ''no'' if delivered with force. Under normal circumstances, it would be the chief executive enforcing the policy. That he was the one making the advances would explain the breakdown in company policy.
McInnes's activities, particularly at post function parties, were legendary. And he seemed unfazed by his lack of discretion.
The lewd pick-up line reported in the affidavit, urging Fraser-Kirk to try the dessert, describing it ''like a f--- in the mouth'' appears completely in character.
Numerous women, none of whom are DJs employees, have detailed similar advances to your columnist. One, describing herself merely as an acquaintance, was stunned to receive a text message this year that read:
''C u tonight in total black lingerie, totally waxed. Not a single word to anyone.''
Within the company, the board is adamant that it had no idea of the increasingly out-of-control behaviour of its chief executive.
In any case, it argues - correctly to a degree - that it cannot be held responsible or accountable for the private life of an employee, particularly if it does not impinge on performance. The problem with that is, as a CEO of a major listed company the lines between work and social activities become blurred. There is a view that he represents the company at all times.
Initially lauded for its quick and decisive response in ridding itself of McInnes, the board, led by Bob Savage, has come under fire on numerous fronts recently.
There are those who criticise it for terminating a very successful CEO, arguing the whole thing should have been swept under the carpet. On the other side, there are those critics who believe McInnes should have been sent packing without any entitlements, which added up to $2 million.
The payment, it was argued, was a part settlement of $5 million in entitlements McInnes would have walked away with had he resigned under normal circumstances.
It was necessary, directors argue, to ensure his immediate departure that a legal compromise be reached.
The alternatives were to leave him in the job or battle it out in court.
An internal investigation into procedures to deal with harassment has found them to be sound. That, of course, would be expected.
The company no doubt would argue that despite the circumstances of the events, once discovered, it wasted no time in acting. But McInnes's legacy will live on, in a very embarrassing court case, and possibly in further claims from aggrieved employees.