In the world of Gold Coast nightlife, few personalities have stirred as much conversation as Anthony ‘Tony’ Rigas. Emerging in the early 1990s with his brother George, he co-founded the celebrated Shooters Saloon Bar, transforming it into a magnetic hotspot for celebrities, sports figures, and socialites. Many credit Rigas with injecting glamour into previously unremarkable venues, while others question the financial underpinnings of his ventures.
From Shooters onward, Rigas’s professional path has been marked by a succession of bars, nightclubs, and cabaret establishments that frequently collapsed under the weight of unpaid debts. Across more than three decades, his name has been linked to a series of failed companies, disgruntled investors, unsettled creditors, and employees who felt deeply wronged by abrupt closures. Yet his track record of high-profile parties and renovations also indicates an image-conscious figure who, from the beginning, knew how to capture attention and cultivate an aura of success.
One associate, summing up the controversies that have long followed Rigas, employed a pointed proverb: “The fish rots from the head.” In that person’s view, much of the turmoil surrounding these ventures found its origin in leadership decisions at the very top.
THE RISE AND EARLY GLAMOUR
By 2003, Tony Rigas was openly flaunting his success, hosting a ‘Night in The Playboy Mansion’ birthday celebration at his Broadbeach Waters home. VIP guests flew in during the Gold Coast Indy festivities, further cementing his reputation as an impresario unafraid of spectacle. Later, Rigas and his longtime partner, Louise Huxham, took their home at 76 Yangoora Crescent in Ashmore, a property purchased for $822,000 in 2012 and sold for $2.25 million in 2021, and transformed it into a residence reminiscent of a nightclub. To many observers, this lavish lifestyle seemed to prove that his ventures were consistently thriving.
Beneath the glitz, however, critics suggest there were indicators of financial stress. Numerous individuals who crossed paths with Rigas or worked at one of his many establishments now recall that hidden liabilities and unpaid debts often surfaced behind the scenes.
SHOOTERS SALOON BAR
Shooters Saloon Bar, the venture that helped launch Rigas to local prominence, underwent a prominent revamp in 2003. The venue initially remained hugely popular, until new legislation, a 3 a.m. lockout laws, took effect in 2004. Around that time, Rigas claimed Shooters was losing “$80,000 a week,” and the business soon sparred with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO).
Administrators were brought in to ward off a Federal Court wind-up, yet Shooters still fell into receivership and liquidation in 2006 with debts approaching “$4 million.” A subsidiary, Shooters Bar, had already gone into receivership in 2005. Meanwhile, Rigas pleaded guilty to assaulting a rival nightclub owner, David Avery, and was fined $2000 plus an order to pay Avery $200. By late 2006, Rigas declared bankruptcy and remained an undischarged bankrupt until April 2011. Even after other owners took over Shooters, he lingered around the venue, which would later become Asylum nightclub under the Hallmark Group in 2019.
In retrospect, Shooters showcased a pattern that critics claim Rigas would use the same modus operandi: allowing a business to take on substantial debts, particularly tax-related, then shifting its assets into a new corporate structure and moving on to another project.
BEYOND SHOOTERS: A RECURRING CYCLE?
After parting ways with Shooters, Rigas continued to be associated with various new nightlife spots, among them Opium, Vodka and Champagne Bar at Broadbeach, All Stars Sports Bar, The Monkey Cage, Delano Hotel, Love Nightlife, Club Boutique, The Oriental Whiskey Bar, and East Nightclub. Public records indicate that many of these entities closed with similar issues: unpaid creditors, abrupt shutdowns, and unresolved debt.
Since regaining financial freedom in 2011, Rigas has been connected to several companies that later entered liquidation. In 2016, two entities—2 Tribes and Little Shop of Big Ideas—faced winding-up. 2 Tribes reportedly accumulated debts of over “$1.1 million,” with directors that included Huxham, James Tweddell (East Nightclub co-owner), and Joey Lammatina (Shuffle nightclub co-owner with Rigas). Little Shop of Big Ideas, which provided interior design services to venues like Melba’s and Billy’s Beach House, was liquidated with “$19,655” owed to unsecured creditors. Another enterprise, Moonshine Bros, liquidated in 2018 with debts totalling nearly “$23,000” in wages and superannuation plus “$205,234” to unsecured creditors. Rigas was listed as a director for a single day in 2017, though not at the time of its winding-up.
Some observers point to these setbacks as evidence of what they call the “Tony Rigas method”: launch a buzz-worthy venue, accumulate large amounts of debt, liquidate once creditors close in, move the assets to a fresh corporate entity through an associate, and carry on under a new structure.
ENTER SUSAN PORRETT
In several of these endeavours, Rigas was not alone. Two key collaborators have often been visible at his side: Susan Porrett and Rigas’s de-facto partner, Louise Huxham. Porrett, recognised publicly for supporting local entrepreneurship, began appearing in corporate filings linked to Rigas. Huxham was frequently listed as a director of newly established entities.
In conversations about business transitions, Porrett has, at times, insisted, “We are not hurting any suppliers or anybody else like that,” while acknowledging plans to move assets and operations to new corporate shells. Some onlookers argue that such moves shield Rigas from direct liability when companies fail.
THE BURLESQUE ATTRACTION: PINK FLAMINGO SPIEGELCLUB
In August 2019, Rigas & Porrett introduced the Pink Flamingo Spiegelclub, a venue billed as a modern homage to classic cabaret. Acrobatics, burlesque acts, and bold décor turned it into a standout on the Gold Coast entertainment scene. Despite public accolades, the business behind the scenes soon encountered legal and financial turmoil.
Early Legal Challenges
In 2019, a contractor, Open Projects Group (OPG), pursued Rigas and Porrett for “$450,000” related to the Pink Flamingo’s construction fit-out. A statutory demand threatened to force their company—Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd—into insolvency. The Queensland Supreme Court later dismissed the demand in Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd v Open Projects Group Pty Ltd [2020] QSC 167, calling the alleged settlement “nothing more than a without-prejudice proposal,” but that did not erase the underlying debt.
As a high-expense venture, Pink Flamingo faced substantial capital requirements, and unresolved fit-out costs weighed heavily on Project 88’s finances. Critics suggest that while the court decision bought time, it did not solve the club’s mounting obligations. Most pressing among these were the tax liabilities that would come to dominate discussions by the time the company eventually went into liquidation.
Fair Work Commission Controversy
Early in 2023, Pink Flamingo faced scrutiny for dismissing two employees who had privately texted one another about a colleague’s salary. Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd likened the breach of confidentiality to “Watergate,” but the Fair Work Commission found the dismissals “grossly unfair.” It ordered the business to compensate the terminated employees with approximately “$30,000” rather than reinstate them. The ruling called attention to what many considered an overly aggressive response to a relatively minor workplace issue.
For Rigas, Huxham, and Porrett, however, a more severe challenge was on the horizon, one that would culminate in financial collapse.
PROJECT 88 TPF PTY LTD: THE COLLAPSE
Despite the Pink Flamingo’s evident popularity, Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd was buckling under debt by mid-2024. On July 29, 2024, the company entered voluntary liquidation, leaving behind debts of over “$3 million,” nearly “$2 million” of which were tax-related. But not before the key assets, essentially the entire Pink Flamingo business, were sold to KSAJ Group Pty Ltd, a freshly minted entity tied to none other than Rigas’ de-facto partner, Louise Huxham. Price tag? Next to nothing. A top-to-bottom transfer engineered so precisely, it could be used in a “How To” guide for questionable corporate gymnastics.
Some pointed out the echoes of Rigas’s earlier experiences: ambitious expansion, sudden corporate distress, and eventual liquidation.
In the weeks before the collapse, the new entity called KSAJ Group Pty Ltd was registered. Rigas and Porrett later contended that they were “locked out” of the Pink Flamingo’s physical premises by the landlord. Public records show that KSAJ Group was incorporated on July 11, 2024, by Rigas’s partner, Louise Huxham. Both Rigas and Porrett have denied any formal ties to this replacement company, insisting their roles are limited to being “external advisers.” Yet that plea of distance rings hollow: by christening the vehicle ‘KSAJ’, an acronym derived from the first letter of the trio’s children’s first names, they have, perhaps unwittingly, etched their own fingerprints onto the very structure they claim to have left behind?
Documents and correspondence indicate a plan to transition Pink Flamingo’s assets from Project 88 TPF to KSAJ Group, a move that, to some onlookers, appears intended to separate profitable parts of the business from millions owed to the ATO and other creditors.
Timeline Of A Falling Bird
2019
2020
Early 2023
Mid-2024
July 2024
August 2024
October 28, 2024
Ongoing (Late 2024 and Beyond)
UNDERSTANDING THE MECHANICS OF THE REBIRTH
Behind the scenes of Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd’s transition into the new entity, KSAJ Group Pty Ltd, discussions among key figures offer a revealing view of what many describe as a carefully orchestrated restructuring. Eventually, talks turned to how best to manage a collapse. A major fear was public attention, with Rigas confiding, “We’ll do everything possible to not get it in the media,” adding, “That’s one of my biggest concerns, obviously, because it will sort of tarnish and have a little bit of a bad smell to it.” In a separate conversation, he acknowledged the need to avoid obstacles that might halt the transfer of assets and leases, saying, “So that that sort of, uh, not cockblock I shouldn’t use that word, but that sort of roadblocks. Yeah. Roadblocks [The ATO]. Probably a better word.”
To successfully navigate this transition, close collaboration with essential parties was deemed crucial. As Susan Porrett put it, “There’s two things… It’s the landlord and the creditors. That’s it. That have to be on side.” Once a plan was in place, the Pink Flamingo resumed operations with startling speed. Rigas recalled, “Traded that first week. So the changeover was on a Thursday morning and the Thursday night it traded. And then the wages were due the following day.” He later observed, “So. Yeah. Nice and tight. Okay (laughs). And I shouldn’t laugh, you know. You know. So so so so so. Yeah. So far so good. You know. And everyone like I said, all creditors have been really good with us. The liquidator so far, Worrells have been great. You know, David [Sidhu], our accountant’s been really, really helpful. Yeah. All the staff and performers, you know, are all happy. Um, so. Thank you.”
Throughout this period, mounting tax obligations remained a point of contention. Rigas insisted, “We did submit a proposal to them. We tried to engage, but they were unreasonable… Their counteroffer of $100,000 monthly instalments was laughable.” Mindful that negative publicity could stem from aggrieved parties, he confessed, “If we have disgruntled creditors going public, calling out to current affairs or fuelling rumours, that’s when things could get really tricky. But if we keep it low-key and simple, I think we’ll be fine.” Indeed, he singled out a primary danger, explaining, “The biggest risk here is if there’s a disgruntled creditor… that’s been burnt and has got money to throw at the liquidator and launches an investigation.”
Central to the restructuring was the choice of who would formally helm the new company. A participant in one internal discussion asked, “So the directors of the new company, is that just going to be Louise?” Porrett responded candidly, “Yeah. Yes. That will only be for a certain point, um, until the book is closed and then it’s back to us.” Rigas later summarised the plan neatly, “In simple terms, it’s very simple. It’s liquidating. Well, moving all the assets and leases and everything into a new company and then sinking the other company after that’s done.” Porrett described the actual transfer by remarking, “So it sort of all goes from there [Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd] to there [KSAJ Group Pty Ltd] and that’s the answer.”
Throughout these discussions, concerns over discretion remained paramount. As Porrett stated, “We just have to ride that wave… There’s only three or four people who know at this point.” Together, these candid remarks sketch a picture of careful manoeuvring, whereby assets, staff, and ongoing business operations could carry on largely uninterrupted in a fresh corporate shell, while the old entity was left with its debts. Ultimately, it’s up to regulators to decide, do these manoeuvres constitute a legitimate business strategy, or are they an ethically questionable way of protecting the trio while leaving creditors to shoulder the loss?
INSIDE THE DEAL
An October 28, 2024, report by Jason Bettles of Worrells, the appointed liquidator, shows Project 88’s debts to the ATO at around “$1.98 million.” The report also includes “$157,000” in unpaid rent, “$24,000” in outstanding alcohol bills, and an overall debt figure exceeding “$3 million.” The same document suggests that KSAJ acquired the Pink Flamingo assets for a figure so low it was essentially “negative” after certain adjustments. Among those adjustments was a “$221,597” figure for customer vouchers and future bookings, which served to diminish the purchase price.
In a media statement Rigas and Porrett said “We are sad and sorry” however this does little to dampen the insult, felt by other small business owners, committed to playing within the rules of ethical business conduct, paying their creditors and statutory obligations.
A 9-news report outlined that items from Pink Flamingo were sold via Facebook Marketplace during the liquidation period, with the new company continuing the venue’s day-to-day operations almost immediately:
“You now have the chance to own a piece of Broadbeach culture in your own home with the Pink Flamingo selling off items as it is being looked at by a liquidator.”
To some, this transition could resemble a “corporate phoenix,” in which a failing entity is voluntarily wound up, its liabilities are cast aside, and the business re-emerges under a new corporate shell. Critics of the process argue it leaves creditors and the tax office with little or no recourse.
RIGAS, PORRETT, AND THE NEW ENTITY
Recorded conversations shed light on the thinking behind the switch. In one exchange, Rigas stated, “We’re restructuring the company and, uh, restructuring our affairs to, um, yeah. So restructuring company and liquidating Project 88. In short.” He also remarked, “What we don’t want and won’t be good for any of us… is the liquidator then acting on behalf of the interests of Project 88 and its creditors, and then start chasing that money.”
When concerns arose that the media might expose the move, Rigas said, “A smart journalist might pick that up and say, oh, Project 88 was linked to our operations, and there could be a little bit of bad publicity. But as we know, with publicity… it’s pretty much forgotten about tomorrow.” Porrett added, “With all due respect, it’s no one’s business.”
Under this new structure, Huxham appears as KSAJ Group’s sole director. Privately, discussions implied that she would remain in that position only until Project 88’s liquidation was finalised, after which Rigas and Porrett could supposedly step back into control. Rigas described the situation as a straightforward “business sale,” though he acknowledged, “The landlord took possession of all the fixtures and fittings because of the debt.” Porrett elaborated on the importance of having that same landlord on board: “If the landlord’s not on side, nothing happens.”
Meanwhile, the largest unpaid creditor, the ATO, is effectively left behind with Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd. Regarding whether this move “burns” anyone, Rigas commented, “We never. Our intention is not to burn any creditors… apart from one.” The references to orchestrating a “clean slate,” combined with discussion of minimal fees for a basic liquidation process, have fuelled speculation about the true motives behind this restructuring.
LIQUIDATOR’S PERSPECTIVE
Jason Bettles’s October 2024 report notes that Project 88, despite its debt-laden condition, held only “$5,916” in cash. He references the possibility of investigating whether the sale of assets amounted to a “creditor-defeating disposition,” but indicates that any further steps would require additional funding from creditors. Bettles had previously been involved in a separate ASIC matter, in which the regulator attempted to deregister him over alleged phoenix activity linked to the Members Alliance collapse. He prevailed in that case, yet now faces another situation where a liquidation’s complexities may go largely unexamined due to agreed limited resources.
A BROADER QUESTION
For many, the series of events involving Project 88 TPF Pty Ltd and its transformation into KSAJ Group Pty Ltd underscores systemic questions about how repeated business closures can leave debts behind while the same individuals continue operating—and apparently thriving—through fresh legal entities. Porrett addressed the resemblance to Shooters and other earlier ventures, saying, “And even the way that story is told, you know, there was one I think it was Shooters that kind of resurrected itself three times under three different names, but continued to operate in the same premises with him [Rigas] as an advisor. So this isn’t his first rodeo.”
While Rigas and Porrett have denied any illegal intentions, internal conversations suggest they navigated the transition carefully to limit creditor challenges and negative media coverage. In those statements, Rigas also mentioned plans to “vote and put ourselves back into that directorship” once the liquidation process was complete.
FUTURE OUTLOOK AND LINGERING QUESTIONS
Today, the Pink Flamingo Spiegelclub carries on under the management of KSAJ Group, seemingly unaffected by the debt left behind in Project 88. Supporters of Rigas, Porrett, and Huxham might argue that their approach reflects an understanding of corporate law that allows second chances in high-risk entertainment ventures. Skeptics believe it signals a disturbing pattern, whereby an individual can walk away from financial obligations repeatedly without facing lasting consequences.
Should regulations be tightened to prevent phoenix-like transactions that leave creditors unpaid while assets move to a brand-new entity? Are these reboots merely the reality of an industry with fluctuating revenue streams, or is this a structured pattern of abandoning debts time and again? And how do the repeated reappearances of the same key figures, Rigas, Porrett, and Huxham, fit into this narrative?
These are the questions now swirling around Tony Rigas’s legacy on the Gold Coast, where every closure and reopening prompts both curiosity and frustration among those left in financial limbo. With authorities keeping watch on possible phoenixing and corporate missteps, it remains unclear if the past will ever fully catch up to those orchestrating these shifts. Observers are left to wonder about the underlying ethics and legality of methods that many believe unfairly disadvantage employees, creditors, and the tax office.
As you consider the details of this story, from the dizzying heights of Shooters Saloon Bar’s celebrity-studded heyday, through the Pink Flamingo Spiegelclub’s dramatic liquidation and swift revival, what conclusions might you draw from the facts as presented? Are these business manoeuvres simply the byproduct of a risky nightlife industry, or do they signal deeper questions about corporate conduct in Australia?
Where do you stand on this unfolding story? Do you see it as a savvy business strategy taking advantage of legal loopholes, or does it raise deeper concerns about fairness, accountability, and corporate responsibility? Share your perspective and cast your vote in the poll below.
The Empire has announced the appointment of three new Directors to The Empire’s Board, officially…
Theatrical licensor Music Theatre International announced the official launch of Broadway Senior a collection of…
Grammy Award-winning American composer Eric Whitacre returns to Sydney with the Australian premiere of his…
Melbourne Opera will stage Saint-Saens grand opera Samson & Delilah from 1 June at the…
Washington, D.C. — A growing rift between the performing-arts community and President Donald Trump is…
Producer John Frost for Crossroads Live today announced that Andrew Lloyd Webber’s record-breaking musical CATS…
View Comments
Show me the cash‑flow statements post‑July 2024 and we’ll see who’s really steering the ship. On paper this smells like a classic phoenix, but I’m open to being proven wrong, so long as the ledgers balance.
We delivered product worth thousands and got ghosted when Project 88 folded. Same faces, same phone numbers, new letterhead. How is that fair trade?
Technically, asset transfers aren’t per se illegal if they’re at arm’s length and for market value. Question is whether the consideration here was bona fide or a creditor‑defeating disposition under s588FDB of the Corporations Act.
Try explaining ‘strategic restructure’ to performers who had to chase unpaid super. We just want our entitlements
ATO debt at 66 % of total liabilities? That ratio alone should trigger ASIC’s phoenix radar. Wonder if we’ll see an enforcement action in FY‑25.
ATO debt at 66 % of total liabilities? That ratio alone should trigger ASIC’s phoenix radar. Wonder if we’ll see an enforcement action in FY‑25.
Hey Tony, Sue, & Louise, hope you like jial, because half the Gold Coast just forwarded your ‘restructure’ voice‑notes to the phoenix taskforce whistle‑blower inbox. Good luck explaining KSAJ with a straight face lololololol
If the ATO had a loyalty program, we’d all be platinum after tonight. Receipts? Screenshots? Voice memos? Already in the pipeline, folks. Let’s see how ‘nice and tight’ that audit feels.
Imagine thinking creditors wouldn’t crowdsource a Google Drive of evidence. FYI, we pinged the ATO, ASIC, and Four Corners. Enjoy the spotlight!
?➡️?➡️?➡️?♂️ Translation: Flamingo, phoenix, paper trail, auditors. Hope your new ‘clean slate’ still looks rosy when the tax man knocks.