Administrator restrained, then ditched

iNO published its final newsletter for calendar 2025 on December 12, turning our attention thereafter to the divine labours of holiday making.

As it transpires that was foolish because fate’s a bitch and the seeds of two stories well within iNO’s wheelhouse were sewn shortly afterwards, meaning the initial weeks of our annual Summer break were spent privately fuming about opportunities missed. 

One story involved certain developments following our coverage of the December 5 decision of Victorian Supreme Court judge Jim Delaney in Re Eratos Group Pty Ltd (in liq) [2025] VSC 755.

In a judgment which found much to question about Stephen Dixon’s handling of his appointment as administrator of various Eratos Group entities his honour ordered that not only should the HM Advisory principal be restrained from acting as liquidator of the Eratos entities but that no other director or employee of HM Advisory should be appointed liquidator in his place.

The reason for the making of an order covering every member of Dixon’s firm was that according to his honour, HM Advisory had been funding the Eratos trade on during the administration period, a period which ended when Dixon was appointed liquidator. The date of that appointment occurred whilst the judge was preparing his reasons.

iNO covered all this in Liquidator restrained as creditors invited to replace, which we published on December 9. What we didn’t cover because it occurred after iNO had lapsed into holiday mode was Dixon’s statement to a News Corp journalist earlier this month insisting that neither he nor HM Advisory loaned money to any of the Eratos entities.

That denial is made in circumstances where the balance sheets of the two Eratos entities in administration record loans during the administration period from Hamilton Murphy trading as HM Advisory.

Dixon also told News Corp he categorically denied “any allegations or suggestions of impropriety”; that at all times his “actions were undertaken in good faith and in full compliance with applicable laws, regulations, and professional standards”; and that he would be reviewing “the reasons carefully with my legal advisors and am actively considering appeal options”.

Six weeks have passed and Dixon was far less fulsome in responding to iNO’s questions this week, in which we sought to clarify the seeming contradiction between the balance sheet references to loans from Hamilton Murphy to the Eratos entities and Dixon’s absolute insistence that “at no time” did he or HM Advisory loan Eratos funds.

Dixon of course may well be unwilling to attract further attention, particularly in circumstances where the Eratos entities are now in liquidation and under the control of Teneo’s Martin Ford and Robert Ditrich, whose appointment was nominated by that most ubiquitous of unsecureds, the ATO.

Assuming they’re funded the various issues Justice Delaney identified – lapses in disclosures to creditors and potentially inadequate investigations of insolvent trading claims among other things – may be scrutinised in public examinations.