Sequoia Financial Group managing director Garry Crole says he intends to sell his troubled InterPrac Financial Planning for just $50,000 to an outfit called Conquest Investment Partners.
In correspondence sent after market close on Friday and seen by Professional Planner, Crole alerted external business advisers to his plan to offload InterPrac, explaining that in his view a sale would stabilise the business and avoid an asset-stripping or a wind-down scenario.
Crole lists the purchaser as Conquest Investment Partners, which was registered as a company with the corporate regulator in July 2024. Very little public information is available about the firm.
InterPrac has maintained $7.5 million in cash and $20 million in professional indemnity insurance coverage.
The decision comes as mounting pressure from platforms, who have banned new business from InterPrac advisers, has presented operation challenges as well as the regulator seeking to shut down the licensee through court action.
Sequoia entered into a trading halt on Friday after revelations earlier in the week that it was in talks to sell the troubled licensee with an announcement due on Monday, 23 March 2026.
Professional Planner reported last month that HUB24 had quietly banned InterPrac advisers on a case-by-case basis last year, but a report from The Australian earlier this week later confirmed to the ASX by Sequoia found HUB24 had expanded its earlier ban to include all InterPrac advisers.
Sequoia said that the change will apply to new business only and there will be no impact on existing client accounts, existing business, or current adviser remuneration arrangements on the HUB24 platform.
The latest change from HUB24 kicks in on 31 March 2026 and follows other bans from BT, AMP, CFS, Macquarie and Netwealth.
“Sequoia is engaging with relevant stakeholders to manage the transition and to support affected advisers in placing new business with alternative platform providers where appropriate,” the company said.
The company entered a trading halt on Friday morning, around 90 minutes after the market opened.
The licensee is being sued by ASIC for due diligence failures relating to authorised representatives Ferras Merhi and Rhys Reilly for their distribution of the Shield and First Guardian funds.
Sequoia managing director Garry Crole has publicly lobbied for platform trustees to utilise their operational risk reserves or ask for government assistance to remediate clients, often arguing they were just as culpable as any other party.
Macquarie hosted Shield, while Netwealth hosted First Guardian, and both organisations settled with ASIC to remediate clients by purchasing their investments and remediating them to their initial investment positions.
The federal court confirmed on Friday that Macquarie breached the law by failing to place the Shield Master Fund on a watch list for heightened monitoring, a concession made by the wealth giant in the Statement of Agreed Facts as part of the settlement announced last year.
Equity Trustees and Diversa Trustees are both in court against the regulator after electing to fight allegations that their processes were insufficient rather than settling as was the case with Netwealth and Macquarie.
Investments in Shield and First Guardian grew due to a sophisticated network of lead generators that contacted people who used online “superannuation health check” advertisements and used high-pressure sales tactics to refer them to financial advisers.
ASIC acted against the Shield and First Guardian funds over concerns that investor money was being misused on high-risk investments, pet projects of the directors and personal expenses.
Merhi, who was an authorised representative of InterPrac, is considered by ASIC to be a central figure in the distribution of the funds and has been taken to court by the regulator over allegations he received money from the funds to help market them through lead generators.
ASIC has alleged Merhi distributed 6000 Statements of Advice under his name within a three-year period.
Former ASIC Commissioner Danielle Press was enlisted to help lift licensee governance standards at Sequoia, but Professional Planner revealed last month that she departed due to concerns the company wasn’t moving in a positive direction.
InterPrac is also suing the Australian Financial Complaints Authority over concerns that the authority has not fairly handled the complaints resolution process after it released the lead determination last month.
Editor’s note: story was updated on 22 March 2026 with information about the sale.
I am missing something So does Australian Financial Law allow companies to sell their past responsibilities to clients to another business?
It’s very confusing If I (me) committed a crime such as robbing a client or doing wrong wearing my company uniform, then I sold the company to a pal and gave him the uniform.
Would the police arrest and charge my pal for doing wrong?
I do not think so but having followed this debarkle closely I may be wrong.
Is there anyone who can answer my question in the Australian financial world can you sell accountability for something that has been undertaken to someone else.
If you can I think the law is wrong.
If anyone at ASIC can say one way or the other that responsibilities can be sold I would be very pleased to hear.
Peter.Spencer-Franks
saveoursupers@gmail.com
Just wondering the 7.5 million in cash so they have paid 50K for a company and that company has 7.5 million + PI insurance
Let’s be clear about what’s actually happening here. It might be a lifeline for the advice practices, but for Crole this is an asset transfer, plain and simple.
Every InterPrac adviser agreement is an asset of the licensee. Each one that walks out the door to Avalon is one less thing the administrator and bankruptcy trustee will have available to recover value for investors who’ve lost close to a billion dollars.
And is Crole waiving the newly imposed two-year PI levy for departing advisers out of the goodness of his heart? That’s recoverable value being surrendered to grease the exits. Generous to the advisers. Less so to the investors waiting behind an ASIC Federal Court action and a mountain of AFCA complaints.
There’s nothing that can be done to stop it — these advisers need to earn a living and shouldn’t be collateral damage. But let’s at least call it what it is.
Does Crole have any commercial arrangement with Avalon in connection with this deal? If there’s a clip attached, Sequoia’s shareholders deserve to know about it.