InterPrac sale the result of a silent, non-legal squeeze

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

24 March 2026

ANALYSIS

Anyone familiar with the Australian competition legislation and regulatory regime will be more than a little disquieted by the fact that the commercial squeeze applied by  most of the investment platforms was more influential on the sale of InterPrac than the efforts of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC).

Indeed, what has become increasingly clear in the fall-out from the collapse of the Shield and First Guardian funds is that once ASIC has named particular entities as being the subject of legal action, those entities have thereafter been the subject of exclusionary board room decisions.

While it may be hard to feel sorry for some of the companies impacted by those exclusionary decisions, the reality is that the companies affected are simply the subject of allegations. They have not actually been found guilty in a court of law. Indeed, some may be found innocent of many of the charges levelled by ASIC.

Under Australian law, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. However, the notoriety generated by ASIC’s actions has seen the defendants being commercially punished before the parties even mount the court house steps.

It is no secret across the financial services industry that not just InterPrac has suffered the closure of access on the part of some clients but also Equity Trustees, Diversa Trustees and research and ratings house, SQM Research.

All of the parties are contesting the charges being levelled at them by ASIC. The regulator is by no means guaranteed clear-cut wins given the complexity of the issues being contested.

It is lost on no-one that some of the boards making exclusionary decisions were, not so long ago, the subject of similar negativity in the aftermath of the Royal Commission into Misconduct in the Banking, Superannuation and Financial Services Industry. Indeed, AMP Limited is still rebuilding its master trust business.

It should also not be forgotten that the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) comprehensively lost its Royal Commission-driven case against IOOF Limited (now Insignia Financial) over its use of its operational risk reserve.

Sequoia Financial Group chief executive, Garry Crole yesterday confirmed that the sale of InterPrac for the virtual peppercorn of $50,000 and in his firm’s announcement to the Australian Securities Exchange noted “the increasing platform withdrawals for new business for remaining advisers, despite their not being involved whatsoever with the failures of the Shield and First Guardian funds has had a large bearing on Sequoia’s divestment decision”.

The Sequoia announcement to the ASX on the sale of InterPrac to Conquest noted that “over the past six months, InterPrac has operated in an increasingly complex and adverse environment, including:

• Ongoing industry and regulatory scrutiny associated with matters relating to the Shield and First Guardian investment products
• Uncertainty regarding the allocation of remediation responsibility across participants in the advice, platform and product value chain.
• The withdrawal or restriction of services by a number of platform providers, resulting in a material decline in authorised representatives.
• A transition of the business from profitability to loss-making.

Sequoia has, of course, offloaded InterPrac and is clearly hoping to move beyond Shield and First Guardian via the other elements of its business.

In the meantime, some boardrooms might to like consider that what goes around, comes around.