Sequoia downplays Press exit as ‘not material’

Mike Taylor

Managing Editor and Publisher

19 May 2026

Under scrutiny Sequoia Financial Group has sought to downplay its failure to inform the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) of the resignation of former Australian Securities and Investments Commission commissioner, Danielle Press, as chair of Sequoia’s AFSL Governance Committee.

Issued with a please explain letter by the ASX about why Sequoia did not disclose Press’ resignation to the exchange, Sequoia argued that the company’s Board considered “that the resignation was not, on a standalone basis, information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of SEQ securities”.

Sequoia appointed Press to chair the AFSL Governance Committee on 1 August, last year, and said Press notified the chief executive, Garry Crole, of her resignation on 3 March, this year.

It said that Press had notified Crole that the reason for her resignation was “other commitments on her time”.

“While the Company acknowledges the appointment was characterised as material in August 2025, the Board considered whether the resignation gave rise to a separate disclosure obligation under the Listing Rule 3.1 and concluded it did not, having regard to:

• The AFSL Governance Committee continuing to operate effectively, with the remaining members discharging the committee’s responsibilities; and
• The Company progressing the proposed disposal of InterPrac Financial Planning Pty Ltd, being the AFS licensee that one of the key focuses of the committee’s remit, such that the role and necessity of the committee in its existing form was itself the subject of likely change.

“On those bases the Board considered that the resignation was not, on a standalone basis, information that a reasonable person would expect to have a material effect on the price or value of SEQ securities.

In its broader answers to the queries from the ASX Sequoia said that it had commenced parallel workstreams in early-to-mid March this year in connection with a potential disposal of InterPrac.

However, it claimed that at that time no transaction had been agreed and no impairment quantum had been determined.