SEC v. James N. Fry (2015)
Settled
Checked against the primary document on October 3, 2026. The library's summary, tags and figures for this record were compared with the regulator's own document by an AI model (Claude) following written instructions, with sampled and disputed records read a second time. No lawyer has reviewed them. A checked record can still contain errors, and checked does not mean endorsed. See how we check records or report a correction.
In October 2015 the SEC barred James N. Fry by settled order from the securities industry, after a federal injunction and his criminal conviction for misleading investors in Arrowhead funds that put their money into Thomas Petters' scheme.
The record
| Agency | SEC |
|---|---|
| Release number | IA-4242 |
| Date filed | 2015-10-26 |
| Date resolved | 2015-10-26 |
| Status | settled |
| Asset class | bonds |
| Criminal parallel | Yes: sentenced (James N. Fry (convicted 12 June 2013 at trial)), U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, 2013-10-11 |
| Sentence | 17y 6m |
| Bars imposed | registration bar |
| Defendants | James N. Fry |
| Cited as charged or alleged | Advisers Act s.206 ; Exchange Act s.10(b) and Rule 10b-5 ; Securities Act s.17(a) |
| Techniques |
What was ordered
- Civil penalty
- —
- Disgorgement
- —
- Prejudgment interest
- —
- Total relief
- —
- Alleged gain
- —
What is alleged to have happened
The order recounts that Fry, through Arrowhead Capital Management, sold interests in funds that lent to Petters' companies, falsely told investors that retailers repaid the notes, hid extensions and payment difficulties, and claimed independent examinations that did not occur. He was convicted in 2013 of securities fraud, wire fraud and false statements and sentenced to 210 months.
The Ponzi scheme was Petters', and Fry's misconduct is misrepresenting a feeder fund, so the ponzi-schemes tag the record carried has been removed. The order imposes an association bar and no money.
Timeline
Primary documents
Everything on this page derives from the documents below. Where our summary and the primary document disagree, the primary document is right.