The Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) deems it appropriate and in the public interest that public administrative proceedings be, and hereby are, instituted pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) against Daniel Sholom Frishberg (“Respondent”).
The Commission finds:
1. Frishberg was the president and majority owner of Daniel Frishberg Financial Services, Inc. d/b/a DFFS Capital Management, Inc. (“DFFS”), an investment adviser registered with the Commission. Frishberg, 65, is a resident of Houston, Texas.
2. On March 30, 2011, a judgment was entered by consent against Frishberg, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act, in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Daniel Sholom Frishberg, Civil Action Number 4:11-cv-1097, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas.
3. The Commission’s complaint in the civil action alleged that, in connection with two separate promissory note offerings to DFFS clients, Frishberg violated Section 206(2) by approving unsuitable investments for recommendation to his advisory clients. In addition, the complaint alleged that Frishberg aided and abetted the Section 206(1) and 206(2) violations committed by Albert Fase Kaleta and by DFFS. Frishberg approved investments despite conflicts of interest between himself and DFFS on the one hand and the advisory clients on the other. In particular, Frishberg controlled the company that issued the promissory notes. Moreover, the issuer’s poor financial condition made it unlikely that it could pay its promissory-note obligations. Frishberg knew such conflicts had not been disclosed to clients or recklessly disregarded whether such conflicts had been disclosed to clients.
In view of the foregoing, the Commission deems it appropriate and in the public interest to impose the sanctions agreed to in Respondent Frishberg’s Offer.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED:
Pursuant to Section 203(f) of the Advisers Act that Respondent Frishberg be, and hereby is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent.
Any reapplication for association by the Respondent will be subject to the applicable laws and regulations governing the reentry process, and reentry may be conditioned upon a number of factors, including, but not limited to, the satisfaction of any or all of the following: (a) any disgorgement ordered against the Respondent, whether or not the Commission has fully or partially waived payment of such disgorgement; (b) any arbitration award related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; (c) any self-regulatory organization arbitration award to a customer, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order; and (d) any restitution order by a self-regulatory organization, whether or not related to the conduct that served as the basis for the Commission order.
Timothy S. McCole, Esq.
Fort Worth Regional Office
Securities and Exchange Commission
Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900
801 Cherry Street, Unit #18
Fort Worth, TX 76102
1. Since it says, hereby is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent, what impact does this have on Dan’s keynote address at Barrington’s meeting on May 18, 2001? If Frishberg speaks for Barrington on the 18th, I would be willing to bet that Frishberg’s fee would make Bill Clinton feel incompetent… what an effective way to be paid for his work than a huge check for speaking!
2. Since it says, is barred from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, or transfer agent, does that mean that Dan Frishberg is barred from ANY ASSOCIATION with Barrington (even as a guest speaker or seminar leader)?
3. It would appear that Frishberg could reapply, but since there was an order issued against Al Kaleta and Frishberg for disgorgement shown here (69-main) it would stand to reason that FAILURE to satisfy this order would prohibit Frishberg from re-establishing Investment Advisor credentials?
4. Lastly, does any part of this order have any impact on Frishberg’s ability to continue to offer his style of investment advice on Salem Communication stations?
YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!