Grant M. Carroll

Hedge Fund, Investment Advisor and Broker/Dealer Fraud and Mismanagement FINRA Arbitration and Litigation Attorney, Russell L. Forkey, Esq.

April, 2012:

In the Matter of Grant M. Carroll

The Commission announced the issuance of an Order Instituting Administrative Proceedings Pursuant to Section 15(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Making Findings, and Imposing Remedial Sanctions (Order) against Grant M. Carroll, a resident of Texas, based on the entry of a permanent injunction against him in the civil action entitled Securities and Exchange Commission v. Grant M. Carroll, et al., Civil Action No. 1:10-CV-913 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division.

In the Order, the Commission finds that, on December 6, 2011, an agreed permanent injunction was entered against Carroll, permanently enjoining him from future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c), and 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 and Sections 10(b) and 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The Commission further finds in the Order that the Commission filed a Complaint against Carroll, alleging that from April 2007 through approximately May 2008, Carroll, together with the other defendants, participated in an unregistered securities offering in which approximately $9 million was raised from investors from the sale of interests in high-yield or “Prime Bank” investment schemes. According to the Complaint, Carroll misrepresented that he was a licensed securities broker and that he had verified the legitimacy of the transactions.

Based on the above, the Order bars Carroll from association with any broker, dealer, investment adviser, municipal securities dealer, municipal advisor, transfer agent, or nationally recognized statistical rating organization; the Order also bars Carroll from participating in any offering of a penny stock. In consenting to the entry of the Order, Carroll admitted the Order’s finding as to the entry of the injunction against him and its findings that the Commission has jurisdiction over him and over the matters set forth in the Order; Carroll did not, however, admit any of the other findings in the Order.