SEC v. Imer Gomez; K&G Investment Solutions, LLC; and Helios Venture Fund, LLC, No. 5:25-cv-00805, Western District of Texas (July 14, 2025) — Complaint

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SAN ANTONIO DIVISION
________________________________________________
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION,
Plaintiff,
)
)
)
 Civil Action No.  5:24-cv-805
)
v. )
)
IMER GOMEZ, Individually and d/b/a             )  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
K&G INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and )
HELIOS VENTURE FUND, LLC,  )
)
Defendants, )
)
and )
)
ERIC CLAXTON, and )
HEATHER CLAXTON, )
)
Relief Defendants.      )
________________________________________________
CO
MPLAINT
Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) files this
Complaint against Defendants Imer Gomez (“Gomez”), individually and d/b/a K&G Investment
Solutions, LLC (“K&G”), and Helios Venture Fund, LLC (“Helios”) (collectively,
“Defendants”) and Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton, alleging as follows:
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1.From approximately August 2021 to September 2023 (the “Relevant Time
Period”), Gomez used K&G and Helios, an entity he wholly controlled, to solicit clients to open
purported investment advisory accounts that he would manage on their behalf.
2.Despite Helios being termed a “fund,” neither Helios nor K&G were investment
funds.  Rather, K&G and Helios were investment “advisers” that, according to the investment

2

management agreements Gomez had clients sign, “manage[d] and direct[ed] ... on a discretionary
basis” each investor’s “actively traded portfolio of securities that consist of select exchange-
traded funds and individual stocks.”
3. In soliciting prospective clients, Gomez claimed to be an experienced trader who
could provide clients monthly double-digit returns by trading securities on their behalf.  He also
claimed that K&G and Helios were insured for up to 75% of the value of each client’s account.
Gomez, who primarily offered these investment advisory services to Hispanic clients, obtained
approximately $9 million of client deposits.
4. Contrary to Defendants’ representations, however, Defendants never used client
funds to trade securities, never created or supervised any client accounts, and never obtained
insurance for client funds or accounts.  Instead, Gomez used client funds to sustain a lavish
lifestyle, make Ponzi payments, and fund unrelated business ventures.  He also loaned and
transferred approximately $666,000 of client funds to his ex-girlfriend’s father, Eric Claxton,
who, along with his wife, Heather Claxton, used those funds to purchase real estate.
5. To conceal the fraud, Gomez sent clients fake account statements showing
fictitious gains on their purported advisory accounts.  When Gomez ran out of client assets, he
claimed that a “sudden liquidation” essentially destroyed the business and prevented him from
returning client funds.  He further lulled clients by claiming Helios was finalizing a guaranteed
bailout loan so he could return clients’ funds.  No such loan existed, and clients never received
their money back.
6. By engaging in the foregoing activities, Defendants violated the antifraud
provisions of the federal securities laws, namely Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5];

3

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; and Sections
206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1),
(2)].
7. The SEC brings this action against Defendants seeking: (i) permanent injunctive
relief, including conduct-based injunctions against Gomez; (ii) disgorgement of ill-gotten gains,
together with prejudgment interest; (iii) a civil penalty against Gomez; and (iv) such further
relief the Court may deem just and appropriate.   The Commission also seeks disgorgement of ill-
gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest, from Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and
Heather Claxton.
DEFENDANTS
8. Imer Gomez, age 28, is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Mexico, and resided in San
Antonio, Texas during the Relevant Time Period.    Gomez was the President and CFO of Helios.
K&G appears to be an assumed name used by Gomez to transact business and engage with
advisory clients.
9. Helios Venture Fund, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its
principal place of business in San Antonio.  Helios purports to be an investment adviser.
RELIEF DEFENDANTS
10. Eric Claxton, age 47, resides in San Antonio.
11. Heather Claxton, age 47, resides in San Antonio.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
12. The Commission brings this action pursuant to authority conferred upon it by
Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], Sections 21(d)

4

and 21(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u(e)], and Sections 209(d) and 209(e)
of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d) and 80b-9(e)].
13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and
22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)], Sections 21(d), 21(e), and
27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), (e), and 78aa], and Sections 209(d), 209(e), and
214(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-9(e), and 80b-14(a)].
14. The definition of “security” under both Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and
Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act specifically includes “stock” or any “group or index of
securities” which would encompass the types of securities that Gomez and Helios promised to
purchase and sell for clients.
15. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants, directly
or indirectly, made use of the mails or the means or instruments of transportation or
communication in interstate commerce by, among other means, soliciting and accepting
investments via the internet, transmitting investor contracts and account statements via email,
and accepting client deposits via mail, wire, or other electronic-funds transfers.
16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 20 of the Securities Act [15
U.S.C. § 77t], Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Section 214 of the
Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].  Defendants transacted business in this District, and certain
of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business constituting violations of the federal
securities laws alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.  Specifically, Gomez
resided in and solicited clients within this District and executed advisory agreements with clients
within this District.  The Relief Defendants also reside within this District.

5

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Gomez solicited clients to deposit money into fake advisory accounts.
17.  Gomez is a self-identified professional gambler with no known experience
investing or managing money on behalf of clients.  In August 2021, Gomez began soliciting
prospective clients to open purported advisory accounts by having them execute Investment
Management Services Agreements (the “Advisory Agreements”) with K&G.
18. The initial Advisory Agreements identified Gomez as K&G’s President and CFO,
and Gomez signed the agreements in his purported role as K&G’s President and CFO.  The
Advisory Agreements also identified K&G as the investment adviser; in reality, K&G appears to
not have been registered with any state as an LLC and, upon information and belief, is an
assumed name used by Gomez.  K&G had no bank accounts of its own and Gomez directed
clients to deposit their funds into bank accounts controlled by Gomez and held in his name.
Gomez controlled K&G and its decision making.
19. Sometime in 2022, Gomez phased out the K&G name and purportedly began
opening advisory accounts under a newly formed company named Helios.  Gomez controlled
Helios as its sole member.  Similar to K&G, Gomez requested that new clients execute Advisory
Agreements, which identified Helios as the investment adviser.  The Advisory Agreements listed
Gomez as Helios’s President and CFO, and Gomez signed the agreements on behalf of Helios.
Gomez controlled Helios and its decision making.
20.  Gomez and Helios solicited clients (directly and indirectly via word of mouth
from existing clients) by claiming that he was an experienced securities trader and promising to
purchase and sell securities in separately managed client accounts that would earn double-digit

6

monthly returns.  He told at least one client via telephone that he wanted to help the Hispanic
community build generational wealth.
21. Defendants were each engaged in the business of advising clients as to the
advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities for compensation.  K&G and Helios
offered clients three different investment management packages ranging from conservative to
aggressive trading.  The promised returns and accompanying management fees that clients paid
to K&G and Helios varied depending on the package, with higher returns corresponding to the
more aggressive package:
Management Packages Package Fees
Aggressive Day Trading $350 per week
Weekly / Monthly Swing $500 per month
Long Term Growth $800 per quarter
22. The Advisory Agreements provided that K&G, and later Helios, would select
securities to trade for each client’s purported advisory account that would “protect capital,
generate income and obtain capital growth.”  K&G and Helios had broad authority under the
agreements to “manage and direct [. . .] on a discretionary basis” each client’s account and to
“purchase, sell, invest, exchange, convert and trade any securities and instruments and any other
transaction therein” for the accounts.  In the Advisory Agreements distributed throughout the
Relevant Time Period, K&G and Helios represented to clients that K&G or Helios would
actively trade a portfolio of select exchange-traded funds and individual stocks chosen from a
K&G or Helios newsletter.  However, K&G and Helios never distributed a newsletter to their
clients.
B. Defendants falsely represented to clients that their investments were covered by
insurance.
23. During his solicitations, Gomez promised prospective clients that their money
would be safe and secure.  Similarly, in the Advisory Agreements, Defendants represented that

7

clients’ purported advisory accounts were covered by insurance (whether the accounts were at
K&G or Helios).  According to the Advisory Agreements, the client accounts were:
insured  for  up  to  75%  of  Client’s  Portfolio  if  the  loss  is  categorized  as  a  1.
Catastrophic  loss   2.  more  than  80%  loss  in  a  single  business  day  due  to  market
wide  collapses.  Catastrophic  loss  defined  as:  10%  decline  in  DJI,  SPX,  or
NASDAQ market indexes in a single business day.

24. Gomez reiterated these false statements about insurance when talking to clients
and prospective clients.  In or around June 2023, one client requested proof of the purported
insurance, but Gomez responded that he was not legally permitted to provide such information.
25. In fact, Defendants never created accounts for clients, nor did they secure
insurance for such purported accounts.  When he ultimately ran out of client funds, Gomez told
clients, including those who viewed the insurance coverage as an important part of their decision
to become a client and to open an account, that Helios sought a bailout loan to repay the missing
funds (see paragraphs 33-35 below).
C. Gomez, as K&G and via Helios, provided false statements to clients showing
substantial returns.

26. Per the Advisory Agreements, K&G and Helios promised to provide weekly
performance statements showing each client’s account performance.  The statements that
Defendants actually provided to clients were one-line emails listing account balances that
constantly increased.

8

27. These account statements that K&G and Helios sent to the clients were false.
K&G and Helios never created or funded individual client accounts.  They never purchased or
sold securities.  Notably, the account statements failed to identify any transactions executed; they
just listed a fictitious value, which Gomez, on behalf of K&G and Helios, artificially increased,
which convinced clients of continued growth in their accounts.  Additionally, these fictitious
account statements persuaded certain clients to send additional funds to Gomez to invest within
the purported managed accounts.
D. Defendants misappropriated client funds and used them for undisclosed purposes,
including making Ponzi payments and paying for personal expenses.
28. The Advisory Agreements stated that clients would deposit their funds into a
K&G, and later a Helios, bank account and that the funds would then be routed to that client’s
personalized and managed account.  After signing the Advisory Agreement, clients were
typically instructed to send their money to a Gomez-controlled bank account.  Clients invested
via cash and also transferred funds to Defendants via checks, wires, bank transfers, credit cards,
and online payment systems such as PayPal and Zelle.  Client funds were commingled within
these Gomez-controlled bank accounts.
29. During the Relevant Time Period, Gomez received into accounts he controlled
assets from clients totaling approximately $9 million.  Gomez used the majority of client funds to
make Ponzi payments to other clients, pay personal expenses, pay non-client third parties
(including for other business ventures), pay employees and pay commissions/bonuses for client
referrals, or to make cash withdrawals.
30. No client funds were transferred from the accounts Gomez controlled to any
trading platform.  Contrary to the Advisory Agreements and Gomez’s promises to clients,

9

Defendants never created individual client accounts and never used client funds to buy or sell
securities on clients’ behalf.
E. Gomez transferred client funds to Relief Defendants.
31. In March and April 2022, Eric Claxton deposited a total of $100,000 with Helios.
By June 2022, Eric Claxton received these funds back.  Thereafter, from June 2022 to March
2023, Claxton also received from Helios and Gomez approximately $196,000 sourced from
commingled client funds.  From June 2023 to August 2023, the Claxtons (Eric and Heather)
jointly received from Defendants another approximately $370,000 from commingled client
funds.
32. In total, Gomez (individually and through Helios) sent approximately $666,000 of
commingled client funds to Eric and/or Heather Claxton (including the $100,000 contribution
paid back to Eric Claxton), some of which were characterized as loans.  Eric and Heather
Claxton have: ( 1) not repaid any of the amounts purportedly loaned by Gomez and (2) did not
provide any services or other value in exchange for such funds.
F. When client funds ran out, Defendants tried to conceal the scheme by misleading
clients regarding an alleged “bailout loan.”
33. On September 19, 2023, Gomez, in his role as president of Helios, sent clients a
letter claiming that Helios “was impacted by a sudden and unrecoverable liquidation.”  He failed
to identify the reasons for the liquidation event, citing a “strict Non-Disclosure Agreement.”
Defendants’ bank records show that what Gomez described as a liquidation event was simply
Gomez running out of money from new clients to continue his scheme.
34. In his letter to clients, Gomez claimed that Helios had “secured a guaranteed
bailout loan” from a lender (“Lender”) to reimburse clients for any losses.  Gomez represented
that (1) the Lender’s commitment to the loan was “steadfast,” (2) loan disbursements would

10

commence immediately, and (3) all clients would receive their initial capital by February 1,
2024.  Gomez signed the letter as Helios’s President.
35. Gomez’s promises about the bailout loan and repayment of client funds were
false.  In truth, while Gomez met with a potential lender, he never secured a loan.  Even when he
spoke to the Lender, Gomez never provided the Lender with documentation to allow the Lender
to conduct its required financial due diligence.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios)
Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and
Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]

36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
paragraphs above.
37. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendants, directly or
indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the means or
instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or with severe recklessness:
a. employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; and/or
b. made an untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact
necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
under which they were made, not misleading; and/or
c. engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would
operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
38. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will
continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5
thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5].

11

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios)
Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
paragraphs above.
40. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendants, directly or
indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use of any means or instruments of
transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, have:
a. knowingly or with severe recklessness employed a device, scheme, or artifice to
defraud; and/or
b. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently obtained money or property
by means of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a
material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or
c. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently engaged in a transaction,
practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or
deceit upon the purchaser.
41. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will
continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)].
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios)
Violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act
[15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2)]

42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the
paragraphs above.

12

43. By engaging in the conduct alleged above, Gomez and Helios, directly or
indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, while
acting as investment advisers within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act [15
U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)], have: (a) employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a client or
prospective client; and/or (b) engaged in a transaction, practice, or course of business which
operated as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client.
44. With regard to the violations of Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act, Gomez and
Helios engaged in the conduct knowingly or with severe recklessness. With regard to the
violations of Section 206(2), Gomez and Helios engaged in the conduct at least negligently.
45. By reason of the foregoing, Gomez and Helios have violated, and unless enjoined
will continue to violate, Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Against Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton)
Equitable Claim for Disgorgement With Regards to Relief Defendants
46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if
set forth verbatim in this Claim.
47. Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton, directly or indirectly, received funds or
benefited from the use of such funds, which are the proceeds, or are traceable to the proceeds, of
Defendants’ unlawful activity alleged above.  The Claxtons obtained funds and property, directly
or indirectly, from Gomez that were obtained by him as a result of the securities law violations
described herein.
48. Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton have no legitimate claim to these funds that
they received or from which they otherwise benefited, directly or indirectly.

13

49. Based upon the allegations set forth above, Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton
have been unjustly enriched by their direct or indirect receipt of, or benefit from, funds from
clients of K&G or Helios.
50. The Commission is entitled to an order requiring Eric Claxton and Heather
Claxton to disgorge all of the proceeds they received, either directly or indirectly, from Gomez,
or from which they benefited, either directly or indirectly.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment:
1. Permanently enjoining Defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5
thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15
U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2)].
2. Permanently enjoining Gomez from:
a. directly or indirectly, including but not limited to, through any entity
owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer,
or sale of any security, provided, however, that such injunction shall not
prevent Gomez from purchasing or selling securities for his own personal
account; and
b. directly or indirectly acting as or being associated with any broker, dealer,
or investment adviser.  For purposes of this paragraph: a) a person is
associated with a broker or dealer if such person is a partner, officer,
director, or branch manager of such broker or dealer (or occupies a similar
status or performs similar functions), directly or indirectly controls, is

14

controlled by, or is under common control with such broker or dealer, or is
an employee of such broker or dealer; and b) a person is associated with
an investment adviser if such person is a partner, officer, or director of
such investment adviser (or performs similar functions), or directly or
indirectly controls or is controlled by such investment adviser, including
any employee of such investment adviser;
3. Ordering Defendants to disgorge, jointly and severally, all ill-gotten gains
obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein, together with prejudgment interest thereon,
pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers and Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and
21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)];
4. Ordering Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton to disgorge, jointly
and severally, all ill-gotten gains obtained and benefits obtained, or to which they were otherwise
not entitled, as a result of the conduct alleged herein, together with prejudgment interest thereon,
pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers and Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and
21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)];
5. Ordering Gomez to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities
Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and
Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and
6. Imposing such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

15

Dated:   July 14, 2025    Respectfully submitted,

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND
EXCHANGE COMMISSION

_________________________________
Tyson Lies
Texas Bar No. 24087927
United States Securities and
Exchange Commission
Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900
801 Cherry Street, Unit 18
Fort Worth, TX  76102
Telephone:  (817) 978-1421
Facsimile:  (817) 978-4927
[email protected]

Attorney for Plaintiff

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

SAN ANTONIO DIVISION 
________________________________________________ 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff, 

) 
) 
) Civil Action No.  5:24-cv-805
) 

v. ) 
)  

IMER GOMEZ, Individually and d/b/a             )  JURY TRIAL DEMANDED 
K&G INVESTMENT SOLUTIONS, LLC, and ) 
HELIOS VENTURE FUND, LLC,  ) 

) 
Defendants, )

) 
and ) 

) 
ERIC CLAXTON, and ) 
HEATHER CLAXTON, ) 

) 
Relief Defendants.  ) 

________________________________________________ 

COMPLAINT

Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”) files this 

Complaint against Defendants Imer Gomez (“Gomez”), individually and d/b/a K&G Investment 

Solutions, LLC (“K&G”), and Helios Venture Fund, LLC (“Helios”) (collectively, 

“Defendants”) and Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton, alleging as follows: 

NATURE OF THE ACTION 

1. From approximately August 2021 to September 2023 (the “Relevant Time

Period”), Gomez used K&G and Helios, an entity he wholly controlled, to solicit clients to open 

purported investment advisory accounts that he would manage on their behalf.   

2. Despite Helios being termed a “fund,” neither Helios nor K&G were investment

funds.  Rather, K&G and Helios were investment “advisers” that, according to the investment 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 1 of 15



2 
 

management agreements Gomez had clients sign, “manage[d] and direct[ed] ... on a discretionary 

basis” each investor’s “actively traded portfolio of securities that consist of select exchange-

traded funds and individual stocks.”   

3. In soliciting prospective clients, Gomez claimed to be an experienced trader who 

could provide clients monthly double-digit returns by trading securities on their behalf.  He also 

claimed that K&G and Helios were insured for up to 75% of the value of each client’s account.  

Gomez, who primarily offered these investment advisory services to Hispanic clients, obtained 

approximately $9 million of client deposits.  

4. Contrary to Defendants’ representations, however, Defendants never used client 

funds to trade securities, never created or supervised any client accounts, and never obtained 

insurance for client funds or accounts.  Instead, Gomez used client funds to sustain a lavish 

lifestyle, make Ponzi payments, and fund unrelated business ventures.  He also loaned and 

transferred approximately $666,000 of client funds to his ex-girlfriend’s father, Eric Claxton, 

who, along with his wife, Heather Claxton, used those funds to purchase real estate. 

5. To conceal the fraud, Gomez sent clients fake account statements showing 

fictitious gains on their purported advisory accounts.  When Gomez ran out of client assets, he 

claimed that a “sudden liquidation” essentially destroyed the business and prevented him from 

returning client funds.  He further lulled clients by claiming Helios was finalizing a guaranteed 

bailout loan so he could return clients’ funds.  No such loan existed, and clients never received 

their money back. 

6. By engaging in the foregoing activities, Defendants violated the antifraud 

provisions of the federal securities laws, namely Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]; 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 2 of 15



3 
 

Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]; and Sections 

206(1) and (2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), 

(2)].  

7. The SEC brings this action against Defendants seeking: (i) permanent injunctive 

relief, including conduct-based injunctions against Gomez; (ii) disgorgement of ill-gotten gains, 

together with prejudgment interest; (iii) a civil penalty against Gomez; and (iv) such further 

relief the Court may deem just and appropriate.  The Commission also seeks disgorgement of ill-

gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest, from Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and 

Heather Claxton.   

DEFENDANTS 

8. Imer Gomez, age 28, is a dual citizen of the U.S. and Mexico, and resided in San 

Antonio, Texas during the Relevant Time Period.  Gomez was the President and CFO of Helios.  

K&G appears to be an assumed name used by Gomez to transact business and engage with 

advisory clients.   

9. Helios Venture Fund, LLC is a Texas limited liability company with its 

principal place of business in San Antonio.  Helios purports to be an investment adviser.  

RELIEF DEFENDANTS 

10. Eric Claxton, age 47, resides in San Antonio.     

11. Heather Claxton, age 47, resides in San Antonio.  

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

12. The Commission brings this action pursuant to authority conferred upon it by 

Sections 20(b) and 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b) and 77t(d)], Sections 21(d) 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 3 of 15



4 
 

and 21(e) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) and 78u(e)], and Sections 209(d) and 209(e) 

of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d) and 80b-9(e)]. 

13. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 20(b), 20(d), and 

22(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b), 77t(d), and 77v(a)], Sections 21(d), 21(e), and 

27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), (e), and 78aa], and Sections 209(d), 209(e), and 

214(a) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-9(d), 80b-9(e), and 80b-14(a)]. 

14. The definition of “security” under both Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and 

Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act specifically includes “stock” or any “group or index of 

securities” which would encompass the types of securities that Gomez and Helios promised to 

purchase and sell for clients.  

15. In connection with the conduct described in this Complaint, Defendants, directly 

or indirectly, made use of the mails or the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce by, among other means, soliciting and accepting 

investments via the internet, transmitting investor contracts and account statements via email, 

and accepting client deposits via mail, wire, or other electronic-funds transfers. 

16. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to Section 20 of the Securities Act [15 

U.S.C. § 77t], Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78aa], and Section 214 of the 

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-14].  Defendants transacted business in this District, and certain 

of the acts, practices, transactions, and courses of business constituting violations of the federal 

securities laws alleged in this Complaint occurred within this District.  Specifically, Gomez 

resided in and solicited clients within this District and executed advisory agreements with clients 

within this District.  The Relief Defendants also reside within this District. 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 4 of 15



5 
 

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 

A. Gomez solicited clients to deposit money into fake advisory accounts. 

17.  Gomez is a self-identified professional gambler with no known experience 

investing or managing money on behalf of clients.  In August 2021, Gomez began soliciting 

prospective clients to open purported advisory accounts by having them execute Investment 

Management Services Agreements (the “Advisory Agreements”) with K&G.   

18. The initial Advisory Agreements identified Gomez as K&G’s President and CFO, 

and Gomez signed the agreements in his purported role as K&G’s President and CFO.  The 

Advisory Agreements also identified K&G as the investment adviser; in reality, K&G appears to 

not have been registered with any state as an LLC and, upon information and belief, is an 

assumed name used by Gomez.  K&G had no bank accounts of its own and Gomez directed 

clients to deposit their funds into bank accounts controlled by Gomez and held in his name.  

Gomez controlled K&G and its decision making.  

19. Sometime in 2022, Gomez phased out the K&G name and purportedly began 

opening advisory accounts under a newly formed company named Helios.  Gomez controlled 

Helios as its sole member.  Similar to K&G, Gomez requested that new clients execute Advisory 

Agreements, which identified Helios as the investment adviser.  The Advisory Agreements listed 

Gomez as Helios’s President and CFO, and Gomez signed the agreements on behalf of Helios.  

Gomez controlled Helios and its decision making.  

20.  Gomez and Helios solicited clients (directly and indirectly via word of mouth 

from existing clients) by claiming that he was an experienced securities trader and promising to 

purchase and sell securities in separately managed client accounts that would earn double-digit 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 5 of 15



6 
 

monthly returns.  He told at least one client via telephone that he wanted to help the Hispanic 

community build generational wealth.   

21. Defendants were each engaged in the business of advising clients as to the 

advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities for compensation.  K&G and Helios 

offered clients three different investment management packages ranging from conservative to 

aggressive trading.  The promised returns and accompanying management fees that clients paid 

to K&G and Helios varied depending on the package, with higher returns corresponding to the 

more aggressive package: 

Management Packages Package Fees 
Aggressive Day Trading $350 per week 
Weekly / Monthly Swing $500 per month 

Long Term Growth $800 per quarter 

22. The Advisory Agreements provided that K&G, and later Helios, would select 

securities to trade for each client’s purported advisory account that would “protect capital, 

generate income and obtain capital growth.”  K&G and Helios had broad authority under the 

agreements to “manage and direct [. . .] on a discretionary basis” each client’s account and to 

“purchase, sell, invest, exchange, convert and trade any securities and instruments and any other 

transaction therein” for the accounts.  In the Advisory Agreements distributed throughout the 

Relevant Time Period, K&G and Helios represented to clients that K&G or Helios would 

actively trade a portfolio of select exchange-traded funds and individual stocks chosen from a 

K&G or Helios newsletter.  However, K&G and Helios never distributed a newsletter to their 

clients. 

B. Defendants falsely represented to clients that their investments were covered by 
insurance.  

23. During his solicitations, Gomez promised prospective clients that their money 

would be safe and secure.  Similarly, in the Advisory Agreements, Defendants represented that 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 6 of 15



7 
 

clients’ purported advisory accounts were covered by insurance (whether the accounts were at 

K&G or Helios).  According to the Advisory Agreements, the client accounts were: 

insured for up to 75% of Client’s Portfolio if the loss is categorized as a 1. 
Catastrophic loss  2. more than 80% loss in a single business day due to market 
wide collapses. Catastrophic loss defined as: 10% decline in DJI, SPX, or 
NASDAQ market indexes in a single business day. 
 
24. Gomez reiterated these false statements about insurance when talking to clients 

and prospective clients.  In or around June 2023, one client requested proof of the purported 

insurance, but Gomez responded that he was not legally permitted to provide such information.   

25. In fact, Defendants never created accounts for clients, nor did they secure 

insurance for such purported accounts.  When he ultimately ran out of client funds, Gomez told 

clients, including those who viewed the insurance coverage as an important part of their decision 

to become a client and to open an account, that Helios sought a bailout loan to repay the missing 

funds (see paragraphs 33-35 below).      

C. Gomez, as K&G and via Helios, provided false statements to clients showing 
substantial returns. 

 
26. Per the Advisory Agreements, K&G and Helios promised to provide weekly 

performance statements showing each client’s account performance.  The statements that 

Defendants actually provided to clients were one-line emails listing account balances that 

constantly increased.   

 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 7 of 15



8 
 

27. These account statements that K&G and Helios sent to the clients were false.  

K&G and Helios never created or funded individual client accounts.  They never purchased or 

sold securities.  Notably, the account statements failed to identify any transactions executed; they 

just listed a fictitious value, which Gomez, on behalf of K&G and Helios, artificially increased, 

which convinced clients of continued growth in their accounts.  Additionally, these fictitious 

account statements persuaded certain clients to send additional funds to Gomez to invest within 

the purported managed accounts. 

D. Defendants misappropriated client funds and used them for undisclosed purposes, 
including making Ponzi payments and paying for personal expenses.  

28. The Advisory Agreements stated that clients would deposit their funds into a 

K&G, and later a Helios, bank account and that the funds would then be routed to that client’s 

personalized and managed account.  After signing the Advisory Agreement, clients were 

typically instructed to send their money to a Gomez-controlled bank account.  Clients invested 

via cash and also transferred funds to Defendants via checks, wires, bank transfers, credit cards, 

and online payment systems such as PayPal and Zelle.  Client funds were commingled within 

these Gomez-controlled bank accounts.  

29. During the Relevant Time Period, Gomez received into accounts he controlled 

assets from clients totaling approximately $9 million.  Gomez used the majority of client funds to 

make Ponzi payments to other clients, pay personal expenses, pay non-client third parties 

(including for other business ventures), pay employees and pay commissions/bonuses for client 

referrals, or to make cash withdrawals.   

30. No client funds were transferred from the accounts Gomez controlled to any 

trading platform.  Contrary to the Advisory Agreements and Gomez’s promises to clients, 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 8 of 15



9 
 

Defendants never created individual client accounts and never used client funds to buy or sell 

securities on clients’ behalf. 

E. Gomez transferred client funds to Relief Defendants. 

31. In March and April 2022, Eric Claxton deposited a total of $100,000 with Helios.  

By June 2022, Eric Claxton received these funds back.  Thereafter, from June 2022 to March 

2023, Claxton also received from Helios and Gomez approximately $196,000 sourced from 

commingled client funds.  From June 2023 to August 2023, the Claxtons (Eric and Heather) 

jointly received from Defendants another approximately $370,000 from commingled client 

funds.   

32. In total, Gomez (individually and through Helios) sent approximately $666,000 of 

commingled client funds to Eric and/or Heather Claxton (including the $100,000 contribution 

paid back to Eric Claxton), some of which were characterized as loans.  Eric and Heather 

Claxton have: (1) not repaid any of the amounts purportedly loaned by Gomez and (2) did not 

provide any services or other value in exchange for such funds. 

F. When client funds ran out, Defendants tried to conceal the scheme by misleading 
clients regarding an alleged “bailout loan.” 

33. On September 19, 2023, Gomez, in his role as president of Helios, sent clients a 

letter claiming that Helios “was impacted by a sudden and unrecoverable liquidation.”  He failed 

to identify the reasons for the liquidation event, citing a “strict Non-Disclosure Agreement.”  

Defendants’ bank records show that what Gomez described as a liquidation event was simply 

Gomez running out of money from new clients to continue his scheme.  

34. In his letter to clients, Gomez claimed that Helios had “secured a guaranteed 

bailout loan” from a lender (“Lender”) to reimburse clients for any losses.  Gomez represented 

that (1) the Lender’s commitment to the loan was “steadfast,” (2) loan disbursements would 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 9 of 15



10 
 

commence immediately, and (3) all clients would receive their initial capital by February 1, 

2024.  Gomez signed the letter as Helios’s President. 

35. Gomez’s promises about the bailout loan and repayment of client funds were 

false.  In truth, while Gomez met with a potential lender, he never secured a loan.  Even when he 

spoke to the Lender, Gomez never provided the Lender with documentation to allow the Lender 

to conduct its required financial due diligence.  

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios) 

Violations of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and  
Rule 10b-5 thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]  

 
36. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

paragraphs above. 

37. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendants, directly or 

indirectly, in connection with the purchase or sale of securities, by use of the means or 

instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, knowingly or with severe recklessness:  

a. employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; and/or 

b. made an untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact 

necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances 

under which they were made, not misleading; and/or  

c. engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would 

operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person. 

38. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will 

continue to violate, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5]. 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 10 of 15



11 
 

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios) 

Violations of Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)] 
 

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

paragraphs above. 

40. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged herein, Defendants, directly or 

indirectly, in the offer or sale of securities, by the use of any means or instruments of 

transportation or communication in interstate commerce or by use of the mails, have: 

a. knowingly or with severe recklessness employed a device, scheme, or artifice to 

defraud; and/or 

b. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently obtained money or property 

by means of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a 

material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the 

circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or 

c. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently engaged in a transaction, 

practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or 

deceit upon the purchaser. 

41. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants have violated, and unless enjoined will 

continue to violate, Section 17(a) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)]. 

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
(Against Defendants Gomez and Helios) 

Violations of Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act 
[15 U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2)] 

 
42. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each and every allegation contained in the 

paragraphs above. 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 11 of 15



12 
 

43. By engaging in the conduct alleged above, Gomez and Helios, directly or 

indirectly, by the use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, while 

acting as investment advisers within the meaning of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act [15 

U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)], have: (a) employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud a client or 

prospective client; and/or (b) engaged in a transaction, practice, or course of business which 

operated as a fraud or deceit upon a client or prospective client. 

44. With regard to the violations of Section 206(1) of the Advisers Act, Gomez and 

Helios engaged in the conduct knowingly or with severe recklessness. With regard to the 

violations of Section 206(2), Gomez and Helios engaged in the conduct at least negligently. 

45. By reason of the foregoing, Gomez and Helios have violated, and unless enjoined 

will continue to violate, Sections 206(1) and (2) of the Advisers Act. 

FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF 
(Against Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton) 

Equitable Claim for Disgorgement With Regards to Relief Defendants 

46. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates the foregoing paragraphs by reference as if 

set forth verbatim in this Claim. 

47. Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton, directly or indirectly, received funds or 

benefited from the use of such funds, which are the proceeds, or are traceable to the proceeds, of 

Defendants’ unlawful activity alleged above.  The Claxtons obtained funds and property, directly 

or indirectly, from Gomez that were obtained by him as a result of the securities law violations 

described herein. 

48. Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton have no legitimate claim to these funds that 

they received or from which they otherwise benefited, directly or indirectly. 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 12 of 15



13 
 

49. Based upon the allegations set forth above, Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton 

have been unjustly enriched by their direct or indirect receipt of, or benefit from, funds from 

clients of K&G or Helios. 

50. The Commission is entitled to an order requiring Eric Claxton and Heather 

Claxton to disgorge all of the proceeds they received, either directly or indirectly, from Gomez, 

or from which they benefited, either directly or indirectly. 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF  
 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment:  

1. Permanently enjoining Defendants from violating Section 17(a) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 77q(a)], Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78j(b)] and Rule 10b-5 

thereunder [17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5], and Sections 206(1) and 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 

U.S.C. §§ 80b-6(1), (2)]. 

2. Permanently enjoining Gomez from: 

a. directly or indirectly, including but not limited to, through any entity 

owned or controlled by him, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, 

or sale of any security, provided, however, that such injunction shall not 

prevent Gomez from purchasing or selling securities for his own personal 

account; and 

b. directly or indirectly acting as or being associated with any broker, dealer, 

or investment adviser.  For purposes of this paragraph: a) a person is 

associated with a broker or dealer if such person is a partner, officer, 

director, or branch manager of such broker or dealer (or occupies a similar 

status or performs similar functions), directly or indirectly controls, is 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 13 of 15



14 
 

controlled by, or is under common control with such broker or dealer, or is 

an employee of such broker or dealer; and b) a person is associated with 

an investment adviser if such person is a partner, officer, or director of 

such investment adviser (or performs similar functions), or directly or 

indirectly controls or is controlled by such investment adviser, including 

any employee of such investment adviser; 

3. Ordering Defendants to disgorge, jointly and severally, all ill-gotten gains 

obtained as a result of the conduct alleged herein, together with prejudgment interest thereon, 

pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers and Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 

21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; 

4. Ordering Relief Defendants Eric Claxton and Heather Claxton to disgorge, jointly 

and severally, all ill-gotten gains obtained and benefits obtained, or to which they were otherwise 

not entitled, as a result of the conduct alleged herein, together with prejudgment interest thereon, 

pursuant to the Court’s equitable powers and Exchange Act Sections 21(d)(3), 21(d)(5), and 

21(d)(7) [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), 78u(d)(5), and 78u(d)(7)]; 

5. Ordering Gomez to pay a civil penalty pursuant to Section 20(d) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], Section 21(d)(3) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78u(d)(3)], and 

Section 209(e) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and 

6. Imposing such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

 

 

 

 

 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 14 of 15



15 
 

Dated:  July 14, 2025   Respectfully submitted, 

        
 

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND 
EXCHANGE COMMISSION 
 
 
_________________________________ 
Tyson Lies 
Texas Bar No. 24087927 
United States Securities and  
Exchange Commission 
Burnett Plaza, Suite 1900 
801 Cherry Street, Unit 18 
Fort Worth, TX  76102 
Telephone:  (817) 978-1421 
Facsimile:  (817) 978-4927 
[email protected] 
 
Attorney for Plaintiff 

Case 5:25-cv-00805     Document 1     Filed 07/14/25     Page 15 of 15

mailto:[email protected]

	insured for up to 75% of Client’s Portfolio if the loss is categorized as a 1. Catastrophic loss  2. more than 80% loss in a single business day due to market wide collapses. Catastrophic loss defined as: 10% decline in DJI, SPX, or NASDAQ market inde...
	a. employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; and/or
	b. made an untrue statement of a material fact, or omitted to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; and/or
	c. engaged in an act, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon any person.
	a. knowingly or with severe recklessness employed a device, scheme, or artifice to defraud; and/or
	b. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently obtained money or property by means of an untrue statement of a material fact or an omission to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances ...
	c. knowingly, with severe recklessness, or negligently engaged in a transaction, practice, or course of business which operated or would operate as a fraud or deceit upon the purchaser.