SEC v. DAVID P. ORTIZ; and DAVEGLO INVESTMENT GROUP, INC., Central District of California (Dec. 15, 2025) — Complaint

[OCR_UNRECOVERABLE method=recover reason=missing_pdf ts=2026-08-11T14:53:34.660Z]                                                           

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

BRIAN T. FITZSIMONS (pro hac vice pending) 
Email: [email protected] 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
100 F Street N.E. 
Washington, DC 20549-5020 
Telephone: (202) 551-5905 

LOCAL COUNSEL: 

RUTH C. PINKEL (Cal. Bar No. 164470) 
Email: [email protected] 
Securities and Exchange Commission 
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 
Los Angeles, CA 90071 
Telephone: (323) 965-3322 
Facsimile: (213) 443-1904 

Attorneys for Plaintiff 
Securities and Exchange Commission 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE 
COMMISSION, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DAVID P. ORTIZ, and 
DAVEGLO INVESTMENT GROUP, 
INC. 

Defendants.

Case No. 2:25-cv-08610

COMPLAINT 

JURY TRIAL DEMAND 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 1 of 18   Page ID #:1



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 1 -   

 

Plaintiff Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), 

for its Complaint against David P. Ortiz and DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc., 

alleges as follows: 

JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

1. The Commission brings this action pursuant to the authority 

conferred upon it by Section 20(b) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77t(b)], 

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

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-9(d)]. 

2. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 

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

21(d) and 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d) 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)]. 

3. Defendants, directly or indirectly, have made use of the means or 

instruments of transportation or communication in interstate commerce, or of a 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, or of the mails, in connection 

with the transactions, acts, practices, and courses of business alleged in this 

Complaint. Among other things, Defendants engaged in interstate emails and 

telephone calls with clients and Resolute personnel. 

4. Venue lies in this District pursuant to Section 22(a) of the Securities 

Act [15 U.S.C. §77v (a)], Section 27 of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. §78aa (a)], 

and Section 214 of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. §80b-14] because Defendants 

transacted business here, including certain of the acts complained of in this 

Complaint, and because Defendants reside and maintain a principal place of 

business in Whittier, California. 

5. Defendant Ortiz and the Commission executed tolling agreements 

that tolled the running of any applicable statute of limitation from October 8, 2024 

to July 5, 2025. Defendant DaveGlo and the Commission executed tolling 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 2 of 18   Page ID #:2



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 2 -   

 

agreements that tolled the running of any applicable statute of limitation from 

December 12, 2024 to September 8, 2025. The Defendants’ securities law 

violations during the Relevant Period are within the five-year statute of limitations 

for certain relief as set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2462. 

SUMMARY 

6. From at least 2020 through 2021 (the “Relevant Period”), Ortiz, a 

California resident working through his entities DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc. 

(“DaveGlo”) and David Ortiz Advisors, Inc. (“Ortiz Advisors”), marketed and 

sold approximately $18 million of investments in risky, oil and gas securities (the 

“Oil and Gas Securities”) to approximately 20 retail investors. The Oil and Gas 

Securities were sold in a series of unregistered securities offerings sponsored by 

Resolute Capital Partners, LLC (“Resolute”) and Homebound Resources, LLC 

(“Homebound”). Through an intermediary company, Beacon Global Group, Inc. 

(“Beacon Global”), Resolute paid Ortiz transaction-based compensation through 

Ortiz’s company, DaveGlo.  

7. Ortiz used mass marketing to find investors to purchase the Oil and 

Gas Securities. Ortiz placed commercials on Los Angeles area radio stations to 

advertise his investment services and promote investment workshops that he 

hosted. He hosted the workshops in the offices of Ortiz Advisors located in 

Whittier, California. At these workshops, Ortiz discussed investment strategies 

and investments with prospective investors, including the Oil and Gas Securities. 

Ortiz used these and other means to reach a large audience of prospective 

investors for the Oil and Gas Securities.  

8. Many of the individuals to whom Ortiz sold the Oil and Gas 

Securities lost their money. The sponsoring entities failed to make interest 

payments and return principal to debt investors when notes came due and made 

only de minimis distributions to equity investors.  

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 3 of 18   Page ID #:3



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 3 -   

 

9. Through DaveGlo, Ortiz received $816,934 in transaction-based 

compensation from Resolute for sales of Oil and Gas Securities during the 

Relevant Period. 

10. Defendants have never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. 

11. During the Relevant Period, Ortiz acted as an investment adviser 

through his entity Ortiz Advisors.  He advised clients to invest in the Oil and Gas 

Securities. Through Ortiz Advisors, Ortiz received fees from clients in exchange 

for providing investment advice. Ortiz did not disclose to his advisory clients the 

additional transaction-based compensation he received for selling the Oil and Gas 

securities, which breached his fiduciary duty to his advisory clients.  

12. Defendants violated the federal securities laws by: (i) actively 

participating in the offer and sale of the Oil and Gas Securities in securities 

offerings that were not registered with the Commission or exempt from 

registration; (ii) acting as brokers in the offer and sale of the Oil and Gas 

Securities while failing to register with the Commission as, or associate with, a 

registered broker-dealer; and, with respect to Defendant Ortiz, (iii) failing to 

disclose to advisory clients his financial conflict of interest in connection with the 

sale of the Oil and Gas securities.  

13. Defendants participated in unregistered offerings at key points in the 

chain of distribution of the Oil and Gas Securities, including by actively soliciting 

purchases from investors in this District and elsewhere in the United States. The 

Oil and Gas Securities offerings were not registered with the Commission or 

exempt from registration. 

14. Defendants acted as unregistered brokers and engaged in the 

business of effecting transactions in securities for others. Defendants actively 

solicited clients to purchase the Oil and Gas Securities and received transaction-

based compensation in return. 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 4 of 18   Page ID #:4



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 4 -   

 

15. Defendant Ortiz also failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest 

while acting as an investment adviser. Ortiz recommended the Oil and Gas 

Securities to advisory clients, while failing to disclose to those clients the financial 

compensation Defendants received from the sale of the securities.  

VIOLATIONS AND RELIEF SOUGHT 

16. As a result of conduct alleged in this Complaint, Defendants 

violated Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Securities Act”) [15 

U.S.C. §§ 77e(a) and (c)], and Section 15(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 

1934 (“Exchange Act”) [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]; and Defendant Ortiz violated 

Section 206(2) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (“Advisers Act”) [15 

U.S.C. § 80b-6(2)].  

17. The Commission seeks a judgment from this Court: 

(a) permanently enjoining Defendants from future violations of 

Section 5 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. §§ 77e] and Section 

15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(a)]; 

(b) permanently restraining and enjoining Ortiz from violating, 

while acting as an investment adviser, Section 206(2) of the 

Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(2)] by using the mails or any 

means or instrumentality of interstate commerce, directly or 

indirectly, to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of 

business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or 

prospective client by, directly or indirectly, (i) creating a false 

appearance or otherwise deceiving any client or prospective 

client, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading documents, 

materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, 

any false or misleading statement in any communication with 

any client or prospective client, about the use of client funds or 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 5 of 18   Page ID #:5



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 5 -   

 

compensation to any person, including any associated conflicts 

of interest; 

(c) permanently restraining and enjoining Ortiz from directly or 

indirectly, including but not limited to through any entity he 

owns or controls, participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, 

or sale of any security; provided, however, that such injunction 

shall not prevent Defendant Ortiz from purchasing or selling 

securities for his own personal account; 

(d) ordering Defendants to disgorge, on a joint and several basis, 

their ill-gotten gains, together with prejudgment interest 

thereon pursuant to Section 21(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(7) of the 

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

(e) ordering Defendant Ortiz to pay civil money penalties pursuant 

to Section 20(d) of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77t(d)], 

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

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

DEFENDANTS 

18. David Patrick Ortiz, age 63, resides in Whittier, California. Ortiz 

previously held Series 6, 63 and 65 licenses prior to the Relevant Period. Ortiz has 

never been registered with the Commission as a securities broker or associated 

with a registered broker.  On August 9, 2021, in a settled civil action entitled 

Securities and Exchange Commission v. David Ortiz, No. 21-cv-60590 (S.D. Fla.), 

in which the Commission alleged misconduct similar to that alleged here—acting 

as an unregistered broker and selling securities in unregistered offerings—but 

involving different securities, the U.S. District for the Southern District of Florida 

entered a consent final judgment against Ortiz. Without admitting or denying the 

allegations, Ortiz consented to the final judgment that, among other relief, 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 6 of 18   Page ID #:6



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 6 -   

 

permanently enjoined him from future violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 

Securities Act and Section 15(a)(1) of the Exchange Act.   

19. DaveGlo Investment Group, Inc. is a California company located 

in Whittier, California. Ortiz owns the company with his wife but is the sole 

operator. DaveGlo has never been registered with the Commission in any 

capacity. DaveGlo was a pass-through entity that Ortiz used to receive 

transaction-based compensation for selling the oil and gas securities. 

OTHER RELEVANT PERSONS AND ENTITIES 

20. David Ortiz Advisors, Inc. is a California company located in 

Whittier, California. Ortiz is the sole owner and operator. The company was 

registered in California as an investment adviser until October 2021. The company 

is defunct. 

21. Beacon Global Group, Inc. is a Georgia company located in 

Marietta, Georgia. Beacon Global purports to offer consultancy services to 

businesses. 

22. Resolute Capital Partners LTD, LLC is a Nevada company with 

offices in Texas, California and Minnesota. Resolute created numerous oil and gas 

debt and equity investment vehicles using oil and gas wells identified by 

Homebound and its affiliates.  

23. Homebound Resources, LLC is a Texas company located in 

Irving, Texas. Homebound acted as a project sponsor for Resolute’s offerings and 

was responsible for identifying and purchasing the oil and gas wells in which the 

Resolute investment vehicles owned working interests.  

24. Thomas Joseph Powell (“Powell”), age 53, is a resident of Reno, 

Nevada. Powell was the owner of Resolute and other related entities and served as 

the Senior Managing Partner of Resolute during the Relevant Period.  

25. Stefan Tiberiu Toth (“Toth”), age 48, is a resident of Frisco, 

Texas. Toth is the founder, co-owner, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 7 of 18   Page ID #:7



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 7 -   

 

Homebound Financial Group, LP, and also operated and controlled its 

subsidiaries, including Homebound, during the Relevant Period.  

26. A 2021 Commission Order found that Homebound, Resolute, 

Powell, and Toth violated registration and anti-fraud provisions of the federal 

securities laws. See In the Matter of Resolute Capital Partners, Ltd, LLC, et al., 

AP File No. 3-20597 (Sept. 24, 2021) (the “Commission Order”). In particular, 

the Commission Order found that Homebound, Resolute, Powell, and Toth sold 

the Oil and Gas Securities in unregistered offerings that were not exempt from 

registration. It also found that their offering disclosures were inadequate and that 

they made materially misleading statements in marketing the Oil and Gas 

Securities. The misleading statements included insufficiently supported oil 

production projections, assertions about potential tax benefits that were 

unavailable to certain investors, and incomplete disclosures about potential uses of 

investor funds, including the amount of funds that would be used for payments to 

prior debt and equity investors. 

27. Each of Homebound, Resolute, Powell, and Toth reached a 

settlement with the Commission, neither admitting nor denying the Commission’s 

findings. The Commission Order found that Homebound, Resolute, Powell, and 

Toth violated Sections 5(a) and (c) and 17(a)(2) and (3) of the Securities Act, and 

found that Powell and Toth additionally violated Section 15(a) of the 

Exchange Act. 

FACTS 

I. The Unregistered Offerings of the Oil and Gas Securities 

28. The Oil and Gas Securities offered and sold by Resolute and 

Homebound included both equity securities and debt securities. The securities 

were offered and sold throughout the Relevant Period. 

29. The equity securities were membership interests in pooled 

investment vehicles that purchased a percentage interest in a set of oil and gas 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 8 of 18   Page ID #:8



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 8 -   

 

wells identified and purchased by Homebound, including, for example, an 

offering titled Advantage Capital Holdings I. The offering materials for these 

equity securities stated that investors could expect monetary distributions from 

revenue earned by the wells’ oil or gas production and revenue from any 

subsequent sale of the wells. 

30. The debt securities were promissory notes issued by subsidiaries of 

Homebound, including for example, offerings titled Choice Energy Holdings III 

and PRMH Lenders Fund IV. The offering materials for these debt securities 

stated that the proceeds would be used by a subsidiary of Homebound to acquire 

oil and gas leases, among other things. The offering materials promised fixed 

interest payments ranging between 8% to 12% and the return of capital upon 

expiration of the notes. 

31. The Oil and Gas Securities were “securities” within the meaning of 

Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act and Section 3(a)(10) of the Exchange Act. 

The equity securities involved investors paying money to purchase membership 

interests, a common enterprise, and a reasonable expectation of profits based on 

the efforts of third parties who identified, acquired and drilled the wells. The 

promissory notes were “notes” as included in the definition of “security” set forth 

in Section 2(a)(1) of the Securities Act. 

32. The offerings of Oil and Gas Securities were required to be 

registered with the Commission under Sections 5(a) and (c) of the Securities Act 

or otherwise qualify for an exemption from registration. During the Relevant 

Period, no registration statement was filed or in effect for any offering of Oil and 

Gas Securities, and no exemption from registration applied to these securities 

offerings. 

 

 

 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 9 of 18   Page ID #:9



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 9 -   

 

II. Ortiz Contracted with Beacon Global to be a “Referral Agent” for 

Resolute 

33. On October 12, 2018, Beacon Global entered into a “Master 

Services Agreement” with Resolute. The agreement obligated Beacon Global to 

provide “support and compliance services” to Resolute. This included Beacon 

Global contracting with “Referral Agents” who would “refer” investors to 

Resolute for potential investment in the Oil and Gas Securities. Beacon Global 

was also required to provide “payment services” to Resolute by receiving a 

monthly ACH transfer from Resolute and using the funds to compensate the 

“Referral Agents.” The agreement stated that Beacon Global was to receive 

compensation, on a monthly basis, of the greater of (a) $20,000 or (b) 0.4% of 

monies brought in by the “Referral Agents.” The agreement also provided for 

reimbursement of Beacon Global’s expenses.  

34. On October 23, 2018, Ortiz entered into an agreement with Beacon 

Global to act as a “Referral Agent” (or “Referral Contractor,” as the agreement 

states) for Resolute. The “Referral Contractor Agreement” provided that Beacon 

Global would compensate Ortiz for “referring” investors to Resolute for 

investment in the Oil and Gas Securities. It specified that Ortiz would be paid both 

a monthly fee and additional transaction-based compensation for his efforts. On 

July 21, 2020, Ortiz, through his entity DaveGlo, entered into a new “Referral 

Contractor Agreement,” which updated the terms of Ortiz’s compensation, but 

similarly provided that Beacon Global would compensate Ortiz for his “referral” 

of investors to Resolute.  Beacon Global ultimately paid all compensation to Ortiz 

through DaveGlo. 

35. The agreements prohibited Defendants, as “Referral Contractors,” 

from engaging in certain activities. Among other things, Defendants were not 

permitted to: 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 10 of 18   Page ID #:10



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 10 -   

 

a. “Provide to prospective investors or lenders (‘Prospects’) any 

offering documents related to investment opportunities”; 

b. “Sell any securities or engage in any sales efforts”; 

c. “‘Pre-sell’ securities offered by [Resolute] in order to gauge a 

Prospect’s interest in an investment”; 

d. “Solicit any Prospect for investment”; 

e. “Make any recommendation with respect to a potential 

investment”; 

f. “Give any advice or express any opinion with respect to a potential 

investment, or its advantages or disadvantages”; 

g. “Conduct any suitability analysis, conduct any due diligence, 

provide any valuation services, or provide any analysis of a 

potential investment”;  

h. “Do any advertising or mass marketing”;  

i. “Modify existing or create new educational materials”; and 

j. “Compensate another person, entity, or other third party based on a 

referral’s investment into any product.” 

As described below, Defendants engaged in sales activities despite the foregoing 

prohibitions in the agreements. 

III. Defendants’ Sales Activity Relating to the Oil and Gas Securities 

36. Although the “Referral Contractor Agreements” purported to limit 

his services to finding and referring potential investors to Resolute, Defendants in 

fact participated in the offer and sale of the Oil and Gas Securities to investors.  

37. Defendants used mass marketing techniques to find investors to 

purchase the Oil and Gas Securities. Defendants used Los Angeles area radio 

commercials to advertise Ortiz’s investment services and promote investment 

workshops that he hosted. Ortiz hosted the workshops in the Ortiz Advisors 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 11 of 18   Page ID #:11



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 11 -   

 

offices located in Whittier, California. At these workshops, Ortiz discussed with 

prospective investors investment strategies and investments, including the Oil and 

Gas Securities. Ortiz used these and other means to reach a large audience of 

prospective investors for the Oil and Gas Securities.  

38. Ortiz discussed and described the Oil and Gas Securities at his 

workshops, which were typically attended by 6 to 12 prospective investors. At the 

workshops, Ortiz described the benefits of the Oil and Gas Securities, including 

the promissory notes. Ortiz described the promissory notes as low risk because 

they were secured by issuer assets, provided returns starting at 8%, and had third-

party due diligence reports.  

39. Ortiz described the Oil and Gas Securities in detail to prospective 

investors. He provided prospective investors with Resolute marketing and offering 

documents for the securities, which he reviewed and discussed with them. Ortiz 

described to prospective investors the purported success of previous investors in 

the Oil and Gas Securities. Ortiz recommended that the prospective investors 

purchase the Oil and Gas Securities.  

40. Ortiz had investors complete suitability questionnaires.  

41. As to certain investors, through his entity Ortiz Advisors, Ortiz also 

was an investment adviser and received fees from these clients for providing 

investment advice and managing the clients’ investments. Ortiz advised clients to 

invest in the Oil and Gas Securities without disclosing to these clients the 

financial compensation he received from Resolute/Beacon, which was a breach of 

fiduciary duty to his advisory clients.  Following his recommendation, certain of 

Ortiz’s clients purchased the Oil and Gas Securities.    

42. Through Defendants, investors made investments in multiple of the 

Oil and Gas Securities offerings, including offerings titled Advantage Capital 

Holdings I, Choice Energy Holdings III, and PRMH Lenders Fund IV. 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 12 of 18   Page ID #:12



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 12 -   

 

43. For example, after hearing radio advertisements for David Ortiz 

Advisors, Investor A paid a fee for Ortiz’s advisory services. Based on Ortiz’s 

recommendation, Investor A invested $780,000 in PRMH Lenders Fund IV in 

January 2020. He quickly lost nearly all of his money.  Investor A received only a 

few months of interest payments from Resolute before payments stopped, and he 

never received a return of the principal. 

44. After hearing radio advertisements for David Ortiz Advisors, 

Investor B paid a fee for Defendants’ advisory services. Based on Ortiz’s 

recommendation, Investor B invested $676,000 in PRMH Lenders Fund IV and 

Choice Energy Holdings III in or around April 2020.  Investor B received 

approximately $156,000 in interest payments and a partial return of the principal 

before payments stopped.   

45. Defendants’ contribution to the distribution of the Oil and Gas 

Securities was not de minimis. To the contrary, they generated approximately $18 

million of sales for Resolute during the Relevant Period.  

IV. Defendants’ Compensation 

46. During the Relevant Period, Defendants sold approximately $18 

million of the Oil and Gas Securities to retail investors, and received from 

Resolute, through Beacon Global, $816,934 in transaction-based compensation. 

This compensation was purportedly calculated based on the two “Referral 

Contractor Agreements” between Ortiz and Beacon Global. 

47. The first agreement, the October 2018 “Referral Contractor 

Agreement,” provided that Ortiz would receive a monthly contractor fee of 

$16,734.59, as well as a referral fee of $2,430 for every investor Ortiz placed with 

Resolute. The agreement also provided that Ortiz’s compensation could increase 

pursuant to bi-weekly “quality assessments” of Ortiz’s “referrals” and certain 

“referral fee multipliers.” The “quality assessments” allowed Beacon Global and 

Resolute to adjust Ortiz’s compensation based on how much investment money he 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 13 of 18   Page ID #:13



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 13 -   

 

was bringing into Resolute. The “referral fee multipliers” provided for additional 

compensation to Ortiz for longer term debt securities that he sold. For example, 

Ortiz was compensated more for selling a two-year note than a one-year note. 

Ortiz was compensated through his entity DaveGlo.  

48. The second agreement, the July 2020 “Referral Contractor 

Agreement” between Beacon Global and DaveGlo, provided for tier-based 

“referral” fees, with “Directors Club” being the highest tier. The agreement also 

had “quality assessment” provisions and provided that “[a]dditional Marketing 

Fees may be provided at the sole discretion of the parties.” Under both 

agreements, Resolute, through Beacon Global, paid to Ortiz and DaveGlo 

transaction-based compensation based on the dollar amount of investments and 

type of securities Ortiz sold. The tier designations provided for higher 

compensation to Defendants based on the aggregate amount of money Ortiz’s 

clients invested in the Oil and Gas Securities.  

49. Ortiz was paid for performance and monies invested—transaction-

based compensation—through the use of salesperson “tiers,” “referral fee 

multipliers” and “quality assessments.” Ortiz, through his entity DaveGlo, 

received $560,684 in transaction-based compensation in 2020, and $256,250 in 

2021.  

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

Count I 

(Violations of Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the Securities Act (Both Defendants)) 

50. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations in paragraphs 1 through 49 inclusive, as if they were fully set forth 

herein. 

51. As detailed above, Defendants, by engaging in the securities 

offerings alleged in this Complaint, directly or indirectly: 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 14 of 18   Page ID #:14



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 14 -   

 

(a) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communications in interstate commerce or of the mails to sell 

securities through the use or medium of any prospectus or 

otherwise, without a registration statement in effect as to such 

securities;  

(b) carried or caused to be carried through the mails or in interstate 

commerce, by any means or instruments of transportation, 

securities for the purpose of sale or for delivery after sale, 

without a registration statement in effect as to such securities; 

and  

(c) made use of the means or instruments of transportation or 

communication in interstate commerce or of the mails to offer to 

sell through the use or medium of a prospectus or otherwise 

securities as to which no registration statement had been filed. 

52. There were no applicable exemptions from registration for the 

offerings Defendants engaged in as described herein.  

53. By reason of the foregoing, Defendants violated, and, unless 

enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, Sections 5(a) and 5(c) of the 

Securities Act, 15 U.S.C. § 77e(a) and 77e(c). 

Count II 

(Violations of Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act (Both Defendants)) 

54. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations in paragraphs 1 through 49 inclusive, as if they were fully set forth 

herein. 

55. As detailed above, Defendants, directly or indirectly, by the use of 

the mails or the means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, while acting as 

a broker or dealer, effected transactions in the purchase or sale of securities, while 

Defendants were not registered with the Commission as a broker or dealer and 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 15 of 18   Page ID #:15



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 15 -   

 

while Defendants were not associated with an entity registered with the 

Commission as a broker or dealer in accordance with Section 15(b) of the 

Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78o(b)]. 

56. By engaging in the conduct described above, Defendants violated, 

and unless restrained and enjoined, are reasonably likely to continue to violate, 

Section 15(a) of the Exchange Act, 15 U.S.C. § 78o(a). 

Count III 

(Violations of Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act (Defendant Ortiz)) 

57. The Commission re-alleges and incorporates by reference the 

allegations in paragraphs 1 through 49 inclusive, as if they were fully set forth 

herein. 

58. By engaging in the acts and conduct alleged in this Complaint, 

Defendant Ortiz acted as an investment adviser to his clients within the meaning 

of Section 202(a)(11) of the Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11), because, for 

compensation, he engaged in the business of advising others, either directly or 

through publications or writings, as to the value of securities or as to the 

advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities. 

59. As detailed above, Defendant Ortiz, directly or indirectly, by use of 

the mails or means or instrumentalities of interstate commerce, while acting as an 

investment adviser, engaged in transactions, practices, or courses of business 

which operated as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client, with at 

least negligence. 

60. As an investment adviser, Defendant Ortiz owed his client a 

fiduciary duty of utmost good faith, undivided loyalty, and care to make full 

disclosure to them of all material facts, as well as the duty to act in their best 

interests, and not to act in his own interests to the detriment of his clients. 

61. Defendant Ortiz breached his fiduciary duty to his clients and 

engaged in fraudulent conduct by not disclosing conflicts of interest to his clients.  

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 16 of 18   Page ID #:16



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 16 -   

 

62. By reason of the foregoing, Defendant Ortiz violated, and unless 

enjoined, is reasonably likely to continue to violate, Section 206(2) of the 

Advisers Act, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(2). 

PRAYER FOR RELIEF 

WHEREFORE, the Commission respectfully requests that the Court enter 

a judgment: 

A. Permanently restraining and enjoining Defendants from, directly or 

indirectly, violating Section 5 of the Securities Act [15 U.S.C. § 77e]; and Section 

15(a) of the Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 78(o)];  

B. Permanently restraining and enjoining Ortiz from violating, while 

acting as an investment adviser, Section 206(2) of the Advisers Act [15 U.S.C. 

§ 80b-6(2)] by using the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate 

commerce, directly or indirectly, to engage in any transaction, practice, or course 

of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective 

client by, directly or indirectly, (i) creating a false appearance or otherwise 

deceiving any client or prospective client, or (ii) disseminating false or misleading 

documents, materials, or information or making, either orally or in writing, any 

false or misleading statement in any communication with any client or prospective 

client, about the use of client funds or compensation to any person, including any 

associated conflicts of interest; 

C. Permanently restraining and enjoining Ortiz from, directly or 

indirectly, including but not limited to through any entity he owns or controls: 

participating in the issuance, purchase, offer, or sale of any security; 

provided, however, that such injunction shall not prevent Ortiz from 

purchasing or selling securities for his own personal account; 

D. Ordering Defendants to disgorge, on a joint and several basis, all 

funds received from their illegal conduct, together with prejudgment interest 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 17 of 18   Page ID #:17



1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 

 

 - 17 -   

 

thereon, pursuant to Sections 21(d)(3), (d)(5), (d)(7) of the Exchange Act [15 

U.S.C. §§ 78u(d)(3), (5), and (7)]; 

E. Ordering Defendant Ortiz to pay civil money penalties pursuant to 

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

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

U.S.C. § 80b-9(e)]; and 

F. Granting such other and further relief as this Court may deem just, 

equitable, or necessary in connection with the enforcement of the federal 

securities laws and for the protection of investors. 

 
Date: September 11, 2025     

 
Respectfully submitted, 

            /s/ Ruth C. Pinkel 
Local Counsel 

   Securities and Exchange Commission 
444 S. Flower Street, Suite 900 
Los Angeles, CA 90071 
Telephone: (323) 965-3322 
Email: [email protected] 
 
Brian T. Fitzsimons (pro hac vice pending) 

 Securities and Exchange Commission 
 100 F Street NE 
 Washington, D.C. 20549 

Telephone: (202) 551-5905 
 Email: [email protected] 
 
 Attorneys for Plaintiff 
 
Of Counsel 
Brian O. Quinn 
David T. Frisof 

Case 2:25-cv-08610     Document 1     Filed 09/11/25     Page 18 of 18   Page ID #:18