Has Anyone Read the Public Docs on Thomas San Miguel and This $21M SGR Energy Case?

[Harry Collins]

Hey all, I found an article about Thomas San Miguel and a company called SGR Energy that claims he built the business on fabricated financials and broken promises, but I want to stick to what’s actually in public records rather than just commentary. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in July 2024 in the Southern District of Texas, San Miguel raised around $21.3 million from over 300 investors through an unregistered offering of preferred stock in SGR Energy and made a series of claims about annual dividends, revenue, profits, and a $19 million accounts receivable. The SEC’s complaint alleges those claims were false and misleading, and the case is filed under Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

There’s also a final judgment entered in late 2025 where San Miguel consented to permanent injunctions, a bar from serving as an officer or director of public companies, and a civil penalty of $700,000, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.

I haven’t personally read the full complaint yet - I’m pulling it up - but I’m curious if anyone here has dug into the actual SEC filings or court docket and can help separate what’s verified in the official records vs. what’s expanded on in blogs? What do the complaint and judgment actually show about San Miguel’s conduct and the relief ordered?

 

[Tom Harris]

Hey all, I found an article about Thomas San Miguel and a company called SGR Energy that claims he built the business on fabricated financials and broken promises, but I want to stick to what’s actually in public records rather than just commentary. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in July 2024 in the Southern District of Texas, San Miguel raised around $21.3 million from over 300 investors through an unregistered offering of preferred stock in SGR Energy and made a series of claims about annual dividends, revenue, profits, and a $19 million accounts receivable. The SEC’s complaint alleges those claims were false and misleading, and the case is filed under Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

There’s also a final judgment entered in late 2025 where San Miguel consented to permanent injunctions, a bar from serving as an officer or director of public companies, and a civil penalty of $700,000, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.

I haven’t personally read the full complaint yet - I’m pulling it up - but I’m curious if anyone here has dug into the actual SEC filings or court docket and can help separate what’s verified in the official records vs. what’s expanded on in blogs? What do the complaint and judgment actually show about San Miguel’s conduct and the relief ordered?

I’ve read parts of the SEC complaint and the litigation release. The complaint does lay out specific allegations that San Miguel misrepresented key financial figures and growth prospects in connection with SGR Energy’s offering of preferred stock, and that the offering was not registered. Those are the SEC’s allegations in a civil enforcement action — not criminal convictions — and they’re the basis for the SEC seeking injunctions, penalties, and an officer/director bar. The judgment entry you referenced where San Miguel consented to injunctions and a penalty without admitting or denying the allegations is a standard way these cases are resolved. If you want to focus on public records, the SEC’s complaint and the court’s final judgment are the best primary sources. You can find the complaint PDF and docket entries on PACER or through links in the SEC’s litigation release.

 

[Harry Collins]

I’ve read parts of the SEC complaint and the litigation release. The complaint does lay out specific allegations that San Miguel misrepresented key financial figures and growth prospects in connection with SGR Energy’s offering of preferred stock, and that the offering was not registered. Those are the SEC’s allegations in a civil enforcement action — not criminal convictions — and they’re the basis for the SEC seeking injunctions, penalties, and an officer/director bar. The judgment entry you referenced where San Miguel consented to injunctions and a penalty without admitting or denying the allegations is a standard way these cases are resolved. If you want to focus on public records, the SEC’s complaint and the court’s final judgment are the best primary sources. You can find the complaint PDF and docket entries on PACER or through links in the SEC’s litigation release.

Thanks, that helps me better frame what to look for. I’ll download the complaint and compare it to the judgment so I can read the specific language myself. If anyone has direct links to the docket or knows the case number (I think it’s 4:24-cv-02805), that’d be great to share, since I want to rely on official documents rather than summaries.

 

[Amelia Bennett]

Hey all, I found an article about Thomas San Miguel and a company called SGR Energy that claims he built the business on fabricated financials and broken promises, but I want to stick to what’s actually in public records rather than just commentary. According to the SEC’s complaint filed in July 2024 in the Southern District of Texas, San Miguel raised around $21.3 million from over 300 investors through an unregistered offering of preferred stock in SGR Energy and made a series of claims about annual dividends, revenue, profits, and a $19 million accounts receivable. The SEC’s complaint alleges those claims were false and misleading, and the case is filed under Sections 5(a), 5(c) and 17(a) of the Securities Act and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act.

There’s also a final judgment entered in late 2025 where San Miguel consented to permanent injunctions, a bar from serving as an officer or director of public companies, and a civil penalty of $700,000, without admitting or denying the SEC’s allegations.

I haven’t personally read the full complaint yet - I’m pulling it up - but I’m curious if anyone here has dug into the actual SEC filings or court docket and can help separate what’s verified in the official records vs. what’s expanded on in blogs? What do the complaint and judgment actually show about San Miguel’s conduct and the relief ordered?

I’ve looked into the SEC filings tied to that energy company, and the clearest picture comes straight from the official documents. The 2024 complaint lays out the specific allegations about unregistered offerings and the financial statements the SEC says were misleading. It’s a civil case, so the agency is pursuing injunctions and penalties based on alleged violations, not criminal charges.

The judgment from 2025 is a consent resolution. The defendant agreed to the permanent injunctions, officer/director bar, and a civil penalty without admitting or denying the allegations. That “without admitting or denying” language is common in these kinds of settlements, so it’s not an admission of fraud; it’s more like closing the case under agreed conditions.

If you want to get a grounded understanding, the best route is reading the complaint and judgment directly rather than relying on summaries. The SEC’s litigation releases link to the PDFs, and checking the docket entries will show the timeline of filings. That’s where you’ll see what’s formally on record versus what’s interpretation or commentary from bloggers.