(citing Clayton Brokerage Co. of St. Louis v. Mouer, 520 S.W.2d 802, 809 (Tex.Civ.App.-Austin, writ ref'd n.r.e.), dism’d as moot on rehearing per curiam, 531 S.W.2d 805 (Tex.1975)). It is no defense to appellant that investors’ funds were used to purchase and exchange commodities. An investor in a commodities account who establishes that he or she relied solely on the investment advice of a promoter satisfies the “solely from the efforts of others” requirement. See Long v. Shultz Cattle Co., 881 F.2d 129, 138 n. 8 (5th Cir.1989); Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Continental Commodities Corp., 497 F.2d 516, 522 (5th Cir.1974). In addition, courts have held that schemes similar to appellant’s constituted a sale of “investment contracts” and thus securities. See Koscot, 497 F.2d at 485 (<HOLDING>); see also Securities & Exchange Comm’n v.
holding an employee must be able to perform essential job functions at the time of termination holding schemes in which promoters retain essential managerial control over essential managerial functions of enterprise and where investors realization of profits is inextricably tied to success of a promotional pyramid scheme constituted security holding that proof of relevant market is essential under  2 holding that scienter is an essential element of a claim alleged under  121 of the illinois security law holding that misrepresentation was essential to plaintiffs claim