Case Histories
Representative matters handled by Mark A. Alexander, P.C.
“A case history is not a trophy. It is proof of a method — and the method is what every new client actually hires.”
— Mark Alexander
The Firm has been privileged to represent clients in significant oil and gas fraud and complex commercial matters in Texas state courts and in federal bankruptcy proceedings — on the investor side, where the Firm’s practice is centered, and in select defense engagements for industry executives. The matters below are representative. They are described from the public record, and each illustrates something specific about how the Firm builds a case.
How to Read These Results
Two honest caveats belong at the top of any results page. First, past results do not guarantee future outcomes; every case turns on its own facts, and no lawyer can promise a result. Second, this page understates more than it overstates: most cases resolve by settlement before trial, and settlements are routinely confidential — which means many of the Firm’s recoveries can never be described here at all. What can be shown are the matters that reached a public ruling, and the pattern that runs through them.
That pattern is preparation. Where the record allows, the Firm positions its cases to be decided by the court on summary judgment — a ruling that the documented evidence is so clear no trial is required. The Firm has won an oil and gas matter exactly that way, and the same preparation that wins summary judgment is what drives favorable settlements in the cases the public never sees.
One more note on how this page is written. Texas’ attorney advertising rules require that statements about results be truthful and capable of substantiation, and that they avoid creating unjustified expectations. The Firm takes those rules seriously — which is why the matters here are described from the public record, why the caveats above appear at the top rather than in fine print, and why you will not find inflated percentages or promises anywhere on this site. A firm that is careful with the rules governing its own advertising shows you how it will handle the rules governing your case.
Representative Matters
Steve McMaster, et al. v. Rock Wall Oil Company, et al. — $1.3 Million Summary Judgment for Ten Investors
In the District Court, 160th Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. DC-07-00232-H. Successfully represented ten plaintiffs in complex securities and oil and gas fraud litigation involving over $1,250,000 — won on a motion for summary judgment, a $1.3 million judgment for the Firm’s clients.
124-Plaintiff Nationwide Oil and Gas Securities Fraud — Tarrant County
In the District Court, 96th Judicial District, Tarrant County, Texas, Cause No. 096-248-298-10. Successfully represented one hundred twenty-four plaintiffs in a massive, nationwide oil and gas securities fraud case.
$22 Million Oil and Gas Securities Fraud Jury Trial — Successful Defense as Lead Trial Counsel
In the District Court, 192nd Judicial District, Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. 06-08046. Successfully represented the president of a large oil and gas corporation in a $22,000,000 securities fraud jury trial — all four defense attorneys asked Mr. Alexander to serve as lead defense counsel.
$18.6 Million Investor Suit in Federal Bankruptcy Court — Defense Verdict on All Four Counts
In the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Adversary Proceeding No. 11-03055bjh. Sixteen plaintiffs alleged the Firm’s client squandered more than $18.6 million; the court ruled in the client’s favor on all four counts.
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets — Substantial Judgment for Plaintiffs
In the 68th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas, Cause No. DC-12548. The trial court awarded a substantial judgment for the Firm’s clients on a claim of misappropriation of trade secrets.
Anatomy of a Summary Judgment Win
Because summary judgment appears in the Firm’s results, it is worth explaining what actually goes into one. The work begins with the offering: every representation in the promotional materials is catalogued — the reserves claimed, the costs projected, the track record described, the use of funds promised. Each representation is then tested against evidence the promoter does not control: Railroad Commission well files, Secretary of State records, securities filings, and the bank records produced in discovery that show where investor money actually went.
The gap between what was said and what the records prove is the case. When that gap is documented representation by representation — with the paper to support every element of the claim — the Firm can present the court with a motion that leaves nothing material in genuine dispute. That is what summary judgment requires, and it is why these wins are earned months earlier, in the records room, not at the hearing. For the client, the payoff is concrete: a judgment without the expense, delay, and unpredictability of trial.
Why the Defense Matters Belong Here
Two of the matters above are defense engagements, and investors sometimes ask why a firm centered on representing defrauded investors takes them. The answer is that select defense work makes the investor-side practice sharper. A lawyer who has built the defense of a $22 million securities fraud jury trial knows, from the inside, how defendants attack an investor’s case — which claims they fear, which records they fight to keep out, and where a plaintiff’s case usually cracks. The Firm builds investor cases to survive exactly those attacks, because it has delivered them.
Questions Investors Ask About Results
Because most successful cases never produce a public result. The majority of matters resolve by settlement, and settlement agreements routinely require confidentiality — the defendant pays, in part, for silence. A results page can only show matters that reached a public ruling, which is why it reflects a fraction of the Firm’s work.
No, and be wary of any lawyer who suggests otherwise. Every case turns on its own facts: what was misrepresented, what can be proved, and — critically — what assets exist to satisfy a judgment. A candid valuation of your specific claim is part of the initial review, and it is grounded in your documents, not in someone else’s outcome.
It is the court deciding the case on the documented record because the evidence is so clear that no trial is needed. For a defrauded investor, it is usually the best available path: faster than trial, less expensive, and decided on the paperwork — which is where fraud cases are strongest when prepared properly. The Anatomy of a Summary Judgment Win section above walks through how the Firm builds one.
Not necessarily. Settlements are frequently confidential, and confidentiality can be negotiated either way depending on your priorities. That choice is discussed openly as part of case strategy.
What These Outcomes Have in Common
Strip away the captions and the dollar figures, and the same three habits appear in every matter above. The record was built early — offering documents, regulatory filings, well records, and money trails assembled before the other side had organized its story. The forum was mastered — whether a Dallas County district court, a jury trial, or a federal bankruptcy proceeding, the case was prepared for the specific rules of the room it would be decided in. And the goal stayed practical — not a moral victory, but a ruling or a resolution that moves real money back toward the client.
Those habits are not reserved for the marquee cases. They are how every engagement at the Firm is run, from a single investor’s working-interest claim to multi-plaintiff litigation.
If Your Case Belongs on This Page
If you invested in an oil and gas program and the story you were told does not match what happened to your money, the first step is a candid review of your documents — what you were promised, what you signed, and where the funds went. You will get a direct assessment of whether the facts suggest fraud, what remedies may be available, and whether pursuing the claim makes economic sense. There is no obligation, and no cost to find out where you stand.
Send what you have, in whatever condition you have it: offering materials, subscription agreements, well reports, account statements, correspondence with the promoter, and records of your payments. Investors often delay calling because their file feels incomplete or disorganized. It is beneficial for the investor to promptly send the Firm the documents in an organized manner; however, an imperfect file today is worth far more than a perfect one after the limitations clock has run and the promoter’s assets have moved. The consultation is where organizing begins — not where it is expected to be finished.
Contact Mark A. Alexander, P.C.
We welcome the opportunity to discuss your legal issue.
Mark A. Alexander, P.C.
The Gild
8150 North Central Expressway, 10th Floor
Dallas, Texas 75206
Phone: (972) 544-6968
Fax: (972) 421-1500
Contacting us does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not send confidential or time-sensitive information through this form.
Attorney Advertising. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.