Results

Dawn Meade represented a bankruptcy trustee in Harris County District Court against a business owner who rendered his company insolvent by transferring millions of dollars' worth of property out of the company to defraud creditors, then filed for bankruptcy protection claiming insolvency. Meade brought suit against the business owner personally regarding the transfers. She obtained a mid-seven figure judgment against the owner in his individual capacity.

Dawn Meade Represented an investor in arbitration against a developer who sold property to the client, then contracted to develop and manage the property. The developer committed bank fraud by obtaining from the bank payment for "build-out" that he never performed and finally, after cyphering off $1 million, breached his management contract and walked away. The arbitrator awarded to client damages of $1,634,607.10, attorney fees of $194,587.22, expenses of $81,332.58; pre-judgement interest of $118,385.28, for a total arbitration award of $2,028,912.18. The Harris County District Court affirmed the arbitration award, converting it into a judgment. The developer abandoned the company and refused to pay the judgement. Meade volunteered over 100 hours of time, mapping out her fraud case and working with the US Attorney's office, who subsequently charged the developer with criminal bank fraud regarding multiple cases. As a term of the developer's plea agreement, he must pay the client's judgment in the amount of $1,715,939.68 (the judgment less interest and attorney fees). To date, the client has recovered $1.2 million.

Dawn Meade defended a physician in Harris County District Court who was sued on a business deal. The physician contracted with a developer to build a medical office on land the physician purchased for that purpose. The developer convinced the physician to build a "passive income" commercial facility on the land instead. The developer further convinced the physician to contract for the work with a limited partnership owned by the developer's principal, even though the developer would do the work. The project ran over cost and required substantial additional injections of cash, ultimately costing nearly twice its original estimated price. When the developer demanded further payment, the physician requested an accounting. Upon receiving the request, the limited partnership terminated the contract and sued the physician for $2.2 million the developer claimed was owed for the transaction. Dawn Meade defended the physician against the limited partnership's suit and filed a counter-claim against the limited partnership and the developer for various business torts, including fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract. She also made a claim for "alter ego."

The developer, a corporation, developed this particular property under the guise of a the limited partnership. The limited partnership had no money, no phone, no bank account, no employees, no nothing. It was owned and operated by the same person who owned the development corporation and was located at the developer's address. Worse, the developer, not the partnership, actually developed the project and took all of the money paid by the physician.

​"Alter ego" is an equitable doctrine that allows a litigant to hold an owner, operator, etc. of a business to be personally liable for the business debts, if the business was formed as a sham to perpetrate a fraud. At the trial of this case, Meade won her client's defense and defeated the entire $2.2 million dollars in claims brought by the limited partnership and the developer against the physician. Additionally, she won a $1.2 million judgment on the physician's counterclaims. Better, Meade obtained a finding in the trial court that the developer formed the limited partnership as a sham to perpetrate a fraud, and thus obtained a finding of "alter ego," making the developer responsible for the physician's damages.

The developer appealed the entire case. The First Court of Appeals affirmed Meade's defeat of the developer's claims and affirmed the physician's $1.2 million judgment. However, the Court reversed the finding of "alter ego." The First Court of Appeals did not reverse the finding that the partnership was formed as a sham to perpetrate a fraud. Instead, it created new law and found that the equitable doctrine of "alter ego" does not apply to partnerships. Meade appealed to the Texas Supreme Court. The Texas Supreme Court held the appeal for 18 months before ultimately denying it. Thus, while the physician kept his $1.2 million judgment, he will never collect a penny of it because the partnership never had a cent.

Dawn Meade represented a homeowner in Harris County District Court against a builder. The builder constructed a 16,000 custom home but presented it with mismatched colors, bad tilework, woodwork, etc. Client sued and recovered damages for DTPA violations and for breach of contract, as well as attorney fees. Client ultimately collected $165,000.00, net of attorney fees and expenses.

Dawn Meade filed suit in Dallas County District Court on behalf of an energy investment company, against an oil & gas producer, for securities fraud. The investment company invested $5.5 million in production that was nearly "guaranteed" by the producer. The evidence in the case revealed that a large portion of the claimed production came from a well aptly named "Titanosaurus." Sadly, "Titanosaurus" never existed as a working well. The producer had sold $20 million in oil & gas production that never existed. The jury in the case found that the producer committed securities fraud, but found that the investment company knew or should have known about the securities fraud on a specific date, which put the investment company four months outside its limitations period. The investment company knew from the outset that it had a limitations problem, but chose to move forward. Nevertheless, it is a bitter pill to swallow knowing that a four month delay in filing suit meant they would never collect the $5.5 million they would have been entitled to recover under the securities law of recission.

Dawn Meade defended a husband and wife, who originally formed a limited liability company, from subsequent members of the company who filed a lawsuit against the clients, accusing them of stealing $1 million from the company. When clients came to Dawn Meade, they had been indicted for criminal theft in another county. Dawn performed in depth discovery and developed the evidence to win the civil case and show that the money clients took was actually reimbursement of their payment of the company's debts. That evidence, obtained in the civil lawsuit, was presented to the prosecutor in the criminal case. Ultimately, the both the civil and criminal cases against clients were dismissed. This case is particularly scary because criminal suits don't allow the discovery that civil suits allow. Without the civil suit, the husband and wife might have had no evidence to help defend against the theft.

Dawn Meade represented client environmental clean-up company to recover $750,000.00 in outstanding debt owed to it for services rendered. Meade obtained a summary judgment against the defendant and then went on to collect. The defendant's principal had put most of his profits in a retirement account that is usually exempt from collection activity. Meade challenged the characterization of the money, believing that the balance of the account was far too high, given its age and the company's profits, to be legitimately protected as retirement funds. The case settled for payment in full, plus attorney fees, so the client received its entire $750,000.00 judgment.

Dawn Meade defended client, who was an insurance agent, against investigations by the Texas State Securities Board and FINRA regarding claims of fraud made against him in a civil suit. Meade used discovery obtained, as well as expert opinions regarding the issues, to procure dismissals of the regulatory and FINRA claims.

Dawn Meade defended hotel owners, who were sued over an easement that spanned across their parking lot. The easement had been granted to Plaintiffs simultaneous with the prior owner's purchase of the hotel tract of land. The easement spanned the entire length of one half of the parking lot, resulting in insufficient parking and ruining the hotel's business. Meade was the hotel owners' fifth attorney and entered the fray when the Court was poised to grant summary judgment against the hotel owners. Meade defended the summary judgment, filed a counter-declaratory judgment action and ultimately resolved the case for an eradication of the easement using title insurance funds to pay for same.

Meade represented a financial advisor against his broker-dealer employer and the issuer of a stock. Client advised clients to sell a security after reviewing the company's 3rd quarter financials. The company/issuer discovered the advice and called the brokerage firm, with whom it had an agreement that no broker would recommend the sale of the stock to current holders. The company/issuer demanded that the financial advisor be terminated and the company/issuer obliged. Client brought suit against the company/issuer for tortious interference with business and fought the broker-dealer in a FINRA action. Both claims were resolved for a combined mid-six figure sum.