Send us Feedback

FX Energy (FXEN)
Analysis
SUMMARY
BULLS
BEARS
TOPICS
Data
DATA CENTRAL
STOCK CHART
Financials
SEC FILINGS
BALANCE
INCOME
CASH FLOW

FXEN » Topics » In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation,

This excerpt taken from the FXEN 10-Q filed May 11, 2009.
In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, United States District Court, District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, our motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted with a supporting memorandum was heard by the court on February 23, 2009. The matter is under advisement by the court. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

These excerpts taken from the FXEN 10-K filed Mar 16, 2009.
In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, US District Court, District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.

 

A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter is under advisement by the court. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.

 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

 

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, US District Court, District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.



 



A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint
seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter is
under advisement by the court. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.



 



Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, US District Court, District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.



 



A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint
seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter is
under advisement by the court. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.



 



Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.



 



_____________________________________________________________________________________



 



In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.



 



_____________________________________________________________________________________



 



In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.

 

A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter is under advisement by the court. The Company intends to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.



 



A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks
damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter
is under advisement by the court. The Company intends to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.



 



Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, United States District Court for the District of Utah, case no. 2:07-cv-00874, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action.



 



A consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding the Company’s Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks
damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, the Company filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. Following a hearing on February 23, 2009, on defendants’ motion to dismiss, the matter
is under advisement by the court. The Company intends to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.



 



Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

This excerpt taken from the FXEN 10-Q filed Nov 7, 2008.
In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss, with a supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs filed an opposition to the defendants’ motion on August 19, 2008, to which defendants filed a reply on October 3, 2008. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss has not been scheduled. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

This excerpt taken from the FXEN 10-Q filed Aug 7, 2008.
In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. On June 20, 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss, with supporting memorandum, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

Another pending action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled

This excerpt taken from the FXEN 10-Q filed May 12, 2008.
In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation, and a consolidated complaint has been filed by the lead plaintiff that alleges that the defendants violated the antifraud provisions of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 thereunder by making material misrepresentations and omissions regarding our Sroda-5 and Lugi-1 projects between January 20, 2005, and January 5, 2006. The consolidated complaint seeks damages to be determined at trial, interest, costs, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. We intend to defend vigorously this consolidated action on behalf of all defendants.

 

On February 21, 2008, an action was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah entitled Leilani York, derivatively on behalf of nominal defendant FX Energy, Inc., plaintiff v. David N. Pierce, Dennis B. Goldstein, Arnold S. Grundvig, Jr., Richard Hardman, Tom Lovejoy, Jerzy Maciolek, Clay Newton, Andrew W. Pierce, and David Worrell, defendants, and FX Energy, Inc., nominal defendant, asserting derivative claims on our behalf against our directors and certain of our current and former executive officers. The complaint asserts that the defendants breached their fiduciary duties to us between March 30, 2004, and January 5, 2006, by making false and misleading statements respecting our business prospects and activities and seeks judgment against the defendants in our favor for damages, the imposition of a constructive trust in our favor for proceeds from defendants’ stock sales and executive compensation, disgorgement of proceeds from defendants’ stock sales and executive compensation, costs, attorneys’ fees, and such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. We intend to defend this action vigorously on behalf of all defendants.

 

EXCERPTS ON THIS PAGE:

10-Q
May 11, 2009
10-K (9 sections)
Mar 16, 2009
10-Q
Nov 7, 2008
10-Q
Aug 7, 2008
10-Q
May 12, 2008

RELATED TOPICS for FXEN:

Wikinvest © 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012. Use of this site is subject to express Terms of Service, Privacy Policy, and Disclaimer. By continuing past this page, you agree to abide by these terms. Any information provided by Wikinvest, including but not limited to company data, competitors, business analysis, market share, sales revenues and other operating metrics, earnings call analysis, conference call transcripts, industry information, or price targets should not be construed as research, trading tips or recommendations, or investment advice and is provided with no warrants as to its accuracy. Stock market data, including US and International equity symbols, stock quotes, share prices, earnings ratios, and other fundamental data is provided by data partners. Stock market quotes delayed at least 15 minutes for NASDAQ, 20 mins for NYSE and AMEX. Market data by Xignite. See data providers for more details. Company names, products, services and branding cited herein may be trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The use of trademarks or service marks of another is not a representation that the other is affiliated with, sponsors, is sponsored by, endorses, or is endorsed by Wikinvest.
Powered by MediaWiki