FX Energy (FXEN)

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

In the consolidated single matter, 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.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

_____________________________________________________________________________________

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings, and no material legal proceedings have been threatened by us or, to the best of our knowledge, against us, except as follows:

In November and December 2007, three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against us and officers or directors David N. Pierce, Clay Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly situated and alleging violations by the defendants of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to our public statements about our oil and gas activities and prospects in Poland between March 2004 and January 2006. The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest, and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. The three actions have now been consolidated into a single matter, 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 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, case no. 2:08-cv-00143, asserts

derivative claims on our behalf against certain of current and former our directors and certain of our current and former executive officers, arising out of the same set of facts, has been stayed pending final resolution of the In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

_____________________________________________________________________________________

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings, and no material legal proceedings have been threatened by us or, to the best of our knowledge, against us, except as follows:

In November and December 2007, three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against us and officers or directors David N. Pierce, Clay Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly situated and alleging violations
by the defendants of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to our public statements about our oil and gas activities and prospects in Poland between March 2004 and January 2006. The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest, and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. The three actions have now been
consolidated into a single matter, 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 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, case no. 2:08-cv-00143, asserts

derivative claims on our behalf against certain of current and former our directors and certain of our current and former executive officers, arising out of the same set of facts, has been stayed pending final resolution of the In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

_____________________________________________________________________________________

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings, and no material legal proceedings have been threatened by us or, to the best of our knowledge, against us, except as follows:

In November and December 2007, three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against us and officers or directors David N. Pierce, Clay Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly situated and alleging violations
by the defendants of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to our public statements about our oil and gas activities and prospects in Poland between March 2004 and January 2006. The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest, and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. The three actions have now been
consolidated into a single matter, 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 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, case no. 2:08-cv-00143, asserts

derivative claims on our behalf against certain of current and former our directors and certain of our current and former executive officers, arising out of the same set of facts, has been stayed pending final resolution of the In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.

_____________________________________________________________________________________

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The three pending actions against the Company and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah have been consolidated under the caption 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.

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The three pending actions against the Company and certain of our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah have been consolidated under the caption 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 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, asserts derivative claims on our behalf against certain of our directors and certain of our current and former executive officers has been stayed pending final resolution of the In re FX Energy, Inc., Securities Litigation.

ITEM 1. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

The three pending actions against the Company and our officers and directors in the United States District Court for the District of Utah have been consolidated under the caption 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.

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings, and no material legal proceedings have been threatened by us or, to the best of our knowledge, against us, except as follows:

In November and December 2007, three actions were filed in the United States District Court for the District of Utah against us and officers or directors David N. Pierce, Clay Newton, Thomas B. Lovejoy, Andrew W. Pierce, and Richard Hardman, by three separate plaintiffs, each seeking class certification to proceed on behalf of all others similarly situated and alleging violations by the defendants of the antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws set forth in Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder relating to our public statements about our oil and gas activities and prospects in Poland between March 2004 and January 2006. The complaints seek damages to be determined at trial, interest, and costs, together with such other relief as the court may deem appropriate. The three actions have now been consolidated into a single matter, and the lead plaintiffs and counsel have been specified. The consolidated actions have not been certified to proceed as a class action. No responsive pleading from the defendants will be due until an amended complaint is filed. We propose to defend vigorously this action on behalf of all defendants.

26

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS

We are not a party to any material legal proceedings, and no material legal proceedings have been threatened by us or, to the best of our knowledge, against us.