CAR_Public/100111.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

             Monday, January 11, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 6

                            Headlines

ANADIGICS INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in D. N.J.
AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
DAVITA INC: Awaits Approval of Agreements to Settle Three Suits
DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit
DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Blue Cross Suit in Louisiana

DAVITA INC: Ex-Employee Suit Versus Gambro Healthcare Ongoing
GENTA INC: Appeal of Dismissed Shareholder Complaint Pending
INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Arizona
MEDEFILE INT'L: Class Certification in TCPA Breach Suit Pending
MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Mo.

MEMC ELECTRONIC: Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit Still Pending
PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Faces Three Suits over Pricing of Products
SCORES HOLDING: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Complaint in N.Y.
SINOENERGY CORP: Faces Amended Complaint over Sale to Skywide
ZYNEX INC: Defends Suits on Restatement of Unaudited Statements

                            *********

ANADIGICS INC: Defends Consolidated Securities Suit in D. N.J.
--------------------------------------------------------------
ANADIGICS, Inc., continues to defend a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint alleging misrepresentations and omissions
relating to, among other things, the company's manufacturing
capabilities and the demand for its products, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Oct. 3, 2009.
  
On or about Nov. 11, 2008, plaintiff Charlie Attias filed a
putative securities class action lawsuit in the U.S. District
Court for the District of New Jersey, captioned Charlie Attias v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05572, and, on or about Nov.
21, 2008, plaintiff Paul Kuznetz filed a related class action
lawsuit in the same court, captioned Paul J. Kuznetz v.
Anadigics, Inc., et al., No. 3:08-cv-05750.

The Complaints in the Class Actions, which were consolidated by
an Order of the District Court dated Nov. 24, 2008, seek
unspecified damages for alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and
20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as well as Rule
10b-5 promulgated thereunder, in connection with alleged
misrepresentations and omissions relating to, among other things,
Anadigics's manufacturing capabilities and the demand for its
products.

On Oct. 23, 2009, plaintiffs filed a Consolidated Amended Class
Action Complaint, which names the company, a current officer and
a former officer-director, and alleges a proposed class period
that runs from July 24, 2007 through Aug. 7, 2008.

Defendants' response to that Amended Complaint was due to be
filed by Dec. 23, 2009.

ANADIGICS, Inc. -- http://www.anadigics.com/-- is a provider of  
semiconductor solutions in the growing broadband wireless and
wireline communications markets.


AUTHENTIDATE HOLDING: Appeal of Dismissal of N.Y. Suit Pending
--------------------------------------------------------------
An appeal from the dismissal of a consolidated securities fraud
class action pending against Authentidate Holding Corp. and
certain of its current and former officers and directors remains
pending.

Between June and August 2005, six purported shareholder class
action complaints were filed before the U.S. District Court for
the Southern District of New York against the company and
certain of current and former officers and directors.  The
plaintiffs in these actions allege that the defendants violated
Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of
1934 and Sections 11, 12(a), and 15 of the Securities Act of
1933.

The securities law claims are based on the allegation that the
company failed to disclose that the U.S. Postal Service could
cancel its August 2002 contract with it if the company did not
meet certain performance metrics, and when it disclosed in 2005
that the USPS could cancel its contract because the company had
not met those performance metrics, the market price of its stock
declined.  The class-action complaints seek unspecified monetary
damages.

Certain plaintiffs and purported shareholders filed motions
seeking to consolidate the class actions and to be appointed a
lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform
Act.

On Oct. 5, 2005, the court consolidated the class actions as "In
re Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities Litigation, C.A. No. 05
Civ. 5323 (LTS)," and appointed the Illinois State Board of
Investment as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities
Litigation Reform Act.

The plaintiffs filed an amended consolidated complaint in
January 2006, asserting the same claims as the prior complaints
and also alleged that the company violated the federal
securities laws by misrepresenting that it possessed certain
patentable technology.

In July 2006, the court dismissed the amended complaint in its
entirety.  Certain claims were dismissed with prejudice and the
plaintiffs were given leave to replead those claims, which were
not dismissed with prejudice.

In August 2006, the plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint,
which does not assert any claims relating to the company's
patents, but which otherwise is substantially similar to the
prior complaint.  The second amended complaint seeks unspecified
monetary damages.

The company moved to dismiss the second amended complaint on
Nov. 13, 2006.

On March 26, 2009, the company reported that the U.S. District
Court for the Southern District of New York dismissed with
prejudice the shareholder class actions filed against the
company and certain of its current and former directors and
former officers.

On April 24, 2009, the lead plaintiff filed a notice of appeal
of the decision of the U.S. District Court for the Southern
District of New York with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit is In Re: Authentidate Holding Corp. Securities
Litigation, Case No. 05-05323 (S.D.N.Y.)(Swain, J.)

Representing the plaintiffs are:

         Richard William Gonnello, Esq.
         Andrew J. Entwistle, Esq.
         Johnston de Forest Whitman, Jr., Esq.
         Entwistle & Cappucci, LLP
         280 Park Avenue, 26th Floor West
         New York, NY 10017
         Phone: 212-894-7200
         Fax: 212-894-7272
         E-mail: rgonnello@entwistle-law.com
                 aentwistle@entwistle-law.com
                 jwhitman@entwistle-law.com

              - and -

         Samuel Howard Rudman, Esq.
         Lerach, Coughlin, Stoia, Geller, Rudman & Robbins, LLP
         200 Broadhollow Road, Ste. 406
         Melville, NY 11747
         Phone: 631-367-7100
         Fax: 631-367-1173
         E-mail: srudman@lerachlaw.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Irwin Howard Warren, Esq.
         Weil, Gotshal & Manges, LLP
         767 Fifth Avenue
         New York, NY 10153
         Phone: 212-310-8000
         Fax: 212-833-3148
         E-mail: irwin.warren@weil.com


DAVITA INC: Awaits Approval of Agreements to Settle Three Suits
---------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to await approval from the Superior Court
of California of agreements to settle three class action
complaints, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Several wage and hour claims have been filed against the company
in the Superior Court of California, each of which has been
styled as a class action.

In February 2007, June 2008, October 2008 and December 2008, the
company was served with separate complaints by various former
employees, each of which alleges, among other things, that the
company failed to provide rest and meal periods, failed to pay
compensation in lieu of providing such rest or meal periods, and
failed to comply with certain other California labor code
requirements.

The company has reached a tentative settlement in the complaints
served on February 2007, October 2008 and December 2008 and is
waiting for court approval of the settlement.

In October 2008, the company was served with a complaint which
alleges, among other things, that the company failed to pay the
rate on the "wage statement," and failed to comply with other
California labor code requirements.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DAVITA INC: Plaintiffs Appeal Dismissal of RICO Violations Suit
---------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs in a class action against DaVita Inc. alleging
violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations
Act are appealing the dismissal of the suit, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In August 2007, Sheet Metal Workers National Health Fund and
Glenn Randle filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California against the company.  The
complaint also names as defendants Amgen Inc. and Fresenuis
Medical Care Holdings, Inc.

The complaint is styled as a class action and alleges four claims
against the company, including violations of the federal RICO
statute, California's unfair competition law, California's false
advertising law and for unjust enrichment.

The complaint's principal allegations against the company are
that the defendants engaged in a scheme to unlawfully promote the
administration of Epogen(R) to hemodialysis patients
intravenously, as opposed to subcutaneously, and to over-utilize
EPO.

On Dec. 17, 2008, the Court dismissed the complaint and
allegations in their entirety with permission of plaintiffs to
amend the complaint.

The company was not named as a defendant in plaintiff's amended
complaint.

In June 2009, the Court dismissed the remainder of the case.

Following the dismissal, plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal.  
The notice of appeal seeks review by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit of all of the district court's dismissal
rulings, including the ruling dismissing the company as a
defendant.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DAVITA INC: Continues to Defend Blue Cross Suit in Louisiana
------------------------------------------------------------
DaVita Inc. continues to defend a complaint filed by Blue
Cross/Blue Shield of Louisiana in the U.S. District Court for the
Western District of Louisiana, according to the company's Nov. 5,
2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed in August 2005 against Gambro AB, DVA Renal
Healthcare (formerly known as Gambro Healthcare) and related
entities.

The plaintiff sought to bring its claims as a class action on
behalf of itself and all entities that paid any of the defendants
for health care goods and services from on or about January 1991
through at least December 2004.

The complaint alleged, among other things, damages resulting from
facts and circumstances underlying Gambro Healthcare's 2004
settlement agreement with the Department of Justice and certain
agencies of the U.S. government.

In March 2006, the case was dismissed and the plaintiff was
compelled to seek arbitration to resolve the matter.

In November 2006, the plaintiff filed a demand for class
arbitration against the company and DVA Renal Healthcare.
The company intends to vigorously defend against these claims.

The company also intends to vigorously oppose the certification
of this matter as a class action.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


DAVITA INC: Ex-Employee Suit Versus Gambro Healthcare Ongoing
-------------------------------------------------------------
Gambro Healthcare continues to face a complaint filed by a former
employee over failure to provide overtime wages, according to the
DaVita Inc.'s Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept.
30, 2009.

Gambro Healthcare was purchased by the company in 2005.

In June 2004, Gambro Healthcare was served with a complaint filed
in the Superior Court of California by one of its former
employees who worked for its California acute services program.  
The complaint, which is styled as a class action, alleges, among
other things, that DVA Renal Healthcare failed to provide
overtime wages, defined rest periods and meal periods, or
compensation in lieu of such provisions and failed to comply with
certain other California labor code requirements.

The company continues to oppose the certification of this matter
as a class action.

DaVita Inc. -- http://www.davita.com/-- provides dialysis  
services for those diagnosed with chronic kidney failure, a
condition also known as chronic kidney disease.  The company has
over 1,500 outpatient dialysis facilities and acute units in over
700 hospitals.  The company is located in 43 states and the
District of Columbia, serving approximately 115,000 patients.


GENTA INC: Appeal of Dismissed Shareholder Complaint Pending
------------------------------------------------------------
The plaintiffs' appeal of the dismissal of a class action
complaint styled Collins v. Warrell, Docket No. L-3046-08,
against Genta Inc. reamins pending, according to the company's
Nov. 16, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and
Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

In September 2008, several shareholders of the company, on behalf
of themselves and all others similarly situated, filed a class
action complaint against the Genta, the Board of Directors, and
certain of its executive officers in Superior Court of New
Jersey.

The complaint alleged that in issuing convertible notes, the
Board of Directors, and certain officers breached their fiduciary
duties, and the company aided and abetted the breach of fiduciary
duty.  

On March 20, 2009, the Superior Court of New Jersey granted the
motion of the company to dismiss the class action complaint and
dismissed the complaint with prejudice.

On April 30, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal with
the Appellate Division.

On May 13, 2009, the plaintiffs filed a motion for relief from
judgment based on a claim of new evidence, which was denied on
June 12, 2009.

The plaintiffs also asked the Appellate Division for a temporary
remand to permit the Superior Court judge to resolve the issues
of the new evidence plaintiffs sought to raise.

By order dated June 25, 2009, and filed on July 6, 2009, the
Appellate Division granted the motion for temporary remand, and
directed the issues on remand to be resolved in 30 days.

A hearing on the plaintiffs' motion was held on July 31, 2009, at
which time the Court permitted letter briefing on the issues
raised during that hearing.  

The plaintiffs submitted a letter brief on Aug. 3, 2009, and the
company submitted a letter brief on Aug. 5, 2009.

Following briefing and a hearing, the Superior Court denied the
motion for relief from judgment on Aug. 28, 2009. Thus, this
matter will proceed in the Appellate Division.

Plaintiffs' brief before the Appellate Division was due Oct. 28,
2009, and the company's responsive brief was due Nov. 30, 2009.

Genta Incorporated -- http://www.genta.com/-- is a   
biopharmaceutical company engaged in pharmaceutical (drug)
research and development.  The company focuses on the
identification, development and commercialization of drugs for
the treatment of cancer and related diseases.  Genta's research
portfolio consists of two major programs: Deoxyribonucleic Acid
(DNA)/Ribonucleic Acid (RNA) Medicines and Small Molecules.


INSIGHT ENTERPRISES: Defends Securities Lawsuit in Arizona
----------------------------------------------------------
Insight Enterprises, Inc., continues to defend a purported
securities class-action lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for
the District of Arizona.

Beginning in March 2009, three purported class action lawsuits
were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
against the company and certain of its current and former
directors and officers on behalf of purchasers of the company's
securities during the period April 22, 2004 to Feb. 6, 2009.

The plaintiffs in two of these lawsuits voluntarily dismissed
their complaints in May and June 2009, and the court appointed a
lead plaintiff and lead counsel on June 24, 2009.  The plaintiff
in the remaining action amended their class action complaint in
September 2009.

The amended complaint seeks unspecified damages and asserts
claims under the federal securities laws relating to the
company's Feb. 9, 2009 announcement that the company expected to
restate its financial statements for the year ended Dec. 31, 2007
and for the first three quarters of 2008 and that the restatement
would include a material reduction of retained earnings.

In addition to claims relating to the company's earlier
restatement, the amended complaint also includes additional
allegations regarding other purported accounting and revenue
recognition issues during the class period.  The amended
complaint contends that the company issued false and misleading
financial statements and issued misleading public statements
about its results of operations.

The amended complaint also added the company's independent
registered public accounting firm as a defendant.

None of the defendants has responded to the amended complaint at
this time, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q
filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the
quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Insight Enterprises, Inc. -- https://www.insight.com/ -- is a
provider of brand-name information technology hardware, software
and services to small, medium and large businesses and public
sector institutions in North America, Europe, the Middle East,
Africa and Asia-Pacific.  The company operates in three
geographic segments: North America, EMEA and APAC. Insight is a
provider of technology solutions, helping companies globally
design, enable, manage and secure their IT environment with the
process knowledge, technical expertise and product fulfillment
and logistics capabilities.  Insight is located in 22 countries
and support clients in 170 countries, transacting business in 17
languages and 13 currencies.  The company's offerings in North
America and the United Kingdom include IT hardware, software and
services.  The offerings in the remainder of the EMEA segment and
in APAC only include software and select software-related
services.


MEDEFILE INT'L: Class Certification in TCPA Breach Suit Pending
---------------------------------------------------------------
A class has yet to be certified by the District Court of Arizona
in the Consumer Protection Corp.'s suit against Medefile
International, Inc.

On Sept. 8, 2008, the company was notified via a process server
of a proposed class action suit brought by CPC in Superior Court
in the State of Arizona.

CPC alleges that the company sent an unsolicited facsimile
advertisement in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection
Act of 1991 (TCPA).

On Oct. 8, 2008, the matter was moved to the District Court of
Arizona.

On Oct. 28, 2008, the company filed a motion to dismiss the
action based on the plaintiff's failure to properly allege a
cause of action.

CPC filed a response to the company's motion to dismiss on
Nov. 4, 2008.

CPC is seeking damages of $500 per member of the class.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Medefile International, Inc. -- http://www.medefile.com/--  
through its subsidiary, Medefile, Inc., has developed a system
for gathering, digitizing, storing and distributing information
for the healthcare field.  The company has created a system for
gathering and digitizing medical records so that individuals can
have a record of all of their medical visits.  Medefile's primary
product is the MedeFile system, a secure system for gathering and
maintaining medical records.  The MedeFile system is designed to
gather all of its members' medical records and create a single,
comprehensive medical record that is accessible round the clock.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Continues to Defend Consolidated Suit in Mo.
-------------------------------------------------------------
MEMC Electronic Materials Inc., continues to defend a
consolidated suit alleging violations of the Securities Exchange
Act, according to the company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing
with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter
ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Sept. 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff Minneapolis Firefighters' Relief Association asserting
claims against MEMC and Nabeel Gareeb, MEMC's former Chief
Executive Officer.

On Oct. 10, 2008, a substantially similar putative class action
lawsuit was filed by plaintiff Donald Jameson against MEMC, Mr.
Gareeb and Ken Hannah, MEMC's Chief Financial Officer.

These cases purportedly are brought on behalf of all persons who
acquired shares of MEMC's common stock between June 13, 2008 and
July 23, 2008, inclusive (the Class Period).

Both complaints allege that, during the Class Period, MEMC failed
to disclose certain material facts regarding MEMC's operations
and performance, which had the effect of artificially inflating
MEMC's stock price in violation of Section 10(b) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

Plaintiffs further allege that Messrs. Gareeb and Hannah are
subject to liability under Section 20(a) of the Act as control
persons of MEMC.

Plaintiffs seek certification of the putative class, unspecified
compensatory damages, interest and costs, as well as ancillary
relief.

On Dec. 12, 2008, these actions were consolidated, and the Court
appointed Mahendra A. Patel as lead plaintiff.
Plaintiff filed a consolidated amended complaint on Feb. 23,
2009.  Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 10, 2009,
plaintiff filed his opposition to the motion on May 29, 2009 and
defendants filed their reply in support of their motion on June
24, 2009.

The parties have fully briefed defendants' motion to dismiss the
consolidated amended complaint, and await the setting of oral
argument in the matter.

MEMC Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is  
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


MEMC ELECTRONIC: Motion to Dismiss "Jones" Suit Still Pending
-------------------------------------------------------------
Memc Electronic Materials Inc.'s motion to dismiss an amended
class action complaint alleging violations of the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act remains pending, according to the
company's Nov. 5, 2009, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities
and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Dec. 26, 2008, a putative class action lawsuit was filed in
the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri by
plaintiff, Jerry Jones, purportedly on behalf of all participants
in and beneficiaries of MEMC's 401(k) Savings Plan between Sept.
4, 2007 and Dec. 26, 2008, inclusive.

The complaint asserted claims against MEMC and certain of its
directors, employees and/or other unnamed fiduciaries of the
Plan.  The complaint alleges that the defendants breached certain
fiduciary duties owed under the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act, generally asserting that the defendants failed to
make full disclosure to the Plan's participants of the risks of
investing in MEMC's stock and that the company's stock should not
have been made available as an investment alternative in the
Plan.  The misstatements alleged in the complaint significantly
overlap with the misstatements alleged in a federal securities
class action also faced by the company.

On June 1, 2009, an amended class action complaint was filed by
Mr. Jones and another purported participant of the Plan, Manuel
Acosta, which raises substantially the same claims and is based
on substantially the same allegations as the original complaint.

However, the amended complaint changes the period of time covered
by the action, purporting to be brought on behalf of
beneficiaries of and/or participants in the Plan from June 13,
2008 through the present, inclusive (the Class Period).  The
amended complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, including
losses the participants and beneficiaries of the Plan allegedly
experienced due to their investment through the Plan in MEMC's
stock, equitable relief and an award of attorney's fees.

No class has been certified and discovery has not begun.

The company and the named directors and employees filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint on July 27, 2009.

The motion is fully briefed as of Oct. 9, 2009 and is pending
ruling by the court.

Memc Electronic Materials Inc. -- http://www.memc.com/-- is  
engaged into designing, manufacturing, and selling of silicon
wafers.  Its customers include major semiconductor device and
solar cell (device) manufacturers. It provides wafer in sizes
ranging from 100 millimeters (4 inch) to 300 millimeters (12
inch).  The company also sells intermediate products, such as
polysilicon, silane gas, ingots and scrap wafers to semiconductor
device and equipment makers, solar cell and module manufacturers,
flat panel and other industries.  The company offers variety of
wafers varying in size, surface features, composition, purity
levels, crystal properties and electrical properties.  In
November 2009, the company completed the acquisition of Sun
Edison LLC.


PACIFIC WEBWORKS: Faces Three Suits over Pricing of Products
------------------------------------------------------------
Pacific WebWorks, Inc., faces three actions alleging fraud and
deceptive trade practices, according to the company's Dec. 30,
2009, Form 8-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission.

During November 2009 three lawsuits were filed against the
company in various jurisdictions.

The legal actions allege similar claims related to procedures the
company uses to sell its products in the ordinary course of
business.

On Nov. 9, 2009, Barbara Ford filed an action in the Circuit
Court of Cook County, Illinois, Chancery Division.

A second action was filed on Nov. 12, 2009, by Deanna Pelletier
in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of
Solano.

A third action was filed by Lisa Rasmussen on Nov. 20, 2009, in
the Superior Court of Washington, Snohomish County.

All three plaintiffs are being represented by the same legal firm
and each complaint seeks class action certification.

The complaints allege that Pacific WebWorks committed fraud and
used deceptive trade practices in relation to the manner in which
Pacific WebWorks charges purchases of its products.

Each action seeks compensatory and punitive damages, plus
reasonable costs and attorney fees.

In response to these actions, Pacific WebWorks retained the law
firm of Snell and Wilmer as legal counsel.

Pacific WebWorks, Inc. -- http://www.pacificwebworks.com/-- is  
an application service provider and software development firm
that develops business software technologies and services for
business merchants and organizations using Internet and other
technologies.  The company specializes in turnkey applications
allowing small to medium sized businesses to expand over the
Internet.  Its product family provides tools for Website
creation, management and maintenance, electronic business
storefront hosting and Internet payment systems for the small to
medium sized business and organization.  The company has four
wholly owned operating subsidiaries: Intellipay, Inc., TradeWorks
Marketing, Inc., FundWorks, Inc. and Pacific WebWorks
International, LTD.


SCORES HOLDING: Plaintiffs File Third Amended Complaint in N.Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Plaintiffs in a purported class action against Scores Holding Co.
Inc., alleging violations of wage/hours laws have filed a third
amended complaint, according to the company's Nov. 16, 2009, Form
10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

On Oct. 9, 2007, former Go West bartender Siri Diaz filed a
purported class action and collective action on behalf of all
tipped employees against the company and other defendants
alleging violations of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On Nov. 6, 2007, plaintiffs served an amended purported class
action and collective action complaint, naming dancers and
servers as additional plaintiffs and alleging the same violations
of federal and state wage/hour laws.

On or about Feb. 21, 2008, plaintiffs served a second amended
complaint adding two additional party defendants, but limiting
the action to persons employed in the New York Scores' clubs.  
The amended complaint alleges that the company and the other
defendants are "an integrated enterprise" and that the company
jointly employ the plaintiffs, subjecting all of the defendants
to liability for the alleged wage/hour violations.

On April 18, 2008, co-defendant Go West filed for bankruptcy.

On or about Sept. 5, 2009, plaintiffs served their third amended
complaint adding in two individual defendants who are alleged to
be employers under the state and federal wage claims.

The suit is Diaz v. Scores Holding Company, Inc. et al., Case No.
07-cv-08718 (S.D.N.Y.) (Berman, J.).

Representing the plaintiffs is:

         Tammy Marzigliano, Esq.
         Outten & Golden Law Firm
         3 Park Avenue, 29th Floor
         New York, NY 10016
         Phone: 212-245-1000
         Fax: 212-977-4005
         E-mail: tm@outtengolden.com

Representing the defendants is:

         Jerrold Foster Goldberg, Esq.
         Greenberg Traurig, LLP
         200 Park Avenue
         New York, NY 10166
         Phone: 212-801-9209
         Fax: 212-805-9209
         E-mail: GoldbergJ@gtlaw.com


SINOENERGY CORP: Faces Amended Complaint over Sale to Skywide
-------------------------------------------------------------
Sinoenergy Corp. faces an amended complaint in the Supreme Court
of the State of New York, Nassau County, asserting claims of
breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting the breach of
fiduciary duty, according to the company's Dec. 30, 2009, Form
10-K filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for
the fiscal year ended Sept. 30, 2009.

The suit was filed by Stephen Trecaso and Linda Watts on Oct. 16,
2009, against the company and its directors and purports to be a
class action.

An amended complaint was filed on Nov. 18, 2009.

Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and damages arising out of a
potential sale of the company to Skywide Capital Management
Limited by means of an allegedly unfair process and unfair price.

Sinoenergy Corp. -- http://www.sinoenergycorporation.com/--  
develops and operates retail CNG stations as well as a
manufactures CNG transport truck trailers, CNG station equipment,
and natural gas fuel conversion kits for automobiles, in China.  
In addition to its CNG related products and services, the company
designs and manufactures a wide variety of customized pressure
containers for use in the petroleum and chemical industries.


ZYNEX INC: Defends Suits on Restatement of Unaudited Statements
---------------------------------------------------------------
Zynex, Inc., continues to defend three purported class action
suits filed in relation to the company's restatement of unaudited
financial statements.

A lawsuit was filed against the company, its President and Chief
Executive Officer and its Chief Financial Officer on April 6,
2009, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
(Marjorie and David Mishkin v. Zynex, Inc. et al.).

On April 9, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Robert Hanratty in the
same court against the same defendants.

On April 10, 2009, a lawsuit was filed by Denise Manandik in the
same court against the same defendants.

These lawsuits allege substantially the same matters.

The lawsuits refer to the April 1, 2009 announcement of the
company that it will restate its unaudited financial statements
for the first three quarters of 2008.

The lawsuits purport to be a class action on behalf of purchasers
of the company securities between May 21, 2008 and
March 31, 2009.

The lawsuits allege, among other things, that the defendants
violated Section 10 and Rule 10b-5 of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 by making intentionally or recklessly untrue statements
of material fact and/or failing to disclose material facts
regarding the financial results and operating conditions for the
first three quarters of 2008.

The plaintiffs ask for a determination of class action status,
unspecified damages and costs of the legal action.

The company has notified its directors and officers liability
insurer of the claims.

No further updates were reported in the company's Nov. 16, 2009,
Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
for the quarter ended Sept. 30, 2009.

Founded in 1996, Zynex, Inc. -- http://www.zynexmed.com/--
engineers, manufactures, markets, and sells its own design of
electrotherapy medical devices in two distinct markets: standard
digital electrotherapy products for pain relief and pain
management; and the NeuroMove(TM) for stroke and spinal cord
injury rehabilitation.  Zynex's product lines are fully
developed, FDA-cleared, commercially sold, and have been
developed to uphold the Company's mission of improving the
quality of life for patients suffering from impaired mobility
due to stroke, spinal cord injury, or debilitating and chronic
pain.

                            *********

S U B S C R I P T I O N   I N F O R M A T I O N

Class Action Reporter is a daily newsletter, co-published by
Bankruptcy Creditors' Service, Inc., Fairless Hills,
Pennsylvania, USA, and Beard Group, Inc., Frederick, Maryland
USA.  Gracele D. Canilao, Leah Felisilda and Peter A. Chapman,
Editors.

Copyright 2010.  All rights reserved.  ISSN 1525-2272.

This material is copyrighted and any commercial use, resale or
publication in any form (including e-mail forwarding, electronic
re-mailing and photocopying) is strictly prohibited without prior
written permission of the publishers.

Information contained herein is obtained from sources believed to
be reliable, but is not guaranteed.

The CAR subscription rate is $575 for six months delivered via
e-mail.  Additional e-mail subscriptions for members of the same
firm for the term of the initial subscription or balance thereof
are $25 each.  For subscription information, contact Christopher
Beard at 240/629-3300.

                 * * *  End of Transmission  * * *