/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR

/raid1/www/Hosts/bankrupt/CAR_Public/130212.mbx C L A S S A C T I O N R E P O R T E R Tuesday, February 12, 2013, Vol. 15, No. 30 Headlines ARL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Robo-Calls AVIAT NETWORKS: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed in December BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls 10,200 Ski-Doo Snowmobiles BP PLC: Texas Court Trims Securities Class Suit CAPANO ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Kinder Morgan CONSTRUCTAMAX INC: Court Terminates Settlement in "Douglas" Suit DOMINO'S PIZZA: 8th Cir. Decertifies Class in Drivers' Lawsuit ELECTRONIC ARTS: Awaits Final Okay of Antitrust Suit Settlement FARMERS GROUP: Sued For Underpaying Injured Policyholders GLOBAL COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Shut Down K12 INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Hoppaugh" Securities Class Suit MIPS TECHNOLOGIES: Finalizing Deal in Stockholder Litigation MUTSY USA: Recalls 340 EVO Strollers Due to Strangulation Hazard PRIZER PAINTER: Recalls 940 BlueStar Wall Ovens Due to Fire Risk TENNESSEE VALLEY: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Pending TENNESSEE VALLEY: Parties in Suit vs. TVARS Still in Mediation WMS INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ********* ARL: Faces Class Action Over Illegal Robo-Calls ----------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that a federal class action claims Americans for Responsible Leadership "bombarded" cell phones with illegal robo-calls backing (nonparty) Mitt Romney in the 2012 elections; it seeks statutory damages. AVIAT NETWORKS: Claims in Securities Suit Dismissed in December --------------------------------------------------------------- All claims in the class action lawsuit initiated by Howard Taylor has been dismissed with prejudice in December 2012, according to Aviat Networks, Inc.'s February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 28, 2012. Certain of the Company's former executive officers and directors were named in a complaint filed on July 18, 2011, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware by plaintiff Howard Taylor. Plaintiff purported to bring this action derivatively on behalf of Aviat Networks, which was named as a nominal defendant. Plaintiff brought a claim for breach of fiduciary duty against the officer and director defendants based on the allegations of securities law violations alleged in the class action and also alleges that the defendants caused the Company to acquire the Microwave Communications Division, Harris Corporation at an inflated price. Plaintiff sought to recover unspecified damages and other relief on behalf of Aviat Networks, as well as payment of costs and attorneys' fees. On September 27, 2012, the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss and granted plaintiff leave to amend by October 18, 2012, only as to the allegations related to the class action. On October 18, 2012, plaintiff did not amend but filed a motion for a stay of the action and sent a demand to the Company's Board that it investigate and pursue the claims that were dismissed by the Court. On December 14, 2012, the Court denied plaintiff's motion to stay and, as a result, all claims have been dismissed with prejudice. The Board has informed counsel for Mr. Taylor that it has commenced an investigation in response to Mr. Taylor's letter and has invited them to share any documents or other information supporting their demand so that the Board may consider such information. The Board will advise Mr. Taylor's counsel when its work in response to the demand is concluded. Aviat Networks, Inc. -- http://www.aviatnetworks.com/-- engages in the design, manufacture, and sale of a range of wireless networking products, solutions, and services worldwide. The Company was formerly known as Harris Stratex Networks, Inc. and changed its name to Aviat Networks, Inc. in January 2010. The Company is headquartered in Santa Clara, California. BOMBARDIER RECREATIONAL: Recalls 10,200 Ski-Doo Snowmobiles ----------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Bombardier Recreational Products Inc., of Valcourt, announced a voluntary recall of about 10,200 Ski-Doo(R) snowmobiles. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The fuel pump inlet fitting can come into contact with the oil tank and break, leading to a fuel to leak, which poses a fire hazard. The firm has received three reports of fires. No injuries have been reported. The snowmobile has the model name printed on the vehicle's side panel. The 2013 models included in the recall are: Name Engine Type ---- ----------- Freeride(TM) 800R E-TEC Grand Touring LE 600HO E-TEC GSX(R) LE 600HO E-TEC GSX(R) SE 600HO E-TEC GSX(R) SE 800R E-TEC MX Z(R) TNT(R) 600HO E-TEC MX Z(R) TNT(R) 800R E-TEC MX Z(R) X(R) 800R E-TEC MX Z(R) X(R) 600HO E-TEC MX Z(R) X-RS(R) 800R E-TEC MX Z(R) X-RS(R) 600HO E-TEC Renegade(R) Adrenaline 800R E-TEC Renegade(R) Adrenaline 600HO E-TEC Renegade(R) Backcountry(TM) 800R E-TEC Renegade(R) Backcountry(TM) 600HO E-TEC Renegade(R) Backcountry(TM) X(R) 800R E-TEC Renegade(R) Backcountry(TM) X(R) 600HO E-TEC Renegade(R) X(R) 800R E-TEC Renegade(R) X(R) 600HO E-TEC Skandic(R) Tundra(R) Xtreme 600HO E-TEC Summit(R) SP 800R E-TEC Summit(R) SP 600HO E-TEC Summit(R) X(R) 800R E-TEC Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/qL4hjC The recalled products were manufactured in Canada and sold at Ski- Doo dealers nationwide from March 2012 through January 2013 from about $8,000 to $12,000. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled vehicles and contact a BRP dealer to schedule a free repair. BRP has notified registered consumers directly about this recall. BRP may be reached toll-free at (888) 638-5397 from 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.ski- doo.com/ and click on "recall information" under the owner center for more information. BP PLC: Texas Court Trims Securities Class Suit ----------------------------------------------- In IN RE: BP p.l.c. SECURITIES LITIGATION, MDL No. 10-md-2185, Civil Action No. 4:10-md-2185, (S.D. Tex.), District Judge Keith P. Ellison issued a ruling on February 6, 2013, partially granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, in part, the plaintiffs' second consolidated amended complaint. The litigation stemmed form the April 20, 2010 explosion at the Macondo well and the resulting oil spill. The Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint seeks redress under Section 10(b) of the Securities and Exchange Act for alleged misrepresentations made in connection with the Deepwater Horizon drilling project and the safety of BP's operations generally. BP was at the helm of the Deepwater Horizon drilling effort. The Second Amended Complaint also asserts violations of Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act against the individual defendants Anthony B. "Tony" Hayward, Andrew G. "Andy" Inglis, and Douglas J. Suttles. A copy of the District Court's February 6, 2013 Memorandum and Order is available at http://is.gd/WuI9bbfrom Leagle.com. CAPANO ENERGY: Faces Suit Over Proposed Sale to Kinder Morgan ------------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Capano Energy, a midstream natural gas firm, is selling too cheaply to Kinder Morgan, a class claims. CONSTRUCTAMAX INC: Court Terminates Settlement in "Douglas" Suit ---------------------------------------------------------------- Magistrate Judge Steven M. Gold issued a memorandum and order on February 5, 2013, terminating the settlement in the class and collective action captioned MATTHEW DOUGLAS, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CONSTRUCTAMAX INC., et al., Defendants, No. 10-CV-5323 (SMG), (E.D.N.Y.). "The danger of prejudice to the nonmovant and the potential impact of the delay on judicial proceedings, weigh in favor of allowing defendants' notice voiding the settlement to stand," Judge Gold ruled. "While the notice was indisputably late, the delay was a mere four days long and notice was provided prior to final approval of the settlement. Further, the Court proceedings have not been significantly more delayed than they would have been had defendants timely filed the notice several days before." The Defendants filed a notice that they would be voiding the settlement agreement on December 10, 2012 -- a day prior to the originally scheduled fairness hearing in the class and collective action. The Plaintiffs said the defendants' notice was untimely. The Defendants' counsel explained to the Court that he informed the Plaintiffs' counsel about the Defendants' desire to void the settlement approximately five days before the notice deadline. He also described to the Court efforts he made to salvage the settlement by requesting that his adversary send a letter to the Defendants describing the importance of settling the case, a letter which was sent on December 5. Judge Gold concluded that while the Defendants' counsel actions are hardly exemplary, they are excusable in light of the circumstances. There is also no evidence, given the short delay, that the notice was submitted late in bad faith, or in order to gain a tactical advantage in the case, he said. A copy of the District Court's February 5, 2013 Memorandum & Order is available at http://is.gd/hp9efYfrom Leagle.com. DOMINO'S PIZZA: 8th Cir. Decertifies Class in Drivers' Lawsuit -------------------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the 8th Circuit decertified a class of Domino's Pizza delivery drivers who say customers do not tip them because they think the delivery fee covers it. Domino's started charging Minnesota delivery customers a $1 flat per-delivery fee in 2005 and it raised the fee to $1.50 in 2008. Customers who ordered food online were told that a "delivery charge will apply," and employees were instructed to say the same over the phone. The fee appears on customer receipts as "Del Charge." No part of the fee goes to delivery drivers. In 2009, Domino's began printing on some pizza boxes, "Any Delivery Charge is not a tip paid to your driver. Please reward your driver for awesomeness." A district court certified a class of 1,600 Minnesota delivery drivers who claimed the delivery fee was gratuity that Domino's wrongly withheld from them. A three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based federal appeals court reversed Monday saying that "the District Court abused its discretion by certifying the class. "The varied context of the transactions made it unreasonable for some customers to construe the delivery charge as a payment for personal services, thereby preventing one-stroke determination of a classwide question," Judge William Benton wrote for the panel. Matt Luiken, one of two class representatives, testified that he told some customers, "There's this delivery charge, but it's not -- that's not actually a gratuity." Thus, at least some customers were on notice that the fee was not a tip, according to the ruling. "Some pizza customers asked about the charge and some did not; some employees volunteered that it was not a gratuity and some did not," Judge Benton wrote. "Those circumstances determine the objective reasonableness of construing the charge as a payment for personal services. This court has previously rejected certification of classes where trial would require considering varied circumstances." The plaintiffs' attorney, Matt Helland of Nichols Kaster, declined to comment on the ruling. ELECTRONIC ARTS: Awaits Final Okay of Antitrust Suit Settlement --------------------------------------------------------------- Electronic Arts Inc. is awaiting final approval of its settlement of an antitrust class action lawsuit, according to the Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In June 2008, Geoffrey Pecover filed an antitrust class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that EA obtained an illegal monopoly in a discreet antitrust market that consists of "league-branded football simulation video games" by bidding for, and winning, exclusive licenses with the NFL, Collegiate Licensing Company and Arena Football League. In December 2010, the district court granted the plaintiffs' request to certify a class of plaintiffs consisting of all consumers who purchased EA's Madden NFL, NCAA Football or Arena Football video games after 2005. In May 2012, the parties reached a settlement in principle to resolve all claims related to this action. As a result, the Company recognized a $27 million accrual for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2012 associated with the potential settlement. In July 2012, the plaintiffs filed a motion with the court to approve the settlement. On October 5, 2012, the court granted its preliminary approval of the settlement and scheduled a hearing to consider the court's final approval of the settlement for February 7, 2013. FARMERS GROUP: Sued For Underpaying Injured Policyholders --------------------------------------------------------- Courthouse News Service reports that Farmers Group underpays policyholders who are injured in auto accidents if they have health insurance, a class action claims in Federal Court. GLOBAL COLLEGE: Faces Class Action Over Shut Down -------------------------------------------------- Jack Bouboushian at Courthouse News Service reports that the online Global College of Natural Medicine and its sole owner charged thousands of dollars for college degrees, then shut down midterm and stiffed students for their tuition, a class action claims in Federal Court. Lead plaintiff Anita Toler sued the college and Heather Johnstone, of Illinois, its "director, chief executive officer, and chief operating officer . . . the 100 percent owner and only board member." Ms. Toler claims that the "amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000." She says she paid the defendants "more than $3,000 for a distance education program of study in the natural health field." The defendants charged "more than $10,000" for an online Ph.D. according to the complaint. It states: "GCNM [Global College of Natural Medicine was licensed to operate by the State of California as a postsecondary school beginning in approximately 2004. "GCNM marketed and sold distance education programs in natural health fields of study to adults across the United States. "GCNM marketed and sold distance education programs that offered adults opportunities to earn certificates and diplomas in subjects including Nutritional Consultant, Master Herbalist, Holistic Health Practitioner and other subjects, as well as Bachelor of Science, Master of Science, and Ph.D. programs." Charges ranged from "$1,000 for its Nutritional Consultant and Master Herbalist programs to more than $2,000 for the holistic Health Practitioner Program to more than $10,000 for its combined Bachelor, Master and Ph.D. program." The complaint adds: "Students enrolling at GCNM, including plaintiff and members of the class, were required to pay tuition prior to commencing their distance education programs. "Plaintiff and other members of the class were required to submit either the entirety of their tuition in advance or a substantial amount prior to starting, with the balance due soon thereafter. "Upon information and belief, a class of thousands of adults, including plaintiff, collectively entrusted GCNM defendants with millions of dollars in advance tuition for distance education programs that the students had not yet completed at the time of the school's abrupt closure in November 2012. "On information and belief, GCNM collected more than $5 million in tuition from plaintiff and members of the class. Upon information and belief, a substantial amount of the millions of dollars had not yet been earned at time of GCNM's closure." Ms. Toler says she "entrusted GCNM defendants with a total of approximately $3,120 in connection with her enrollment in a self- paced bachelor of science program in holistic health." "Plaintiff had submitted her entire tuition amount at the time of the discontinuation of GCNM's distance education programs in November 2012. "Plaintiff was still pursuing her bachelor of science program in holistic health at the time of the discontinuation of GCNM's distance education programs in November 2012. "Following GCNM's sudden closure, Plaintiff demanded a refund, but GCNM did not provide one." Ms. Toler claims that Ms. Johnstone "knew or should have known that for years prior to GCNM's closing that GCNM was experiencing significant financial and regulatory difficulty." But Ms. Johnstone "took no steps to protect or recover the millions of dollars in tuition entrusted by students that had been transferred to others even though the tuition had not been earned," the complaint states. "Prior to the sudden termination of GCNM's programs in November 2012, Heather Johnstone and GCNM gave no indication to students or to the State of California that GCNM might be closing. "To the contrary, Heather Johnstone and GCNM continued to enroll new students for GCNM's distance education programs shortly before the closure of GCNM. "Since the closing, Heather Johnstone and GCNM have failed to return millions of dollars entrusted by Plaintiff and members of the Class for prepaid distance education programs that it is now impossible to complete and that were not earned." Ms. Toler seeks class damages for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, bailment, fraudulent concealment, unjust enrichment and breach of contract. She is represented by Thomas Howlett, Esq. -- thowlett@googasian.com -- with the Googasian Firm, of Bloomfield Hills, Mich. Ms. Johnstone's entry on the selfgrowth.com Web page describes her as an advanced practiced nurse with a "doctorate in metaphysics" and "a specialization in pranic healing." K12 INC: Discovery Ongoing in "Hoppaugh" Securities Class Suit -------------------------------------------------------------- Discovery is ongoing in the class action lawsuit styled David Hoppaugh et al. v. K12 Inc. et al., according to the Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. On January 30, 2012, a securities class-action lawsuit captioned David Hoppaugh et al. v. K12 Inc. et. al., was filed against the Company and two of its officers in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, Case No. I:12-CV- 00103-CMH-IDD. On May 18, 2012, the Court appointed the Arkansas Teacher Retirement System as lead plaintiff, and it filed an amended class action complaint (the "Amended Complaint") on June 22, 2012. The plaintiff purports to represent a class of persons who purchased or otherwise acquired K12 common stock between September 9, 2009, and December 16, 2011 (the "Class Period"), inclusive, and alleges violations by the defendants of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. The plaintiff alleges among other things that the defendants made false or misleading statements of material fact, or failed to disclose material facts, about (i) the Company's revenue and enrollment results during the Class Period, (ii) the academic performance of the virtual schools served by the Company, and (iii) certain school administrative practices and sales strategies related to enrollments. The plaintiff seeks unspecified compensatory damages and other relief. On September 18, 2012, the Court denied Defendants' motion on the pleadings to dismiss the action, and permitted the case to proceed to the next stage of litigation. The Company says it intends to continue to vigorously defend against the claims asserted in the Amended Complaint. Discovery is ongoing in this matter. MIPS TECHNOLOGIES: Finalizing Deal in Stockholder Litigation ------------------------------------------------------------ MIPS Technologies, Inc. said in its February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012, that it is in the process of documenting a settlement in In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation and will present the settlement to the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware for approval when that documentation is complete. On November 5, 2012, MIPS entered into a patent sale agreement with Bridge Crossing, LLC ("Bridge Crossing"), an acquisition vehicle of Allied Security Trust I ("AST"), and a merger agreement with Imagination Technologies Group plc (LSE: IMG) ("Imagination") with anticipated net proceeds of approximately $7.31 per share in cash to each holder of MIPS common stock. On December 9, 2012, MIPS entered into an amendment to its merger agreement with Imagination that increased the purchase price being paid by Imagination to $80 million (from an original purchase price of $60 million) and removed the conditions to closing requiring the approval of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States and that MIPS is not a real property holding corporation. On December 16, 2012, MIPS entered into an amendment to its merger agreement with Imagination that increased the purchase price being paid by Imagination to $100 million. The merger agreement contemplates the merger of an acquisition subsidiary (of Imagination) with and into MIPS, with MIPS continuing as the surviving corporation and a wholly owned, indirect subsidiary of Imagination following the merger. The merger agreement provides that following the closing of the patent sale but prior to the closing of the merger, MIPS will effect a recapitalization by amending its certificate of incorporation. On November 29, 2012, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action entitled Capgrowth Group v. Sandeep S. Vij, et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-236874, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, the Capgrowth Action. The defendants are MIPS Technologies and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MIPS Technologies stockholders in connection with the patent sale agreement with Bridge Crossing and the merger agreement with Imagination Technologies and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed transactions arise out of a flawed process, that the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing in relation to the proposed transactions, which resulted in a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaint further alleges that MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the preliminary proxy statement filed by MIPS Technologies with the SEC on November 20, 2012, in connection with the proposed transactions. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the consummation of the merger, an award of compensatory or rescissory damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On December 17, 2012, defendants filed a motion to stay the Capgrowth Action pending resolution of the more advanced Shankar Action. On December 12, 2012, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action entitled Frank Minjarez v. MIPS Technologies, Inc., et al., Case No. 1:12-CV-237719, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, the Minjarez Action. The defendants are MIPS Technologies, the members of its board of directors, an acquisition subsidiary of Imagination Technologies ("Acquisition Sub"), AST and Bridge Crossing. The complaint alleges that MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MIPS Technologies stockholders in connection with the patent sale agreement and the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed transactions arise out of a flawed process, that the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing in relation to the proposed transactions, which resulted in a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaint further alleges that MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the preliminary proxy statement filed by MIPS Technologies with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2012, in connection with the proposed transactions. The complaint further alleges Acquisition Sub, Bridge Crossing and AST aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the consummation of the proposed transactions, rescinding the proposed transactions if they are consummated, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On December 12, 2012, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action entitled Ashish Shankar v. Kenneth L. Coleman, et al., Case No. 8103-VCN, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the Shankar Action. The defendants are MIPS Technologies, the members of its board of directors, Acquisition Sub, Imagination Technologies, AST, and Bridge Crossing. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MIPS Technologies stockholders in connection with the patent sale agreement and the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed transactions arise out of a flawed process, that the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing in relation to the proposed transactions, which resulted in a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the preliminary proxy statement filed by MIPS Technologies with the Securities and Exchange Commission on November 20, 2012, in connection with the proposed transactions. The complaint further alleges Imagination Technologies, Acquisition Sub, Bridge Crossing and AST aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the consummation of the proposed transactions, rescinding the proposed transactions if they are consummated or awarding rescissory damages, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On December 14, 2012, MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants answered the complaint in the Shankar Action. On December 17, 2012, Imagination Technologies and Acquisition Sub entered their appearance in the Shankar Action. Also on December 17, the Court of Chancery entered an order governing the production and exchange of confidential and highly confidential information. On December 18, the Court of Chancery entered a scheduling order providing for, among other things, the certification of a non-opt out class in the Shankar Action. That scheduling order further provided, among other things, that plaintiff will file an amended complaint no later than three days after MIPS Technologies filed a revised preliminary proxy statement with the SEC. Also on December 18, Imagination Technologies and Acquisition Sub answered the complaint in the Shankar Action. On December 18, 2012, the plaintiff in the Capgrowth action filed a first amended complaint adding Imagination Technologies, Acquisition Sub, and Bridge Crossing as defendants. The first amended complaint further added allegations that Imagination Technologies, Acquisition Sub, and Bridge Crossing aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants. The first amended complaint further added a claim against MIPS Technologies, in which plaintiff seeks attorneys' fees associated with the increase in the merger consideration that plaintiff alleges to have precipitated. Also on December 18, 2012, the plaintiff filed an application for a temporary restraining order seeking to enjoin the consummation of the proposed transactions. On December 19, 2012, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action entitled John Mahlke v. MIPS Technologies, Inc., Case No. 8127, in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware, the Mahlke Action. The defendants are MIPS Technologies, the members of its board of directors, Acquisition Sub, and Imagination Technologies. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MIPS Technologies stockholders in connection with the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed merger arises out of a flawed process which resulted in a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaint further alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from the preliminary proxy statement filed by MIPS Technologies with the SEC on November 20, 2012, in connection with the proposed merger. The complaint further alleges Imagination Technologies and Acquisition Sub aided and abetted the alleged breaches of fiduciary duty by the individual defendants. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order enjoining the consummation of the proposed merger, rescinding the proposed merger if it is consummated or awarding rescissory damages, awarding damages, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On December 20, 2012, MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants answered the complaint in the Mahlke Action. On December 21, 2012, Imagination Technologies and Acquisition Sub answered the complaint in the Mahlke Action. On December 21, 2012, MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants filed an amended motion to stay in the Capgrowth Action. On December 24, 2012, plaintiff in the Shankar Action filed an amended complaint. On December 27, 2012, the Court of Chancery granted an order consolidating the Shankar action and the Mahlke action into one action entitled In re MIPS Technologies, Inc. Stockholder Litigation, Consolidated C.A. No. 8103-VCN, the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties in the Consolidated Action, the amended complaint in the Shankar Action was treated as the operative complaint for the Consolidated Action. On December 28, 2012, an alleged stockholder filed a putative class action entitled Abhilash Joseph v. Sandeep S. Vij, et al., Case No. 1:12-cv-238629, in the Superior Court of the State of California, Santa Clara County, the Joseph Action. The defendants are MIPS Technologies and the members of its board of directors. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties to MIPS Technologies stockholders in connection with the patent sale agreement and the merger agreement and the transactions contemplated thereby. Specifically, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the proposed transactions arise out of a flawed process, that the individual defendants engaged in self-dealing in relation to the proposed transactions, which resulted in a failure to maximize stockholder value. The complaint further alleges that MIPS Technologies and the individual defendants breached their fiduciary duties by omitting material facts from both the preliminary proxy statement and the revised preliminary proxy statement filed by MIPS Technologies with the SEC on November 20 and December 20, 2012, in connection with the proposed transactions. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, an order declaring the merger agreement was entered into in breach of the individual defendants' fiduciary duties and that the merger agreement is unenforceable, enjoining the consummation of the proposed transactions, rescinding the merger agreement or the patent sale agreement to the extent either is already implemented, and awarding attorneys' fees and costs. On January 3, 2013, without admitting any wrongdoing and to avoid the burden, expense and disruption of continued litigation, MIPS Technologies, the individual defendants, Bridge Crossing, AST, Imagination Technologies and Acquisition Sub entered into a memorandum of understanding with the plaintiffs in the Consolidated Action providing for the settlement in principle of the claims brought on behalf of the class in the Consolidated Action. Pursuant to the memorandum of understanding, MIPS Technologies included additional disclosures in the definitive proxy statement requested by plaintiffs and agreed to waive certain provisions in standstill agreements applicable to two parties. The parties to the Consolidated Action are in the process of documenting the settlement and will present the settlement to the Court of Chancery for approval when that documentation is complete. On January 11, 2013, MIPS Technologies entered into a stipulation with the plaintiffs in the Capgrowth Action and Minjarez Action in which the parties agreed that the settlement in the Consolidated Action in Delaware, plus certain supplemental disclosures made by the Company, resolve the claims asserted in the Capgrowth Action and the Minjarez Action. The Company says it intends to defend vigorously against those lawsuits that have not been settled in principle. However, because any lawsuits which have not been settled in principle are in the early stages, the Company cannot predict the outcome at this time, and the Company cannot be assured that the actions will not delay the consummation of the patent sale or the merger or result in substantial costs (which may include settlement costs); even a meritless lawsuit may potentially delay consummation of the patent sale and the merger. MUTSY USA: Recalls 340 EVO Strollers Due to Strangulation Hazard ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with importer, Mutsy USA Inc., of Newark, New Jersey, and manufacturer, Mutsy BV., of Goirle, Netherlands, announced a voluntary recall of about 340 EVO strollers. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. The opening between the grab bar and seat bottom of the stroller can allow an infant's body to pass through and become entrapped at the neck, posing a strangulation hazard to young children when a child is not harnessed. No incidents or injuries have been reported. This recall includes EVO strollers manufactured between February 2012 (01.02.12) and November 2012 (30.11.12) with the following model numbers: MT12-03, MT12-11, MT12-14, MT12-31, MT12-34, MT12- 37, MT12-39, MT12-42, MT12-43 and MT12-48. The model number and date code can be found underneath the stroller seat on a white sticker. The strollers have black or silver-colored metal frames with brown, navy blue, black, or white seats. "EVO" is printed on the lower back frame of the stroller. Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/YAQseN The recalled products were manufactured in China and sold at juvenile product stores nationwide and Web sites including www.amazon.com between April 2012 and December 2012 for about $400. Consumers should stop using the strollers immediately and contact Mutsy USA to receive a free replacement seat unit and grab bar. Mutsy USA may be reached toll-free at (877) 546-9230 from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, e-mail at usa@mutsy.nl, or visit the firm's Web site at http://www.mutsy.com/for recall information. PRIZER PAINTER: Recalls 940 BlueStar Wall Ovens Due to Fire Risk ---------------------------------------------------------------- The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with Prizer Painter Stove Works Inc., of Reading, Pennsylvania, announced a voluntary recall of about 940 BlueStar(TM) residential gas wall ovens. Consumers should stop using this product unless otherwise instructed. It is illegal to resell or attempt to resell a recalled consumer product. Some of the wall ovens have been improperly installed and/or have damaged flexible gas appliance connectors, posing a fire hazard. The firm has received one report of a fire, resulting in property damage to the cabinet that held the oven. No injuries have been reported. This recall involves all colors of three models of BlueStar gas- powered stainless steel wall ovens manufactured prior to November 23, 2012. Oven sizes include 24-, 30- and 36-inch wide units. Each of the three sizes was available for use with natural gas or liquid propane. The propane version is designated by the letter "L" at the end of the model number. Model numbers and date codes are located on the rating plate inside the control panel. There is a BlueStar logo on the upper left front of the oven, above the door. Model Name Model Nos. Color ---------- ---------- ----- 24-Inch BlueStar(TM) BWO24AGS All Colors residential wall oven BWO24AGSL with swing door 30-Inch BlueStar(TM) BWO30AGS All Colors residential wall oven BWO30AGSL with French doors 36 -Inch BlueStar(TM) BWO36AGS All Colors residential wall oven BWO36AGSL with French doors Pictures of the recalled products are available at: http://is.gd/dHV7oI The recalled products were manufactured in the United States of America and sold at appliance stores and authorized kitchen equipment dealers nationwide between January 2008 through November 2012 for between $2,250 and $3,900. Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled ovens, contact BlueStar for instructions on identifying affected units and to schedule a repair. BlueStar may be reached at (800) 449- 8691, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time Monday through Friday, or online at http://www.bluestarcooking.com/and click on "Recall" for more information. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Appeal in Hurricane Katrina Suit Pending ---------------------------------------------------------- In April 2006, Tennessee Valley Authority ("TVA") was added as a defendant to a class action lawsuit brought in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi by 14 Mississippi residents allegedly injured by Hurricane Katrina. The plaintiffs sued seven large oil companies and an oil company trade association, three large chemical companies and a chemical trade association, and 31 large companies involved in the mining and/or burning of coal, alleging that the defendants' greenhouse gas emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. Action by the United States Supreme Court in January 2011 ended this case in a manner favorable to TVA. However, in May 2011, under a Mississippi state statute that permits the re-filing of lawsuits that were dismissed on procedural grounds, the plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi against the same and additional defendants, again alleging that the defendants' GHG emissions contributed to global warming and were a proximate and direct cause of Hurricane Katrina's increased destructive force. The court dismissed the lawsuit in March 2012 for a variety of reasons, including that the lawsuit presented a non-justiciable political question and that all of the claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act. The plaintiffs have appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. No further updates were reported in the Company's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. TENNESSEE VALLEY: Parties in Suit vs. TVARS Still in Mediation -------------------------------------------------------------- Parties in the lawsuit filed by former and current participants of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System are currently proceeding with mediation, according to Tennessee Valley Authority's February 5, 2013, Form 10-Q filing with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission for the quarter ended December 31, 2012. In March 2010, eight current and former participants in and beneficiaries of the Tennessee Valley Authority Retirement System ("TVARS") filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee against the six then-current members of the TVARS Board. The lawsuit challenged the TVARS Board's decision to suspend the TVA contribution requirements for 2010 through 2013, and to amend the TVARS Rules and Regulations to (1) reduce the calculation for cost of living adjustment ("COLA") benefits for CY 2010 through CY 2013, (2) reduce the interest crediting rate for the fixed fund accounts, and (3) increase the eligibility age to receive COLAs from age 55 to 60. The plaintiffs allege that TVA's actions violated the TVARS Board members' fiduciary duties to the plaintiffs (and the purported class) and the plaintiffs' contractual rights, among other claims. The plaintiffs sought, among other things, unspecified damages, an order directing the TVARS Board to rescind the amendments, and the appointment of a seventh TVARS Board member. Five of the six individual defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, while the remaining defendant filed an answer to the complaint. In July 2010, TVA moved to intervene in the lawsuit in the event it was not dismissed. In September 2010, the district court dismissed the breach of fiduciary duty claim against the directors without prejudice, allowing the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint within 14 days against TVARS and TVA but not the individual directors. The plaintiffs previously had voluntarily withdrawn their constitutional claims, so the court also dismissed those claims without prejudice. The court dismissed with prejudice the plaintiffs' claims for breach of contract, violation of the Internal Revenue Code, and appointment of a seventh TVARS Board member. In September 2010, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against TVARS and TVA. The plaintiffs allege, among other things, violations of their constitutional rights (due process, equal protection, and property rights), violations of the Administrative Procedure Act, and breach of statutory duties owed to the plaintiffs. They seek a declaratory judgment and appropriate relief for the alleged statutory and constitutional violations and breaches of duty. TVA filed its answer to the amended complaint in December 2010. In May 2012, the court granted the parties' joint motion to administratively close the case subject to reopening to allow the parties the opportunity to engage in mediation that will likely take a significant amount of time to complete. The mediation began in September 2012 and is taking place over a series of meetings. WMS INDUSTRIES: Being Sold for Too Little, Suit Claims ------------------------------------------------------ Courthouse News Service reports that WMS Industries is selling itself too cheaply through an unfair process to Scientific Games, for $26 a share or $1.5 billion, shareholders claim in Cook County Chancery Court. ********* 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., Washington, D.C., USA. Noemi Irene A. Adala, Joy A. Agravante, Valerie Udtuhan, Julie Anne L. Toledo, Christopher Patalinghug, Frauline Abangan and Peter A. Chapman, Editors. Copyright 2013. 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 $775 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 Peter A. Chapman at 215-945-7000 or Nina Novak at 202-241-8200. * * * End of Transmission * * *