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  * * *