CAR_Public/100331.mbx             C L A S S   A C T I O N   R E P O R T E R

            Wednesday, March 31, 2010, Vol. 12, No. 63

                            Headlines

3T CYCLING: Recalls 325 Ventus-Brand Bicycle Aerobars
ADAMS GOLF: June 17 Hearing Set to Review $16.5 Mil. Settlement
BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Facing Foreclosure Sue in W.D. Wash.
BUBBLEGUM USA: Recalls 900 Girls' Hooded Jackets
CAROLINA BIOLOGY: Recalls 2,300 Carolina Function Generator Kits

CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,700 Girls' Hooded Sweaters
EVENFLO CO: Recalls 183,000 Top-of-Stair Plus Wood Gates
FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA: Nursing Unions Launch Class Action
HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL: Lawyers Collect 125% of Plaintiffs' Recovery
INFANTINO LLC: Recalls 1 Million Baby Carriers After 3 Deaths

LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 5,700 Vent-Free Gas Logs and Fireplaces
LIBERTY APPAREL: Recalls 2,300 Jewel Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts
S&S WORLDWIDE: Recalls 1,000 Flower & Insect Painted Wooden Beads
SIMPSON DURA-VENT: Recalls 500 Fireplace Dampers
TOYOTA MOTOR: JPMDL Considering Venue for Toyota Litigation

UNITED STATES: 9/11 Lawyers Attempt to Refine Settlement

                            *********

3T CYCLING: Recalls 325 Ventus-Brand Bicycle Aerobars
-----------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
3T Cycling Srl, based in Italy, announced a voluntary recall of
about 325 Ventus Ltd(TM) and Ventus Team(TM) Bicycle Aerobars
distributed by BikeMine, of Oklahoma City, Okla.; Quality Bicycle
Parts, of Bloomington, Minn.; Security Bicycle Accessories, of
Hempstead, N.Y.; and Bicycle Technologies International, Ltd.
(BTI), of Santa Fe, N.M.  Consumers should stop using recalled
products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The two rubber hand grips on the aerobars (handle bars) can
loosen or slip off during use, posing a fall or injury hazard to
the rider.

Two incidents were reported to 3T involving adults with minor
abrasions.

This recall involves all Ventus Ltd, Ventus Ltd 17, Ventus Ltd
Gold, Ventus Ltd Track, Ventus Team and Ventus Team 17 bicycle
aerobars. The recalled aerobar models were sold in one size and
color for each model; Black with red stripe for the Team and
black with silver stripe for the Ltd. The "Ventus" and "3T" logos
are on the top side of the bar with the model name.  Pictured of
the recalled handle bars are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10175.html

The recalled aerobars were manufactured in Taiwan and sold at
independent bicycle retailers and Internet retailers nationwide
sold the aerobars from January 2008 through November 2009 for
about $1,200 for the Ltd. models and $1,000 for the Team models.

Contact BikeMine to receive a free redesigned rubber grip set and
adhesive kit or information on how to bring your Ventus bar to a
local retailer for a repair.  For more information contact
BikeMine toll-free at 1-877-861-9125 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Central Time, Monday through Friday or visit 3T's recall
web page at http://www.TheNew3t.com/VentusRecall


ADAMS GOLF: June 17 Hearing Set to Review $16.5 Mil. Settlement
---------------------------------------------------------------
                IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                    FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN RE                            )
                                 )   CONSOLIDATED
ADAMS GOLF, INC. SECURITIES      )   C.A. No. 99-371-GMS
LITIGATION                       )
_________________________________)

              Summary Notice of Proposed Class Action
                 Settlement and Settlement Hearing

To: All Buyers of Shares of Adams Golf Inc. Stock in the
     July 9, 1998 Initial Public Offering or between
     July 10, 1998 and October 22, 1998:

     YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED that a settlement for $16,500,000
cash, plus a contingent amount of up to $1,250,000 (the
"Settlement"), has been reached in this Federal Securities Class
Action between the Class members, Adams Golf, Inc., its officers
and directors and its underwriters.  A hearing will be held
before the Honorable Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet in Courtroom
4A, in the United States Courthouse, J. Caleb Boggs Federal Bldg,
844 North King Street, Wilmington, DE 19801-3519, at 9:30 a.m.,
on June 17, 2010, to determine whether the Settlement should be
approved by the Court as fair, reasonable, and adequate; to
consider the proposed Plan of Allocation; to consider
applications for Plaintiffs' Counsel's fees and costs and
reimbursement to Plaintiffs for their out-of-pocket expenses; and
to consider any objections filed by Class members.

     If you bought shares of Adams Golf stock in or traceable to
the July 9, 1998 Initial Public Offering ("IPO"), or between July
10, 1998 and October 22, 1998 (the "Class Period"), you may be
entitled to share in the Settlement proceeds.  If you have not
yet received the full printed Notice of Proposed Settlement of
Class Action, you may obtain a copy by identifying yourself as a
member of the Class and by calling toll-free: (800) 768-8450, by
writing to the Claims Administrator:

          In Re Adams Golf, Inc. Securities Litigation
          c/o Heffler, Radetich & Saitta, LLP
          P.O. Box 660
          Philadelphia, PA 19105-0660

or by contacting Lead Counsel:

          Todd Collins, Esq.
          Elizabeth W. Fox, Esq.
          Berger & Montague, P.C.
          1622 Locust Street
          Philadelphia, PA 19103

You may also download a copy at:

     http://www.hrsclaimsadministration.com/

Further information may be obtained by directing your inquiry in
writing to the Claims Administrator.

Dated: March 25, 2010             By Order of the United States
                                  District Court for the District
                                  of Delaware


BANK OF AMERICA: Homeowners Facing Foreclosure Sue in W.D. Wash.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Levi Pulkkinen at SeattlePI.com reports that in a potentially
wide-ranging lawsuit, two Seattle-area homeowners have filed a
class-action suit against Bank of America claiming the bank has
failed to work with owners facing foreclosure.

Filed last week, the potentially wide-ranging lawsuit alleges
Bank of America failed to keep up its end of the deal cut with
the federal government in early 2009 when it took $25 billion and
promised to work with homeowners struggling to make their
mortgage payments.

By participating in the Troubled Asset Relief Program -- TARP --
the bank agreed to assist loan recipients to reduce payments to
levels they could afford, Seattle attorney Steve Berman said in
court documents.  Mr. Berman alleged the bank's foot-dragging has
failed his clients, Kamie and Daniel Kahlo, and hundreds of other
Washingtonians.

"We intend to show that Bank of America is acting contrary to the
intent and spirit of the TARP program, and is doing so out of
financial self interest," said Mr. Berman, managing partner of
Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, according to a statement.

Reached for comment, a Bank of America spokesperson declined to
comment on the case as the bank has not yet been served. She
noted that more than 760,000 Bank of America customers have gone
through some form of loan modification.

The plaintiffs contend the federal regulations require that banks
must gather information from the homeowner, and offer a revised
three-month payment plan for the borrower. If the homeowner makes
all three payments under the trial plan and provides the
necessary documentation, the lender must offer a permanent
modification.

Citing statements to Congress, Mr. Berman notes in the lawsuit
that one in eight U.S. home mortgages is currently in peril
following massive increases in the number of foreclosures and
defaults in recent years. The number of Washington properties in
foreclosure in 2008 had increased by 117 percent from 2006.

In 2008, more than 9,200 foreclosure filings were made in the
Seattle area alone, according to the suit.

The number of properties in foreclosure statewide decreased in
2009, to about 36,000, but was still more than four times the
number in foreclosure five years before.

Describing the Kahlos' experience, the plaintiffs' attorneys
claimed in court documents that the couple fell on hard times
after business slowed at their small construction company.

Unable to continue making the $1,400 monthly payments they'd made
for seven years, they began working with the bank to reduce their
mortgage payments in early 2009, according to the complaint. More
than a year later, they had not received the loan modification
promised by the bank.

Mr. Berman argued that Bank of America's failure to act was a
violation of its obligations under the federal program, and an
intentional one.

"We contend that Bank of America has made an affirmative decision
to slow the loan modification process for reasons that are solely
in the bank's financial interests," Mr. Berman said in a
statement.

"Bank of America came up with every excuse to defer the Kahlo
family from a home loan modification, from stating they 'lost'
their paperwork to saying they never approved the new terms of
the mortgage agreement," he continued. "And we know from our
investigation this isn't an isolated incident."

According to the attorney's statement, Bank of America services
more than 1 million mortgages that qualify for financial relief,
but has granted only 12,761 of them permanent modification.

The plaintiffs' attorneys noted they intend to pursue the suit as
a class action, which would allow other homeowners in situations
similar to that faced by the Kahlos to join the suit. A judge
will have to decide whether such a move is warranted.

Bank of America has yet to respond to the lawsuit, which has been
filed in U.S. District Court.


BUBBLEGUM USA: Recalls 900 Girls' Hooded Jackets
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Bubblegum USA, of Los Angeles, Calif., announced a voluntary
recall of about 900 Girls' Hooded Jackets with Drawstrings.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

The jackets have a drawstring through the hood which can pose a
strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines to help prevent children from strangling or getting
entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper garments,
such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves girls' hooded jackets sold in a camouflage
design with a grey hood. "Bubblegum USA" and style number
GS9548N-521G HZZ is printed on a tag inside the jacket. The
jackets were sold in girls' sizes 7 through 16.  Pictures of the
recalled jackets are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10179.html

The recalled garments were manufactured in China and sold
exclusively at Burlington Coat Factory stores nationwide from
August 2006 through September 2009 for between $15 and $25.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring to eliminate
the hazard. Consumers can also return the jacket to Bubblegum USA
or Burlington Coat Factory for a full refund.  For additional
information, contact Bubblegum USA collect at (323) 233-9005
between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time, Monday through
Friday, visit the firm's Web site at http://www.bubblegumusa.com/


CAROLINA BIOLOGY: Recalls 2,300 Carolina Function Generator Kits
----------------------------------------------------------------
About 2,300 Carolina Function Generator Kits were voluntarily
recalled by Carolina Biological Supply Co., of Burlington, N.C.,
in cooperation with the CPSC.  Consumers should stop using the
product immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The yellow lids in the kits contain excessive levels of lead.
Lead is toxic if ingested by young children and can cause adverse
health effects.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Carolina Function Generator Kits that
are mathematical function teaching aids.  The kit consists of a
yellow plastic lid, leg stands, base and whiteboard cards. The
yellow lids have two slots labeled "IN' and "OUT" and are
embossed with the name "Carolina" and "Lid" in raised letters.  A
picture of the recalled item is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10726.html

The recalled educational product was manufactured in Canada and
sold through Carolina's catalogs and online at
http://www.carolina.com/nationwide and directly to schools from
February 2009 through January 2010 for about $34.  They were also
sold with "Math Out of the Box Kits" for between $780 and $2,930.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled kits away from
children and contact Carolina Biology Supply to obtain a free
replacement kit.  The firm is directly contacting purchasers of
the educational kits.  For additional information, contact
Carolina toll-free at (877) 316-1848 between 9:00 a.m. and 5:00
p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web
site at http://www.carolina.com/or by e-mail at
function.generator@carolina.com


CHILDREN'S APPAREL: Recalls 9,700 Girls' Hooded Sweaters
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Children's Apparel Network, Ltd. of New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 9,00 Girls' Hooded Sweaters with
Drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.
The hooded sweaters have a drawstring at the neck which can pose
a strangulation hazard to children.  In February 1996, CPSC
issued guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry
voluntary standard in 1997) to help prevent children from
strangling or getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings
in upper garments, such as jackets or sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The hooded sweaters were sold as part of a 3-piece set with knit
shirt and corduroy pants.  The girls' acrylic sweater has flower
appliques and embroidery.  A Young Hearts label in the neck seam
has RN# 16435.  The sweaters were sold in sizes 2-4T and 4-6X.
Pictured of the recalled garments are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10180.html

The recalled sweaters were manufactured in China and sold at
Burlington Coat Factory, Pamida and Ross Stores nationwide from
June 2008 through November 2008 for about $15.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstring from the
sweaters to eliminate the hazard, or return the garment to the
place of purchase for a full refund.  For additional information,
contact Children's Apparel Network at (800) 919-1917 between
10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through Friday.


EVENFLO CO: Recalls 183,000 Top-of-Stair Plus Wood Gates
--------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Evenflo Co. Inc. of Miamisburg, Ohio, announced
a voluntary recall of about 150,000 Evenflo Top-of-Stair(TM) Plus
Wood Gates in the United States and 33,000 in Canada.  Consumers
should stop using recalled products immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The slats on the gate can break or detach, posing a fall hazard
to children.

Evenflo has received 142 reports of slats breaking and/or
detaching from the gate. Three children gained access to stairs.
One of those children fell through the gate and down five steps;
another fell down one step.  Injuries included four children who
sustained bumps and bruises to the head and seven children who
sustained minor injuries including scratches, scrapes and
bruises.

The recall involves Evenflo models 10502 and 10512 Top-of-Stair
Plus Wood Gates made from October 2007 through July 2009. The
model number can be found on the bottom rail.  No other Evenflo
model numbers or gates are affected by this recall.  A picture of
the recalled product is available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10181.html

The recalled gates were manufactured in Mexico and sold at Toys
"R" Us, Burlington Baby Depot, Kmart and other juvenile product
and mass merchandise retailers nationwide in the U.S. and Canada,
and on the Web at Amazon.com and other online retailers from
October 2007 through March 2010 for about $40.
Consumers should stop using the recalled gate and contact Evenflo
to obtain a free newer model 10503 or 10513 Top-of-Stair(TM) Plus
Wood replacement gate.  For additional information, call Evenflo
toll-free at (800) 233-5921 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the firm's Web site
at http://safety.evenflo.com/


FAIR WORK AUSTRALIA: Nursing Unions Launch Class Action
-------------------------------------------------------
Miles Godfrey at ninemsn reports that nursing unions have
launched a landmark class action to protect the wages of
thousands of aged care workers under new Fair Work rules.

The Australian Nursing Federation (ANF) lodged the take home pay
order on behalf of aged care workers in NSW and Queensland, amid
fears the workers could end up earning less when the new rules
kick in on July 1.

The application, thought to be the first of its type, is being
viewed as a test case by the union.

Under the Labor federal government's new Fair Work rules, minimum
wages in the sector will be made uniform across the country over
a four-year transition period starting on July 1, leading to
fears of a 20 per cent cut in pay for some workers in the two
east coast states.

There are also fears "unscrupulous" employers could use the new
laws to reduce pay.

But the federal government has said anyone earning less under the
new regime can apply for a take home pay order, protecting wages
at current levels.

The ANF application, made in conjunction with its local branches,
the NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA) and the Queensland Nurses
Union (QNU), had been made to head off any future problems, ANF
general secretary Ged Kearny said on Friday.

This was despite Fair Work Australia saying it would only make
take home pay orders if workers had actually suffered a pay cut,
rather than just on the expectation of a reduction.

"This is partly why we see this as a test case," NSWNA general
secretary Brett Holmes told AAP.

It is also believed to be the first time a union has made a take
home pay order application on behalf of a large number of
workers.

A total of 284 private and not-for-profit aged care facilities in
NSW and 116 in Queensland are named in the class action, sent to
Fair Work Australia on Thursday.

Ms Kearny told AAP she hopes the issue will be resolved before
July 1.

The ANF's NSW branch, the NSW Nurses Association (NSWNA), said it
joined the action to protect the wages of thousands of aged care
nurses at 284 facilities across the state.

It estimates the wages of NSW aged care nurses will drop 20 per
cent in July under the new national pay regime.

"Aged care nursing pay rates are already significantly lower than
nursing pay rates in the hospital sector," Mr Holmes said in a
statement.

"We cannot afford to have employers taking this opportunity to
reduce those wages even further. Such an outcome will be harmful
and unfair for the nurses and the aged care industry."

Ms Kearny told AAP many people will be watching the outcome of
the case.

"This is the first time a union has used these provisions to
protect workers across a large number of employers," she added in
a statement.

"Instead of waiting for employers to cut workers' wages we are
getting in first to ensure they are protected."


HOUSEHOLD FINANCIAL: Lawyers Collect 125% of Plaintiffs' Recovery
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Amelia Flood at The St. Clair Record reports that after securing
a $100,000 settlement for members of a class action suit over
mortgage interest fees, the attorneys walked away with $125,000
in fees.

According to the settlement document in the case, LakinChapman
will collect the fees while the lead plaintiffs in the case, Paul
and LaDonna Wratchford, will receive $2,500 collectively.

Each class member in the suit will receive about $10.

The Wratchfords led the suit against Household Financial Services
Inc. in 2003, alleging they were overcharged on interest payments
by the company.

The suit was one of a string of similar class actions filed in
Madison County by then partner law firms, the Lakin Law Firm --
now LakinChapman -- and the Chicago firm of Freed & Weiss.

That partnership fell apart in 2007 although a number of the
suits the two firms filed remain pending in Madison County.

Madison County Circuit Judge Barbara Crowder gave the settlement
the initial go-ahead March 18 after making attorneys from both
sides fix what she described as vague sections of the
settlements.

The attorneys had to specify what charity would receive left over
funds from the settlement, change the window in which class
members could file corrected claim paperwork and Household
Financial posted a bond to guarantee the settlement amount.

Judge Crowder is at least the third Madison County judge to
oversee the suit.  Then Madison County Circuit Judge Phillip
Kardis gave it the initial go ahead and it was later assigned to
former Madison County Circuit Judge Nicholas Byron.

The original class counsel, Gary Peel, is now serving time in
prison.

The class was represented by Paul Marks, Mark Brown and others.

The defendant is represented by Debra Zahalsky and Vanessa
Jacobsen.

The case is Madison case number 03-L-541.


INFANTINO LLC: Recalls 1 Million Baby Carriers After 3 Deaths
-------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission and Health Canada, in
cooperation with Infantino LLC, of San Diego, Calif., announced a
free replacement program for the Infantino "SlingRider" and
"Wendy Bellissimo" infant slings.  One million of these infant
slings are being recalled in the United States and 15,000 are
being recalled in Canada.  CPSC advises consumers to immediately
stop using these slings for infants younger than four months of
age due to a risk of suffocation and contact Infantino for a free
replacement product.

CPSC is aware of three reports of deaths that occurred in these
slings in 2009; a 7-week-old infant in Philadelphia, Pa.; a 6-
day-old infant in Salem, Ore.; and a 3-month-old infant in
Cincinnati, Ohio.

The Infantino "SlingRider," is a soft fabric baby carrier with a
padded shoulder strap that is worn by parents and caregivers to
carry an infant weighing up to 20 lbs. "Infantino" is printed on
the plastic slider located on the strap. "Infantino,"
"SlingRider" and the item number are printed on the
instruction/warning label inside the baby sling carrier. "Wendy
Bellissimo" branded sling carriers were sold exclusively at
Babies "R" Us and have a sewn-in label on the inside of the sling
strap that says in part "Wendy Bellissimo Media, Inc." and lists
Item numbers 3937500H7 and 3937501H7.  Pictured of the recalled
products are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10177.html

Infantino LLC sold the slings in the United States and Canada
from January 2003 through March 2010 at Walmart, Burlington Coat
Factory, Target, Babies "R" Us, BJ's Wholesale, various baby and
children's stores and other retailers nationwide, and on the Web
at Amazon.com, for between $25 and $30.

The product was manufactured in China and Thailand.

Consumers should stop using the recalled slings immediately and
contact Infantino to receive a free replacement product, with a
choice of a Wrap & Tie infant carrier, or a 2 in 1 Shopping Cart
Cover, or a 3 in 1 Grow & Play Activity Gym. A Jittery Pals
Rattle will also be provided. Contact Infantino toll-free at
(866) 860-1361 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.infantino.com/

Do not attempt to fix these carriers.


LENNOX HEARTH: Recalls 5,700 Vent-Free Gas Logs and Fireplaces
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Lennox Hearth Products, of Nashville, Tenn., announced a
voluntary recall of about 5,700 Superior VFGL Vent-Free Gas Log
Sets and VF Vent-Free Fireplaces.  Consumers should stop using
recalled products immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The front burners of vent-free gas log set fireplace inserts and
the vent-free fireplaces can fail to ignite allowing gas to
escape and posing a fire or explosion hazard to consumers.

Lennox received two reports from installers of the log sets
failing to light.  No injuries were reported.

The recalled products are Lennox Superior brand VFGL Log Sets and
VF4000, VF5000 and VF6000 fireplaces. Log sets are comprised of
ceramic-fiber logs with a dual gas burner system and are designed
to be placed in a wood-burning fireplace or a ventless firebox
enclosure. Fireplaces are comprised of log sets, a ventless
firebox enclosure and accessories. Each product has a metal
rating plate attached to the grate of the log sets or to the
frame of the fireplaces containing the unit's model number,
serial number and other information.  These models are affected
by this recall:

     Vent-Free Gas Log Set Models
     ----------------------------
          VFGL18 - MSN - 4
          VFGL18 - MSP - 4
          VFGL24 - MSN - 4
          VFGL24 - MSP - 4
          VFGL28 - MSN - 4
          VFGL28 - MSP - 4
          VFGL18 - VSN - 4
          VFGL18 - VSP - 4
          VFGL24 - VSN - 4
          VFGL24 - VSP - 4
          VFGL28 - VSN - 4
          VFGL28 - VSP - 4

     Vent-Free Gas Fireplace Models
     ------------------------------
          VF4000 - CHN - 2
          VF4000 - CHP - 2
          VF4000 - CMN - 2
          VF4000 - CMP - 2
          VF5000 - CMN - 2
          VF5000 - CMP - 2
          VF6000 - CMN - 2
          VF6000 - CMP - 2

Included in this recall are units with serial numbers starting
with "6408C" through "6408M," and those starting with "6409."
Units that had repairs made to the burner assembly between March
2008 and December 2009 are also included.

The recalled products were manufactured in the United States and
sold by various fireplace and HVAC retailers and installers from
March 2008 through December 2009 for approximately $540 to $775
for the log sets and $1,300 to $1,850 for the fireplaces.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled log sets and
fireplaces and contact Lennox for information about how to
arrange for a free inspection and repair.  For additional
information, please contact Lennox Hearth Products at
(800) 826-8546 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Central Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.lennoxhearthproducts.com/


LIBERTY APPAREL: Recalls 2,300 Jewel Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts
--------------------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Liberty Apparel Company, Inc., New York, N.Y., announced a
voluntary recall of about 2,300 Jewel Girls' Hooded Sweatshirts
with Drawstrings.  Consumers should stop using recalled products
immediately unless otherwise instructed.

The sweatshirts have a drawstring through the hood which can pose
a strangulation hazard to children. In February 1996, CPSC issued
guidelines (which were incorporated into an industry voluntary
standard in 1997) to help prevent children from strangling or
getting entangled on the neck and waist drawstrings in upper
garments, such as jackets and sweatshirts.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves the Jewel girls' zippered, hooded
sweatshirts with style number J2184SK.  The sweatshirts come in
red or white and have small gold and silver hearts with arrows
printed on them.  The style number is printed on the tag that is
sewn on the inside seam of the sweatshirts and "Jewel" is printed
on the neck tag. They were sold in children's sizes small,
medium, large, extra-large sizes or sizes 4 through 16.  Pictured
of the recalled garments are available at:

     http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml10/10178.html

The recalled sweatshirts were manufactured in India and sold at
Marshalls, Burlington Coat Factory and Rainbow Apparel from
August 2007 through September 2009 for about $10.

Consumers should immediately remove the drawstrings from the
jackets to eliminate the hazard or return the garment to the
place of purchase or to Liberty Apparel Company for a full
refund.  For additional information, call Liberty Apparel Company
collect at (212) 768-3030 between 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,
Eastern Time, Monday through Friday or visit the company's Web
site at http://www.burlingtoncoatfactory.com/


S&S WORLDWIDE: Recalls 1,000 Flower & Insect Painted Wooden Beads
-----------------------------------------------------------------
S&S Worldwide Inc., of Colchester, Conn., voluntarily recalled
about 1,000 Flower and Insect Painted Wooden Beads in cooperation
with the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission.  Consumers
should stop using the product immediately unless otherwise
instructed.

The paint on the children's wooden beads contains excessive
levels of lead, violating the federal lead paint standard.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

The children's painted wooden beads are in the shapes of insects
and flowers. They were sold in assorted colors and designs and
measure about one inch in size. They were sold in 1/2 lb. bags.
Model number BE1190, "S&S Worldwide Inc" and "Made in China" is
located on the bag of beads.

THe recalls beads were manufactured in China and sold at S&S
Worldwide's catalog and on the firm's Web site at
http://www.ssww.com/from March 2008 through February 2010 for
about $20 per 1/2-lb. bag.

Consumers should immediately take the recalled beads away from
children and contact S&S Worldwide for a full refund or
replacement product. S&S Worldwide is directly contacting
consumers who purchased the beads to alert them to this recall.
For more information, contact S&S Worldwide at (800) 937-3482
between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Eastern Time, Monday through
Friday or e-mail the firm at recalls@ssww.com or visit the firm's
Web site at http://www.ssww.com/productsafety


SIMPSON DURA-VENT: Recalls 500 Fireplace Dampers
------------------------------------------------
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, in cooperation with
Simpson Dura-Vent Company Inc., of Vacaville, Calif., announced a
voluntary recall of about 500 of its DuraTech Anchor Plate with
Damper and DuraChimney II Anchor Plate with Damper products.
Consumers should stop using recalled products immediately unless
otherwise instructed.

When the consumer attempts to open or close the damper, it can
become stuck in its current position. In addition, some of the
dampers were assembled backwards and are set to the closed
position when the consumer attempts to open the damper. Both pose
risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to the consumer.

No incidents or injuries have been reported.

This recall involves DuraTech Anchor Plates with Dampers and
DuraChimney II Anchor Plates with Dampers.  The products are
intended for use as a starter section for chimneys in fireplace
applications.  The dampers allow the chimney to be closed when
the fireplace is not in use.  Each damper is a short sheet metal
vent pipe fitted with a circular damper plate within the vent
pipe, and attached to a square anchor plate.  The damper plate
rotates around an axis rod to control the flow of air through the
vent pipe.  The damper plates have a weight attached to one side,
and a chain attached to the other side. When installed in a
fireplace application, the square anchor plate is generally not
visible.

The DuraTech Anchor Plate with Damper was manufactured in five
sizes:

     Dura-Vent Product Description Dura-Vent Product Number
     -----------------------------    ------------------------
     10" diameter DuraTech Damper 99142
     12" diameter DuraTech Damper 99242
     14" diameter DuraTech Damper 99342
     16" diameter DuraTech Damper 99442
     18" diameter DuraTech Damper 99542

The DuraChimney II Anchor Plate with Damper was manufactured in
four sizes:

     Dura-Vent Product Description Dura-Vent Product Number
     -----------------------------    ------------------------
     10" diameter DuraChimney Damper 10DCA-APD
     12" diameter DuraChimney Damper 12DCA-APD
     14" diameter DuraChimney Damper 14DCA-APD
     16" diameter DuraChimney Damper 16DCA-APD

The recalled dampers were manufactured in the United States and
sold by Dura-Vent distributors to fireplace/chimney contractors
and by installers to home builders nationwide from January 2007
through May 2008 for between $100 to $150, depending on the model
and size.

Consumers should ensure that their damper is in the open position
when the fireplace is in use.  Consumers or distributors with
defective fireplace dampers should contact Dura-Vent to schedule
a free repair.  The remaining unrepaired recalled dampers were
distributed in Washington and California.  Consumers and
distributors whose dampers were previously inspected and repaired
do not need to schedule an additional inspection.  For additional
information, consumers can contact Simpson Dura-Vent at
(866) 860-7908 between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Pacific Time,
Monday through Friday, or visit the firm's Web site at
http://www.duravent.com/


TOYOTA MOTOR: JPMDL Considering Venue for Toyota Litigation
-----------------------------------------------------------
Amanda Bronstad at The National Law Journal reports that more
than 100 lawyers packed a downtown San Diego federal courtroom
last week to hear arguments about which court is best prepared to
hear the increasing number of lawsuits filed against Toyota Motor
Sales USA Inc. over sudden unintended acceleration in millions of
its vehicles.

In all, 24 lawyers made brief statements before a panel, arguing
for courts and judges in California, Louisiana, Kentucky, Ohio,
Minnesota, Florida, South Carolina, West Virginia and New Jersey.

Lead counsel for Toyota:

          Cari K. Dawson, Esq.
          ALSTON & BIRD LLP
          One Atlantic Center
          1201 West Peachtree Street
          Atlanta, GA 30309-3424
          Telephone: 404-881-7000
          E-mail: cari.dawson@alston.com

argued for the Central District of California, where one-third of
the cases have been filed and where her client is located.

The panel of five judges who regularly hear jurisdictional issues
for multidistrict litigation raised few questions about the
locations but asked lawyers to address whether the class actions
should be separated from the personal injury suits. Most of the
lawyers appeared to favor keeping the cases together.

The panel is expected to rule within a few weeks.

Since last fall, more than 10 million Toyota vehicles have been
recalled in order to repair problems with accelerator pedals,
floor mats and brakes, all of which have been identified as
causing sudden and unintended acceleration. Toyota's problems
have multiplied, with new reports coming out each week indicating
that the Japanese automaker might have known about the
acceleration issue years ago.

The vast majority of the lawsuits -- nearly 90 -- have been filed
on behalf of a class of consumers who are seeking economic
damages because their recalled Toyota vehicles have lost value. A
smaller group of personal injury suits have been filed on behalf
of individuals who claim to have died or been injured in an
accident because their Toyota vehicles suddenly accelerated.

Hagens Berman has filed five class actions during the past two
weeks that demand refunds for consumers of recalled Toyota
vehicles. Three separate suits, filed on March 19 in the Central
District of California, seek refunds for consumers in Colorado,
Florida and Maryland. Two other suits were filed on March 15 in
federal courts in Washington and Arizona.

Steve Berman, Esq., managing partner of Hagens Berman, said he
initially hadn't been planned to get involved in the Toyota
litigation. He changed his mind after a former employee of his
firm told him that her recalled vehicle, which she bought less
than six months ago, was now worth $1,000 less.

"We thought about it and said, 'This seems a bit unfair to the
car buyer that they have to absorb the economic ramifications of
how to deal with this.' We came up with a new strategy of
refunds," he said. "No one is pursuing that, so we thought we'd
jump."

The firm expects to file similar suits for consumers in Indiana,
Massachusetts, Minnesota and Oregon in the coming week, with more
to follow. The suits are asking for refunds based on breach of
warranty and unjust enrichment.

Meanwhile, Lieff Cabraser now has 20 personal injury claims
pending against Toyota, more than any other firm in the nation.
Eleven were filed in the past two weeks, most in federal court in
Los Angeles.


UNITED STATES: 9/11 Lawyers Attempt to Refine Settlement
--------------------------------------------------------
Mark Hamblett at the New York Law Journal reports that as lawyers
in the mammoth 9/11 respiratory litigation returned to the
bargaining table last week, they faced the daunting challenge of
reaching an agreement that will satisfy Southern District of New
York Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein.

As reported in the Class Action Reporter last week, Judge
Hellerstein stunned all sides in In re World Trade Center
Disaster Site Litigation, 21 MC 100 (S.D.N.Y.), when he rejected
a proposed $575 million to $657 million settlement for those who
responded after the World Trade Center terror attacks and cleaned
up the site.  The judge complained the settlement paid too little
to victims and that its terms were confusing, making it difficult
for some 10,000 individual plaintiffs to make a decision on
whether to accept or reject payments.

One problem confronting the attorneys as they resume settlement
negotiations that already have stretched over almost two years is
the judge's concern about plaintiff and defense fees.

Judge Hellerstein said he would insist that plaintiffs' attorneys
be paid by the third-party insurance fund established to
indemnify New York City and its contractors who responded to the
tragedy and cleaned up the site.

In effect, by decreeing that the plaintiffs' recovery not be
diminished by attorney fees, the judge was demanding that the
World Trade Center Captive Insurance Co. sweeten the pot.

But while he insisted the proposed payout to victims "is not
enough," the judge did not specify the amount he would accept
before focusing on the fees sought by plaintiffs' liaison counsel
Worby Groner Edelman & Napoli, Bern as well as other plaintiffs'
lawyers and attorneys who referred cases.

Judge Hellerstein said he planned to reject the contracted
contingency fee of 33 percent for the lawyers and assign them a
lower share, as he did in the Sept. 11, 2001, wrongful death
cases, where he reduced the request to 15 percent of recovery.

The Worby firm has spent more than $90 million up front on the
cases, with roughly one third, or $30 million, on case
disbursements such as filing fees and medical records, according
to a person familiar with the costs. The remaining $60 million
has been spent on administrative expenses, including office
managers, paralegals, rent and lawyer's salaries, which are not
costs charged to clients.

If the settlement number is $657 million, once $30 million in
disbursements is subtracted, plaintiffs' counsel would be making
a percentage application based on $627 million paid to the
victims. Based on a one-third fee, Worby and other lawyers would
recover about $209 million.

But if Judge Hellerstein follows through and reduces that
percentage, and the settlement amount is not increased, the
lawyers' profit would fall dramatically.

For example, if he reduces the percentage to 20 percent, the firm
would get $105.4 million, with more than half going to cover
administrative expenses. And those amounts would not include tens
of millions more that must be spent in the future for case
disbursements and administrative costs.

The judge said at last Friday's hearing "just as the captive
insurance fund and the private insurers of the city paid the
city's expenses and in effect fueled this vigorous and aggressive
defense, so they should pay the plaintiffs' fee."

He added, "There are precedents for this. There are settlements
that are made with the defendant picking up the expense. This is
one of those settlements."

Christine LaSala, president and CEO of the $1.1 billion captive
fund, has acknowledged that more than $200 million had been spent
defending the city and the contractors since the first cases were
filed in 2004.

But Margaret Warner of McDermott Will & Emery, who has been in
the lead role for the captive fund, told the court on Friday that
the lion's share of the city's legal costs to date have not, in
fact, come from the fund, which was seeded by a congressional
appropriation, but instead have been recovered from lawsuits the
captive fund filed against companies who sold the city insurance
in the wake of 9/11.

Liberty Mutual and certain London insurers settled with the city
in 2007. And Lloyds of London, after getting an adverse ruling
from Judge Hellerstein, settled with the captive fund in November
2009, while the company's appeal was pending before the 2nd U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals. The amounts of the settlements are
confidential.

The lawyers who are trying to resurrect the 9/11 settlement --
Warner, plaintiffs' liaison counsel Paul Napoli and lead defense
counsel James E. Tyrrell Jr. of Patton Boggs -- must also produce
a document that strikes the proper balance between paying out
monies to victims now and keeping enough in reserve in the
captive fund to handle future claims.

Lawyers involved in the settlement worked to establish the proper
balance between present and future costs. But now the calculus
has to change given Judge Hellerstein's statement that, "In my
judgment, too much has been put aside for the future."

The lawyers will also have to figure out how to achieve the
judge's goal of taking "this very complicated settlement and
presenting it in a way that people can understand."

Although most of the litigation has been stayed while the two
sides weigh their options, which include a possible challenge to
Judge Hellerstein's rejection of the settlement at the 2nd
Circuit, the judge did allow one part of the case to move forward
with an order entered Wednesday.

The settlement calls for four tiers of plaintiffs with the most
seriously ill people slotted into the highest, or fourth tier.
The judge had expressed concern that tier-four plaintiffs might
find it hard to understand the value of a "point" to measure
compensation under a system established in the settlement.

Last week, the judge allowed the parties, who have insisted that
the compensation amount for plaintiffs in tiers one, two and
three is clear and understandable, to complete assembling a list
of eligible plaintiffs for the fourth tier, and thereby add some
clarity.

                            *********

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, Joy A. Agravante,
Ronald Sy 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  * * *