Marking the latest setback for the besieged biotech company, the lawsuit was filed in Ontario Superior Court in Toronto by two law firms, Siskinds LLP of London, Ont. and Sutt Strosberg LLP of Windsor.

The action, based on Ontario's new investor legislation, arose from CV Tech's June restatement of finances, after it was discovered earlier this year that U.S. sales of lead product Cold-fX were vastly inflated.

The suit was filed by two investors on behalf of any Canadians who acquired CV Technologies (TSX:CVT) shares between Dec. 11, 2006 and June 2007.

Also named in the action are CV Tech president Jacqueline Shan, directors Gordon Tallman and Harry Buddle, who signed the company's financial statements, and the corporation's auditors, Grant Thornton LLP of Edmonton.

Lawyer Jay Strosberg said it is alleged that CV Tech's financial statements were misleading. Strosberg, who specializes in class-action litigation, said his firm received a number of calls from shareholders. "They were concerned at the decrease in share price. We decided to investigate."

The two legal firms have set up a website with information for shareholders who may want to join the action, www.coldfxclassaction.com.

"Investors and members of the public expect that a company's financial statements can be relied upon at all times. Our goal is to prosecute this class action and seek meaningful compensation for the class members."

CV Technologies and the other named defendants have not yet been served with copies of the action and no court date has been set.

"It's going to be an interesting road," Strosberg said.

Dimitri Lascaris, a lawyer with Siskinds', said investors deserve relief when they suffer losses due to inaccurate information.

"Our securities laws must have teeth if the investments of Canada's working families are to be protected."

Officials with CV Technologies did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment today.

Typically, such actions can take years to wind their way through the legal system or reach settlement.

This is the second time that Ontario's investor protection legislation has been used in a court case. The first proposed class action, currently before the courts, was brought against Imax Corp., also filed jointly by Siskinds LLP and Sutts Strosberg LLP.

CV Technologies has had a rough ride in recent months. On June 12, the company resumed trading on the TSX for the first time since April, when regulators in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario slapped cease-trade orders against the company.

On June 14, the company filed restatements of previously reported financial statements for the year ended Sept. 30, 2006, and the quarters ended Dec. 31, 2006, and March 31, 2007. The company restated 2006 sales at $41.4 million, compared to the originally reported revenue of $47 million.

The company is restructuring and has hired a new COO. Following the disappointing launch of Cold-fX in the U.S. market, the company's vice president of sales resigned.

CV Technologies shares closed Friday's session up a penny to $1.02. Its 52-week trading range has been between 60 cents and $1.15.

Copernic Inc., (the "Company"), (NASDAQ: CNIC), formerly Mamma.com Inc., previously announced on March 8, 2007, that an order by the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York in the consolidated securities class action was filed preliminarily approving the proposed settlement of the class action.

The court has approved the settlement following a hearing on July 9, 2007, at which time the Court heard from all parties before concluding that the settlement is fair and all procedural requisites were met.

As a result, all claims asserted in the class actions against the Company and the individual officer defendants have been resolved, with the exception of three shareholders who have indicated they will exclude themselves from the settlement so as to preserve rights to maintain separate actions should they elect to do so. The amount paid into escrow, along with any interest earned, will be distributed as provided under the settlement to pay class members, plaintiffs' attorney fee, and the costs of claims administration.

"Contrary to the position of the government, the record on review consists of all the information a tribunal is authorized to obtain and consider," the court ruling stated.

The court also ruled that detainees' lawyers should have access to classified information relating to clients' cases. "Certain highly sensitive information" may be withheld from the lawyers, but not from the court, the judges ruled.

Lawyers for the detainees argued in mid-May that being able to review all documents compiled by the U.S. government, not just those presented to the military tribunal, could help them clear the detainees, some of whom have been jailed for more than five years.

There are about 385 detainees at Guantanamo, which was set up to handle prisoners captured by the United States following the September 11 attacks.

U.S. government attorneys have argued that any evidence that could help clear prisoners would have been turned over to the military tribunal that made the "unlawful enemy combatant" determination.

In rejecting that argument, the court ruled that an adequate review of the tribunal's determination cannot be made "without seeing all the evidence, any more than one can tell whether a fraction is more or less than one-half by looking only at the numerator and not at the denominator."

The court also rejected the government's position that lawyers should only have one eight-hour visit to Guantanamo to obtain approval from a prisoner to represent him.

The judges said a second visit would allow the lawyer "time to earn the detainee's trust."

Democrats in Congress are considering legislation calling for closing the Guantanamo prison, arguing indefinite detentions and allegations of prisoner mistreatment, which the military denies, is hurting the United States' reputation abroad and stoking potential acts of terrorism.

The justices are considering two appeals in the case.

Georgia Attorney General Thurbert Baker is appealing a Monroe County Superior Court judge's decision to reduce Wilson's felony conviction to a misdemeanor and free him from prison. Baker said the judge overstepped his authority when he granted Wilson's motion last month.

Following the Monroe County judge's decision, Wilson's attorneys requested he be released on bond pending Baker's appeal, but on June 27, the trial court in Douglas County denied the request. Wilson's attorneys have appealed that decision.

B.J. Bernstein, Wilson's attorney, addressed the bond issue first at Friday's hearing, arguing for 10 minutes that her client should be granted bond while his case is under appeal.

"Every day that a defendant spends in jail is a precious day in their life," Bernstein told the justices. Bernstein said that in the past 10 days, "two clients of mine died in prison."

Bernstein argued that the trial court, in refusing bond, improperly applied the criminal appeal bond statute when it should have applied the habeas bond statute, since the Monroe County judge had ruled on a writ of habeas corpus, determining that Wilson had the right to make a claim of cruel and unusual punishment.

However, Douglas County District Attorney David McDade, the original prosecutor on Wilson's case, countered in his time before the justices that state law is clear that "no appeal bond shall be granted to any person who is convicted of a list of crimes, and aggravated child molestation is included in that list."

"It's not vague. It's not gray. It's not subject to interpretation," McDade said. "It is the plain letter of the law that applies in this case."

In its appeal of the reduction of the felony conviction to a misdemeanor, the state has argued that the ruling could open the door for many other sexual criminals to have their sentences reduced.

Wilson's attorneys argued that such fears are invalid and do not justify maintaining such a harsh sentence for consensual teen sex.

Video cameras and still photographers lined the walls well before the arguments began. Outside, satellite trucks and Georgia State Patrol cars were parked all along the street, and security was high. Officers were posted all around the building and on the floor where the Supreme Court meets.

Former state Rep. Matthew Towery, the author of the 1995 law Wilson was charged with violating, submitted a friend of the court brief supporting his release.

"The General Assembly never intended for the Child Protection Act's harsh felony sentences designed to punish adults who prey on children to be used to punish consensual sexual acts between teenagers close in age," Towery's brief said.

The state Legislature in 2006 changed the law, making oral sex between teens close in age a misdemeanor. The state Court of Appeals ruled that the new lasaveClicked(kSaveBtn,null,true)w could not be applied retroactively and the state Supreme Court upheld that ruling.

Bernstein argued in her legal brief that the move by state lawmakers to change the law marked a "tectonic shift in how Georgia views voluntary consensual teen sex and its punishment."

"The new reality is that teen sexual experimentation is commonplace in an era where the media bombards teens with sexual imagery," she wrote.

Bernstein said it is extremely rare in Georgia for lawmakers to pass legislation softening punishment, especially for an emotionally charged crime like child molestation.

But the state countered that it is well established that criminals are subject to the penalty that is in place when they violate the law. To begin to apply legislative changes retroactively would invite chaos and have a far-reaching effect throughout the criminal justice system, Baker argued.

"The decision in this case not only affects Petitioner, but it potentially affects countless others who may be in the prison system or on probation or who have completed their sentences," he wrote.