A lawyer for the British plaintiffs, Michael A. Galpern, said they will be considering whether to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court.

"We believe today's decision took an unrealistic view of English Law, and entirely disregarded the plain fact that the United Kingdom's loser pays system means that pensioners must now run the risk that Merck may take their house if they lose this case," Galpern said.

He said it was ironic that Merck said New Jersey was an inconvenient location to defend itself.

"The effect of today's ruling will be to make it much cheaper and easier for American companies to injure and kill non-U.S. residents," Galpern said.

Merck lawyer Charles W. Cohen applauded the ruling, asserting that the lawsuits should be filed in Britain, where the plaintiff's medical records and witnesses are located.

He noted that a similar finding was reached last year by the judge handling all the federal lawsuits, who dismissed lawsuits from residents of France and Italy.

Merck pulled Vioxx from the market in 2004 after research showed it doubled cardiovascular risks. The number of pending personal injury lawsuits against Merck have declined recently, to about 26,950, as some claims were dismissed. The company maintains it will not change its strategy of fighting each lawsuit.

Cases filed in New Jersey are all being handled by one judge, state Superior Court Judge Carol Higbee in Atlantic City.

Cases filed in various federal courts have been sent to New Orleans, where they are before U.S. District Judge Eldon E. Fallon.

Merck has won nine cases and lost five that have reached verdicts; it is appealing all its losses and faces retrials involving three other plaintiffs.

The ruling, which caught Mulroney's lawyers off guard, came Thursday in a default judgment by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

The motion being argued today in a Toronto courtroom says the judgment was made in the face of a pending motion that challenged the Ontario court's jurisdiction.

In the motion, Mulroney's lawyers argue their client successfully met the deadline to respond to a lawsuit filed by Schreiber.

The motion argues Mulroney can't be found in default without an express court order delivered with proper notice to his lawyers.

Schreiber sued the former prime minister to recoup $300,000 in cash the businessman says he handed to Mulroney over three meetings in hotel rooms in New York and Montreal in 1993 and 1994.

The court, in a Thursday ruling, suggested that by not bringing the soldiers to justice, Russian prosecutors had implicitly accepted the massacre in Novye Aldi, when security forces rampaged through the town, setting fire to houses and killing at least 50 civilians.

``The astonishing ineffectiveness of the prosecuting authorities in this case can only be qualified as acquiescence in the events,'' the court said in its decision.

Moscow has denied that its security forces are guilty of atrocities in the southern Muslim republic of Chechnya, where two wars have been fought to re-establish Russian control following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.

But relatives of Chechen victims have recently been seeking reparations from the Strasbourg-based human rights court - and winning.

Russia said last week that it wanted to restrict the flow of appeals to the court by allowing its citizens to file human rights cases against the state in Russian courts - something they cannot do now.

Chechens have opposed this move, saying they fear the government wants to deprive them of their only hope for justice.

The court has issued more than 10 verdicts against Russia in the past few months in cases concerning the Chechen wars. Some 200 are still pending.

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.