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 U.S. International Trade Commission imposed the ban June 7 after ruling that San Diego-based Qualcomm's chips infringed a Broadcom patent on battery power-saving technology.

The court "made no determination of the substantive merits" of Qualcomm's appeal, said Emily Kilpatrick, a spokeswoman for the company. Qualcomm will renew its appeal and seek a delay in the ban after Aug. 6 if the administration does not reverse the import limits, she said.

The ITC's ruling allows the importation of cell phone models available as of June 7, but bans new models with infringing chips. The ruling will limit the availability of cell phones compatible with high-speed wireless data networks built by Verizon Wireless, an affiliate of Verizon Communications Inc., Sprint Nextel Corp. and AT&T Inc.'s wireless division.

Mobile phone makers LG Electronics Inc., Motorola Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. will also be hit. The wireless carriers and phone manufacturers joined Qualcomm's appeal and the carriers have also supported its lobbying efforts in Washington.

But in an additional blow to Qualcomm, Verizon Wireless yesterday withdrew its support after striking a deal with Broadcom to license its technology. Verizon Wireless agreed to pay Broadcom $6 for each phone with an infringing Qualcomm chip, up to $40 million a quarter or $200 million over the life of the agreement.

Rebecca Arbogast, a telecommunications analyst at investment bank Stifel, Nicolaus & Co. Inc., said Verizon Wireless's move "substantially reduces the chance there will be a presidential veto."

Verizon Wireless was a driving force behind the wireless carriers' efforts in support of a reversal of the ban, Arbogast said.

The company is a member of CTIA, the wireless industry's top lobbying group, which has urged the administration to overturn the ITC's ruling. John Walls, vice president for public affairs, said CTIA still supports a presidential veto.

The deal between Broadcom and Verizon Wireless also demonstrates that a commercial solution to the dispute exists, Arbogast said.

Presidential vetoes of ITC decisions are rare, with the most recent in 1987, an ITC official said last month. The White House will defer to the recommendation of the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, as it has on ITC rulings since 2005.

Meanwhile, five Republican members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee wrote U.S. Trade Representative Susan Schwab July 12 in support of a veto.

The ITC's order "will stifle the efforts of wireless carriers to deliver cutting-edge technologies to American consumers," said the letter, which was signed by Reps. Joe Barton of Texas and Cliff Stearns of Florida, among others.

New York Democrats Rep. Charles Rangel and Sen. Charles Schumer also wrote administration officials last week against the ban.

Broadcom's chief executive Scott McGregor said Thursday that Qualcomm "appears...to have bet their future...on their political lobbying skills."