"Their efforts to keep the results secret are understandable," Tennille wrote in his May decision. "The shocking incongruity between class benefit and the fees ... leave the appearance of collusion and cannot help but to tarnish the public perception of the legal profession."

Sears is appealing Tennille's decision and declined to discuss the case.

Gary Shipman, a Wilmington lawyer who led the class action lawsuit, attacked Tennille's order as wrong on the law and filled with factual errors. Shipman complained that Tennille issued his ruling out of the blue, two years after the last hearing in the case. And Shipman said the judge did not have jurisdiction and therefore did not have the power to make decisions in the case.

"Do you think Judge Tennille's word is the Gospel?" Shipman asked. "There is so much in that order that is wrong."

But a top consumer advocate said Tennille's objections had merit.

"Good for the judge," said Ira Rheingold, the executive director of the National Association of Consumer Advocates, which advises and lobbies for lawyers who bring class action lawsuits.

"Cases like this make it look like a get-rich scheme for attorneys," Rheingold said. "The attorneys collect all the fees, and the consumers get no benefits."

Inflated charges

In 2002, Shipman filed one lawsuit in Wilmington and another lawsuit in Chicago, where Sears has its headquarters.

The lawsuits alleged that Sears charged clients for pricier four-wheel alignments on cars which can only be serviced with less expensive two-wheel alignments. Although the inflated charge is a few dollars for each customer, Sears stood to make millions of dollars from the alleged scheme, given the retail giant's nationwide presence.

Shipman said his lawsuit was inspired by one filed in New Jersey. In that case, the New Jersey attorney general combed through Sears records and identified 12,544 New Jersey residents who had paid too much for alignments. Sears agreed to give $10 cash to each person and to give $500,000 to the Attorney General's Office for consumer protection and expenses.

No notices posted

Tennille criticized the method Shipman used to locate the estimated 1.5 million customers who had been overcharged. Tennille faulted Shipman and his fellow lawyers for not insisting that Sears post notices and place claim forms on the counters of Sears' 843 automotive centers around the country. Sears' billing records were not used, nor were lists of Sears credit card holders.

Rather, Sears advertised in newspapers, which courts have recognized as the least effective way of finding class members -- "an essentially futile gesture," the judge wrote. Sears put notices in newspapers in 25 of the country's largest wheel alignment markets and in Parade magazine and USA Weekend, which are inserted in weekend newspapers across the country.

The newspaper notice produced 317 valid claims nationwide.

"Doing the math in this case is easy," the judge wrote. "For each class member who received a $10 check or $4 coupon, plaintiffs' counsel received just shy of $3,000."

According to Shipman, an expert witness estimated that the newspaper advertisements reached 79.24 percent of the claimants in Sears' top 25 markets for alignment sales.

"We certainly believed more people would take advantage of a 100 percent refund," he said. "We don't know if they found out about it. Many times people just don't want to fill out a claim form."

Defending the fees

Shipman said the legal fees were not excessive because they were based on how much time he and his colleagues from six other law firms had spent on the case.

"Sears had paid their attorneys more than what we had been paid," Shipman said.

Shipman said he never hid results from Tennille. He said that the judge in the Chicago lawsuit had jurisdiction in the case and that Tennille had no authority to issue orders. Shipman said he would have given an accounting of the lawsuit had Tennille asked, and did supply the figures in May 2005.

Though Tennille's order was strongly worded, the judge conceded he cannot undo the settlement approved by the Illinois court in 2005.

Shipman and his fellow lawyers have "been more than adequately compensated by the Illinois court," Tennille wrote. "There is nothing this court can do about that."

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.