It is a common practice for companies to place monies in reserve for known forthcoming legal settlements. As the link you provided indicates, VCLK also did this for the settlement reached with the FTC (for the amount of $2.9 million).

However, your assessment that

“..it is probably good for another half million in payments to lawyers who step forward to protect the real interests of the class and work to get Value Click’s practices changed so that your commissions won’t be cyphoned off in the future.”

does not seem accurate. This statement seems based off of point #2

“Half of the $1 million settlement fund probably will go to the plaintiff’s lawyers for costs (up to $25,000) and legal fees (up to $475,000).”

While these are the accurate amounts provided in the court documents attorney costs and fees, the settlement agreement clearly states that these costs do not come out of the Common Fund to be paid to advertisers and publishers (the $1M) but are being paid separately by VCLK.

Quoting from the Class Settlement documented (page 15 on the document linked here and page 14 if downloaded from the cjsettlement.com site) Bolding is by me:

“55. Attorneys’ Fees, Costs, & Expenses: Pursuant to the express terms of written contracts between the Parties, any party that primarily prevails in an action brought under those contracts is entitled to recover from the other party its reasonable attorneys fees and costs. Without admitting or denying whether one or another party, if any, would be deemed to be the prevailing party in this Litigation, in order to fully resolve all issues relating to the subject of this Litigation, the Parties and their counsel have agreed that in addition to payments made towards the creation of Common Funds, as described above, Defendants will pay Class Counsel’s fees, expenses and costs in an amount to be approved by the Court. No portion of Plaintiffs’
Attorneys’ Fees, Costs and Expenses shall be deducted from the Advertiser Fund and/or Publisher Fund. Class Counsel will file a motion for reimbursement of reasonable out-of-pocket
litigation costs up to $25,000 and for attorneys’ fees not to exceed $475,000. Defendants will not oppose this request. No other agreement exists between the Parties as to attorney’s fees,
expenses, and costs.”

That seems pretty straight forward and clear cut. So that totals $1.5 million that VCLK disclosed in the SEC filing.

With regards to Point #5 were you state:

“members of the class have the opportunity to (a) influence the choice of the expert who will help design the Audit practices,”

I don’t see where that is the case. The Settlement document seems to state otherwise:

“The identity of the auditor will be mutually agreed upon by the parties on or before the date that the motion for final approval of the Settlement Agreement is submitted to the Court.”

Since preliminary approval of the settlement agreement has been approved in the case (what this blog is about), I have to think that the auditor has already been agreed upon parties.

You also say:

“influence the design of the audit itself. Best bet is for groups of affiliates to begin preparing recommendations and have them ready to present to the court by the time of the Fairness Hearing in January 2009. ”

Again, from the Settlement document I’m not sure that is how the process is working:

“Plaintiffs’ counsel and Designated Consultant pursuant to Section III.E shall have an opportunity to provide input and suggestions to the auditor with respect to the scope of the Audit
prior to the commencement of the Audit.”

It’s not sounding like they are soliciting input from affiliates who may or may not be in the class and included in the final settlement.

This case is important. Anyone who has questions regarding the legal process, their legal rights, and the implications of opting into or out of the Settlement, should consult their own attorney providing a copy of the court documents.

Anyone who wishes to formally oppose the settlement should again consult with a qualified attorney.

But I don’t think there is another $500,000 reserved by ValueClick up for grabs by some other attorney “who step forward to protect the real interests of the class and work to get Value Click’s practices changed so that your commissions won’t be cyphoned off in the future.”

I am interested as to exactly what you feel should be the exact changes ValueClick is made to implement outside of what is currently outlined in the Settlement. Of course since the auditors report hasn’t happened yet, we can’t know exactly what all CJ will implement. But abvoe and beyond what CJ had already agreed to which is spelled out in the Settlement. What do you feel those measures should be?

1. ValueClick set up reserves to pay $1.5 million, but ultimately settled for $1 million. See ValueClick’s 2007 Annual Report: http://sec.edgar-online.com/2008/02/29/0001047469-08-002074/Section8.asp

2. Half of the $1 million settlement fund probably will go to the plaintiff’s lawyers for costs (up to $25,000) and legal fees (up to $475,000). After other payments that will be made from the settlement fund, only $375,000 will be left for distribution to the victims. See Sections 53 through 56 of the Settlement Agreement.

3. If you don’t opt out of the class but you do fit within its definition, then you will be bound by the settlement if the Judge approves it. But if you opt out, you probably can’t afford to bring your own action against the alleged practices.

4. The settlement will include very broad releases of present AND FUTURE claims arising out of “Non-Compliant Software” meaning “software that does not comply with CJ’s Publisher Code of Conduct and is intended or used to steal or divert commissions from Publishers and/or Advertisers on CJ’s Network.” See Sections 39 and 40 of the Settlement Agreement and its definitions of “Released Claims” and “Non-Compliant Software.”
I certainly hope that one or more champions will arise to contest the very unfair waiver of future claims. Your “class representatives” have already agreed to thye broad waivers because their lawyers get paid so much if the settlement is approved. [This is no different than most class actions, which primarily benefit the lawyers who bring them.]

5. As a practical matter, members of the class have the opportunity to (a) influence the choice of the expert who will help design the Audit practices, and (c)influence the design of the audit itself. Best bet is for groups of affiliates to begin preparing recommendations and have them ready to present to the court by the time of the Fairness Hearing in January 2009. If appearing at the hearing is too expensive, send copies to lawyers for both the plaintiffs and the defendants at the addresses given in the notice of settlement, with a Copy to Hon. Florence-Marie Cooper, Judge, United States District Court, Central District of California, 255 East Temple Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012. It is especially important to send copies of your proposals to the Judge. As a practical matter, neither the attorneys for Valueclick nor the attorneys for the plaintiff classes, have your interests in mind.

6. Since Value Click reservered to pay $500,000 more to settle the case than it ultimately agreed to pay, it is probably good for another half million in payments to lawyers who step forward to protect the real interests of the class and work to get Value Click’s practices changed so that your commissions won’t be cyphoned off in the future.