Simon v. KPMG LLP, No. 05-CV-03189 (D.N.J. Nov. 2, 2005).
Many of those who have studied CAFA since its adoption (and before) have noted that one of the thorniest issues of the new law is the requirement that notice be given to the principal regulators of the settling defendants. The CAFA Law Blog has published several, including the article written by CAFA Law Blog Editors Anthony Rollo and Gabe Crowson, “The Newly Enacted Class Action Fairness Act of 2005,” (Editor’s Note: see the CAFA Law Blog post dated October 18, 2005 for more details) and the two part article written by guest commentator Kathy Kinsella (Editor’s Note: see the CAFA Law Blog posts dated February 8, 2006 and February 9, 2006 for Kathy’s articles). Now, in the Simon case, there’s a brief mention of the notice requirements of the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005. The issue arose in the context of a settlement order preliminarily approving a class and settlement. The underlying suit, filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, concerned claims stemming from tax advice allegedly given by KPMG and Sidley Austin Brown & Wood LLP, or the firm’s predecessor Brown & Wood. The order requires each defendant to provide notice regarding the proposed settlement in accordance with the provisions of the Class Action Fairness Act, and to file declarations with the court indicating compliance with the notice requirements. For a real world example of what class action practitioners will face when trying to finalize settlements, read on.