Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Former CFO of Bankrate Sentenced to 10 Years in Prison for $25 Million Fraud Scheme
In September 2014, Bankrate, Inc. (Bankrate), a consumer financial and marketing company, disclosed a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into accounting from 2012. In making this announcement, Bankrate also indicated that its 2011 and 2013 finances may also be unreliable. Edward DiMaria, Bankrate's Chief Financial Officer at the time, also stepped down after eight years serving in that role. However, he remained a senior vice president.
As early as 2015, in addition to DiMaria, the SEC also accused Bankrate's former vice president of finance (Hyunjin Lerner) and its former accounting director (Matthew Gamsey) of participation in a fraud scheme. After pleading guilty, Lerner was sentenced to 60 months in prison and both DiMaria and Gamsey reached settlements with the SEC. The same year, the company also agreed to pay $15 million to the SEC related to the improper accounting practices.
On Sept. 25, 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that DiMaria had been sentenced to 10 years in prison, after pleading guilty in late June in the Southern District of Florida to charges of conspiring to make false statements to the company's accountants; falsifying Bankrate's books, records, and accounts; securities fraud; and making materially false statements to the SEC. According to DiMaria, for the period between 2010 and 2014 he utilized “cushion” (or “cookie jar”) accounting to inflate Bankrate's earnings, whereby the company maintained excessive reserves on its books from its profitable years to ensure reserves during less successful periods.
DiMaria must pay over $21 million in restitution and, following the 10 year term, the former CFO will be subject to supervised release for a period of three years.
In addition to the SEC, the DOJ credited the U.S. Postal Inspection Service for their assistance in investigating the fraudulent scheme perpetrated by DiMaria.
– Colleen Snow, Mayer Brown
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
CoStar Wins Injunction for Breach-of-Contract Damages In CRE Database Access Lawsuit
Latham & Watkins helped the largest U.S. commercial real estate research company prevail in a breach-of-contract dispute in District of Columbia federal court.