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.
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.