David N. Anderson and Nancy C. Dipietro

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 19762 / July 17, 2006

David N. Anderson and Nancy C. Dipietro, No. 3:06 CV 196 (W.D.N.C.)

Final Judgment Entered Against Nancy Dipietro in LendingTree Insider Trading Case

The Securities and Exchange Commission announced today that on July 11, 2006, the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina entered a final judgment against Nancy C. Dipietro, a defendant in an insider trading case the Commission filed in April 2006. See SEC v. Anderson and Dipietro, No. 3:06 CV 196 (W.D.N.C. April 24, 2006)/Lit. Rel. No. 19665. Without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, Dipietro consented to the entry of the final judgment which (i) permanently enjoins her from future violations of Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder, (ii) requires her to disgorge $9,141.68 in trading profits and prejudgment interest, and (iii) orders her to pay a civil penalty of $15,790.80.

The Commission's complaint alleged that, shortly before a May 5, 2003 public announcement that LendingTree was being acquired by USA Interactive at a substantial premium to LendingTree shareholders, David Anderson, then LendingTree's senior vice president of new business development, tipped Dipietro and others with material, nonpublic information concerning the pending acquisition. The complaint alleges that Dipietro and Anderson's other tippees then purchased shares of LendingTree while in possession of this material, nonpublic information, in violation of Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act, and Rule 10b-5 thereunder.

The Commission's action against Anderson remains pending. The Commission previously filed and settled an insider trading case against the other tippees alleged in the complaint, see SEC v. Ricks, Woody, and Mead, No. 3:04CV576 (W.D.N.C. Nov. 22, 2004)/Lit. Rel. No. 18983, and has filed insider trading cases against other individuals in connection with this investigation. See SEC v. Paquette and Lawrence, No. 3:05CV412 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 26, 2005)/Lit. Rel. No. 19393; SEC v. Talbot, No. CV 04-4556 (C.D. Cal. June 24, 2004)/Lit. Rel. No. 18762; and SEC v. Bartlett, No. 3:03CV463 (W.D.N.C. Sept. 24, 2003)/Lit. Rel. No. 18361.

The Commission's investigation continues.