Throughout the week over at Securities Docket, I highlight the most interesting columns and blog posts from around the web on the subjects of SEC enforcement and securities litigation. Here is a digest of my picks for the week ending April 23:

10 Things You Don't Know (or were misinformed) About the GS Case (Barry Ritholtz, The Big Picture)The Big Picture | April 23, 2010I have been watching with a mixture of awe and dismay some of the really bad analysis, sloppy reporting, and just unsupported commentary about the GS case. I put together this list based on what I know as a lawyer, a market observer, a quant and someone with contacts within the SEC.

UK: Would a new regulator be worth the upheaval? (Suzanne MacDonald, Money Marketing)MoneyMarketing | April 22, 2010The FSA has faced a significant level of criticism over the past few years, particularly in the wake of the financial crisis.Its critics have accused the FSA of focusing too ardently on customer-facing outcomes and principle-based initiatives and, in doing so, losing sight of the prudential ramifications and the macro-economic position.

But is a complete overhaul of our current regulatory system justified? Or is the Conservative party’s intention to move the responsibility for supervision of the financial services industry to the Bank of England simply a window-dressing exercise?

Casting a Wider Net in the Galleon Insider Case (Peter J. Henning, DealBook)DealBook | April 22, 2010A recent filing by Raj Rajaratnam, the billionaire hedge fund manager accused of insider trading, included a letter from the Justice Department that outlined a much larger circle of companies in which nonpublic information is suspected of having been passed. Among the companies listed is Goldman, with the source of the information perhaps being a member of its board. The firm is not directly involved in the case other than as a potential victim of improper disclosure of confidential information.In the prosecution of Mr. Rajaratnam, the question is whether the government wants to make an already complex case even more complicated by trying to prove insider trading involving all 22 companies listed in the letter, or whether it will take the KISS approach — “keep it simple, stupid,” not the band — to the prosecution.

Why Goldman Sachs May End in a Lehman Style Collapse (Avery Goodman, Seeking Alpha)Seeking Alpha | April 22, 2010It is early to call…but I would not be overly surprised if we see another Lehman style collapse. What might matters more interesting, this time, is that Goldman Sachs is several times larger than Lehman Brothers. Those who are so close to Goldman that they will stick to the firm until it is too late (Pauson & Company?) may go down with the ship, as they did with Lehman Brothers, losing the ability to withdraw their own assets after the firm experiences massive withdrawals by other clients.

Ahead of Goldman Suit, a Tight-Lipped S.E.C. (Peter Henning, DealBook)DealBook | April 20, 2010According to Goldman, it heard nothing more from the S.E.C. after the firm presented its arguments about why it should not be sued. An article in The Wall Street Journal notes that when Goldman's counsel contacted the S.E.C. in March to see where the matter stood, the call was not returned. And then on Friday, the S.E.C. lowered the boom by filing its lawsuit, apparently without making any effort to determine if Goldman was willing to negotiate a settlement.

The fact that no settlement discussions occurred after Goldman’s submission indicates that there was a breakdown in communication at some point. Regardless of which side is responsible, or if it was just each one waiting for the telephone to ring, this does not change the fact that the case has now landed in Federal District Court.

The SEC's Impeccable Timing (Op-ed, WSJ)The Wall Street Journal | April 20, 2010The Securities and Exchange Commission fraud case against Goldman Sachs may be settled before it ever sees a courtroom. Yet intentionally or not, the SEC has already secured at least one victory in the court of media opinion. Last Friday, the same day that the government unexpectedly announced its Goldman lawsuit, the SEC's inspector general released his exhaustive, 151-page report on the agency's failure to investigate alleged fraudster R. Allen Stanford. Mr. Stanford was indicted last June for operating a Ponzi scheme that bilked investors out of $8 billion. He has pleaded not guilty. Guess which of these two stories was pushed to the back pages?

Why Goldman will beat the SEC (David Weidner's Writing on the Wall, MarketWatch)MarketWatch | April 20, 2010Let me begin by saying that in the way the Securities and Exchange Commission laid out the case, what Goldman Sachs Group Inc. did was troubling and not too far from morally reprehensible, unethical, slimy, devious and unjustifiable. But for all of the hand-wringing over the case, Goldman has a great shot at winning. Wall Street firms and brokers not as expert as walking legal lines as Goldman have won cases such as this before, or settled them with nary a blip to the bottom line.

Our Pecora Moment (Simon Johnson, The Baseline Scenario)The Baseline Scenario | April 18, 2010We have waited long and patiently for our Ferdinand Pecora moment - a modern equivalent of the episode when a tough prosecutor from New York seized the imagination of the country in the early 1930s and, over a series of congressional hearings: laid bare the wrong-doings of Wall Street in simple and vivid terms that everyone could understand, and created the groundswell of public support necessary for comprehensive reregulation. On Friday, that moment finally arrived. There is fraud at the heart of Wall Street, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission. Pecora took on National City Bank and J.P. Morgan (the younger); these were the supposedly untouchable titans of their day. The SEC is taking on Goldman Sachs; no firm is more powerful.

Goldman Sachs: Has The SEC Finally Grown a Pair Under Mary Schapiro? (Matthew Philips, Wealth of Nations Blog)Newsweek | April 17, 2010It's been a busy week for the SEC. On Wednesday, the regulatory agency took a small, but important first step toward shining light on the very dark, very unregulated world of high frequency trading. And now come charges of civil fraud levied at Goldman Sachs. Talk about a double whammy. In the old days, the SEC would've put its feet up and called it a week after the high-frequency trading action. But following it up two days later by charging the biggest, baddest bank in the world with $1 billion of fraud? Who does the SEC think it is? The country's financial watch dog? Let's hope so.