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 December 17:

Why Ambac's Subprime Securities Suit Settlement is Noteworthy

The D&O Diary | Kevin LaCroix | Dec 17, 2010

The more interesting thing to me about the Ambac settlement is the fact that it has happened at all, or at least that it has happened now. My point is that even though about 230 subprime and credit crisis-related lawsuits have been filed since February 2007, very few of these cases have yet settled, even among the many cases that have survived motions to dismiss.... I am going to go out on a limb here and predict that in 2011, there will be many more settlements of subprime and credit crisis-related securities cases than there were in 2010.

America's Newest Foggy Bottom

FCPA Blog | Richard Cassin | Dec 16, 2010

Just when we thought the SEC's job is to regulate markets and protect investors, we've learned it's all about, ahem, foreign policy. At least that's the message in yesterday's SEC release concerning proposed new rules under Dodd-Frank about the use of conflict minerals from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and adjoining countries.

Criminal Prosecutorial Discretion in Insider Trading Cases: Let's Look at the Numbers

Securities Docket Guest Column | Jeffrey Plotkin, Lorraine Bellard | Dec 15, 2010

AUSAs routinely exercise their discretion to decline criminal prosecution of inside traders sued by the SEC. In fact, as more fully described below, the DOJ pursued criminal cases with respect to only 65 of the 159 individuals sued by the SEC in the New York federal courts over a recent six year period.[3] This statistic raises the question, Why? Why does the DOJ bring criminal insider trading charges against certain individuals sued by the SEC, but not others? What factors determine which civil investigations become criminal ones?

The Supreme Court's Fundamental Discomfort

The Conglomerate | William Birdthistle | Dec 15, 2010

Last week's oral argument at the Supreme Court in Janus v. FDT offered few doctrinal surprises but one unsettling institutional revelation. Doctrinally, the case represents an opportunity to expand or contract the availability of class action lawsuits for securities fraud. Perhaps not surprisingly, certain justices (Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan) appeared sympathetic to the plaintiff's claims and such suits generally, while others (Roberts, Scalia, Alito) seemed prepared to support the defendants and a constriction of such litigation. More surprising, however, was the justices' admitted lack of comprehension and competence regarding investment funds, whose operations lie at the heart of the dispute.

UK: City's ethics awareness lessons must percolate down

FT | Andrew Hill | Dec 14, 2010

Hector Sants says he was told on arrival at the FSA that the regulator “does not do ethics”. The word “is not precise enough and carries too much baggage for regulators”, he said on Monday. Similarly, Marcus Agius preferred to talk about “trust, confidence, perception, credibility and reputation” rather than “values, or ethics as such”. The letter he and others sent to the FT last week doesn't include the word. Why?

Avoiding Insider Trading Risks in Fundamental Investment Research

Fried Frank | Audrey Strauss, Karl A. Groskaufmanis, Justin M. Ross | Dec 11, 2010

Recent high-profile Securities and Exchange Commission cases against hedge fund managers revive the most universal question associated with insider trading regulation. For almost every “buy-side” investor, a persistent concern centers on determining when fundamental investment research touches the gray areas of insider trading law. A renewed SEC focus on “Wall Street” defendants heightens the importance of understanding when research activity that can be viewed as appropriate nonetheless may become the source of regulatory scrutiny.