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 February 10.

Preet Bharara's toothless bite of Wall Street

Gary Weiss, Salon.com

Preet Bharara is not busting Wall Street. He's not collaring the masters of the meltdown. He's done nothing to even slightly discomfit Wall Street's still-ferocious money machine, or has yet to bring to justice the architects, enablers and continuers of the 2008 financial crisis — the bankers who got us into that mess, and the ones who are continuing to extract pain from foreclosed homeowners, in the New York area and beyond.

As a matter of fact, his over-hyped insider-trading prosecutions, the main focus of the Time piece, are doing the Street a favor, by targeting people who actually ripped off Wall Street — individuals like hedge fund managers Raj Rajaratnam and Danielle Chiesi, who functioned a bit like the goons who used to dope race horses in the old days.

Will the SEC's Requiring Settling Parties to Admit Wrongdoing Increase the Number of Trials?

Lawrence S. Goldman, White Collar Crime Prof Blog

I also question whether these “experts” are right in their expectation that there would be far more trials.  I am not so sure that many corporate executives want public airings of the factual details of the company's wrongdoing.  ”Experts” predicted that the enactment of the Sentencing Guidelines would overwhelm the federal courts with trials since many more criminal defendants would exercise their right to trial because of the perceived (and actual) harshness and rigidity of the Guidelines upon a conviction.  That simply has not happened….

UK looks to bridge regulatory divide with US

Brooke Masters, Caroline Binham, ara Scannell; Financial Times

Americans and the British are said to be two peoples divided by a common language, and three recent enforcement cases involving financial groups that operate on both sides of the Atlantic have shown that the subtle, and sometimes surprising, differences extend to the way US and UK regulators and law enforcement seek to police their markets.

Don't Trust, Verify

Sarah Johnson, CFO Magazine

Companies' FCPA compliance programs have generally focused on agents and freight forwarders, the types of business partners that tend to get in trouble with the law. Increasingly, however, companies are scrutinizing suppliers as well.

Reducing C-Level Risk In Compliance Land

David Riker,The FCPA Blog

Due diligence of suppliers is becoming tougher; traditionally they have had to undergo only minimal credit checks, but now they are being chosen and reviewed much more carefully. And suppliers increasingly have to sign contracts that give their customers the right to audit them, and may also include an indemnification clause.

The CEOs, CFOs, COOs and Chief Compliance Officers we meet with are well aware of the FCPA and are working to put in place compliance programs to keep their companies on the right side of the law, but they are not terribly concerned about their own personal exposures. Their logic: If I'm not physically handing over a bag of money to a corrupt government official, I'm clean. This, of course, is not true.