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 July 23:

Paid to Whistle

CFO.com | Sarah Johnson | Jul 23, 2010

To be sure, it could be years before the new law bears fruit in the form of an increase in financial-fraud discoveries. Certainly, the prospect of a cash bounty could result in the SEC's being inundated with tips, valid or not. (Indeed, Congress wants the commission's inspector general to examine whether the "reward levels are so high as to encourage illegitimate whistle-blower claims.") The question is whether the SEC will pay heed to the legitimate claims, given its failure to act on early hints of Ponzi schemes run by Bernard Madoff and Robert Allen Stanford.

The British Question

The FCPA Blog | Richard L. Cassin | Jul 22, 2010

All new laws raise questions. "Don't spit on the sidewalk" can induce the same sort of panic as the Bribery Act. What's the definition of spit, do both feet need to be on the sidewalk, what about medically induced spitting, how about unconscious drooling? But very quickly judges, defendents, and lawyers figure out what laws mean, as happened with the FCPA and countless other decrees through the ages, and life and business go on. The U.K. knee buckling means that 33 years after enactment of the FCPA, the U.S. is still nearly alone in the battle against global graft. But for the battle to be won, and for American companies to ever enjoy a level playing field, the U.S. needs allies. The U.K. was about to become the first full-fledged partner.

Dodd-Frank Forum: What Ever Happened to Criminal Sanctions?

The Conglomerate | Lisa Fairfax | Jul 21, 2010

We have been discussing comparisons between this new Act and Sarbanes-Oxley and those comparisons got me thinking about one striking difference between the two acts in terms of the emphasis on criminal sanctions. With Sarbanes-Oxley, there was a lot of discussion about the need for personal accountability, which ultimately translated into a push for increased liability for corporate executives, and hence provisions imposing enhanced criminal penalties related to various frauds, including sanctions for executives' false ceritification of financial reports. This time, such a push has not been a central focus of reform efforts. In fact, even though this new Act uses the term "accountability," it does not even have the same connotation as it did under Sarbanes-Oxley. Which raises the question, why not?

O.K., F-Cubed Claims Are Out, But What About F-Squared Claims?

The D&O Diary | Kevin LaCroix | Jul 21, 2010

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision last month in the Morrison v. National Australia Bank case made it clear U.S. securities laws do not allow so-called "f-cubed" cases -- securities claims against foreign domiciled companies and brought by foreign-domiciled claimants who purchased their company shares on foreign exchanges -- in U.S. courts. The securities laws, the Court said in Morrison, relate solely to "transactions in securities listed on domestic exchanges" and to claims relating to "domestic transactions in other securities." But what did the Court mean when it referred to "domestic transactions"? This question could be a problem in many cases involving foreign companies, particularly where the cases involve claims brought by or on behalf of U.S. domiciled investors who bought their shares in the foreign companies on foreign exchanges – the so-called "f-squared" claimants.

A New World Begins for Wall Street Oversight

DealBook | Peter Henning | Jul 19, 2010

With President Obama poised to sign the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act this week, significant changes will be coming to Wall Street. Like any piece of legislation intended to alter the regulatory landscape, there are provisions to like and others to bemoan because the new law is a product of political compromises. The securities markets, and related litigation for violations of federal laws and regulations, will be heavily affected by the legislation. It is usually the case that the devil is in the details with this type of statute, and the Dodd-Frank Act often only provides the framework for those details, postponing some tough decisions by requiring studies of issues and assigning the task of writing the rules to administrative agencies.

Google drops PR wire for earnings, but only Pac-Man irks investors

IR Web Report | Dominic Jones | Jul 19, 2010

When Internet giant Google, Inc. reported its second-quarter 2010 earnings last week it did so without using a paid PR wire service – a controversial move that some predicted would create challenges for the disclosure ecosystem. But it seems the company’s unusual new process — posting its earnings release on its IR website followed less than two minutes later by a Form 8-K — was something of a nonevent from the perspective of the media and investors.

From S.E.C. and Goldman, Generals Ended the War

New York Times | Louise Story | Jul 17, 2010

Last Wednesday at around 3 p.m., the Securities and Exchange Commission and Goldman Sachs settled an epic, seismic battle — one waged over whether the storied investment bank defrauded investors in a transaction that regulators said Goldman had built to self-destruct. The final terms of the settlement were hashed out over the telephone. On one end, Gregory K. Palm, Goldman’s general counsel, agreed to the exact language his bank would use in statements about the settlement. On the other end, the S.E.C.’s director of enforcement, Robert Khuzami, was joined by his old friend and deputy, Lorin Reisner.