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 October 7.

No Whistleblower Bounties for FCPA Tips on Private Companie

Jenner & Block | Larry P. Ellsworth | Oct 7, 2011

Repeated inquiries from clients evidence considerable confusion over the narrow, but important, issue of whether allegations of a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) by a non-public company can lead to payments of bounties under the recently enacted whistleblower provisions of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (Dodd-Frank Act). Generally, the answer is no.

From the Experts: Secret Agents Causing FCPA Violations

Corporate Counsel | David Elesinmogun, Obumneme Egwuatu, and Marcus Cohen | Oct 7, 2011

To the untrained eye, they often appear as scrubby derelict vagabonds, haunting the steps of administrative offices throughout the developing world. Yet, this unassuming guise belies their predatory importance as quasi-official intermediariesserving as both roadblocks and essential intercessors. They are "touts," and if your company has ever obtained official documents in West Africa, touts have likely paid cash to government officials on your behalf. And with or without your knowledge, touts may have caused your company to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA).

TI Guidance on Anti-Corruption and Anti-Bribery Due Diligence for M&A Transactions – Part II

FCPA Compliance and Ethics Blog | Thomas Fox | Oct 7, 2011

Transparency International (TI) recently released a consultation draft of its White Paper entitled “Anti-Bribery Guidance for Transactions.” In Part I we discussed the risks to companies involved in international mergers and acquisitions. The TI White Paper notes that anti-corruption and anti-bribery due diligence is “often not undertaken, neglected, or allocated insufficient time and resources.” In Part II we will discuss the due diligence process suggested by Transparency International for such transactions.

The Girl with the SEC/FINRA Tattoo: Disciplinary Actions Taken Against Chief Compliance Officers

Sutherland Asbill and Brennan, LLP | Brian L. Rubin and Katherine L. Kelly | Oct 4, 2011

This article, like its predecessors, analyzes recent SEC and FINRA actions against CCOs to highlight examples of conduct that regulators have identified as sanction-worthy, in the hope that others may avoid a similar disciplinary branding in the future. From November 2010 through June 2011, the SEC and FINRA brought disciplinary actions against CCOs for a range of conduct, including playing a role in their respective firms' inadequate due diligence of private placement products, failing to supervise registered representatives, aiding and abetting their firms' underlying violations, permitting an unregistered individual to trade securities, failing to preserve emails and failing to provide anti-money laundering supervision.

THE SEC INSPECTOR GENERAL SHOULD FOCUS ON ITS MISSION

SEC Actions | Thomas Gorman | Oct 3, 2011

Inquiries into pending enforcement proceedings raise questions about the proper role of the IG, the actions of that Office and its impact on the important work being done by the Commission and its staff.... If the goal of the SEC IG is to promote the efficiency and effectiveness of the Commission and facilitate its overall mission, the Office should avoid steps which might undermine the Enforcement program absent the most exigent circumstances. By injecting its self into pending enforcement investigations and actions however the SEC IG risks acting in a manner which is directly contrary to its stated mission.