Web Watch: Best Blog Posts and Columns For the Week Ending Sept. 11

binoculars230x184 Here is the weekly summary for Securities Docket’s Web Watch (”This Week’s Best Blog Posts and Columns”):

Should UBS Be Held Accountable For Selling Toxic CDOs? – The Atlantic Business Channel (The Atlantic)
The Atlantic | September 11, 2009
A Superior Court judge has ruled that UBS sold collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) that it knew to be toxic and is liable for damages. The Wall Street Journal reports that the judge believes that UBS had material nonpublic information that was used in the decision to sell the securities to hedge fund Pursuit Partners. I’m not convinced.

What Will Bob Bennett’s Departure Mean for Skadden? (AmLaw Daily)
AmLaw Daily | September 9, 2009
When news broke recently that Bob Bennett was quitting Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom for Hogan & Hartson, tongues started wagging.

Subprime-Related Securities Litigation: An Interim Update (The D & O Diary)
The D & O Diary | September 9, 2009
It is now over two and a half years since the first subprime-related securities class action lawsuit was filed in February 2007, yet many of the cases filed as part of the ensuing litigation wave are still only in their earliest stages. It seems appropriate to check in for a status report on the subprime and credit crisis-related litigation wave.

Madoff’s victims seeking damages from SEC face uphill fight (Reuters)
Reuters | September 9, 2009
Victims of Bernard Madoff must surmount laws that shield federal workers and agencies from liability if they want to sue regulators and their staffers for not stopping Madoff years before he confessed to a $65 billion Ponzi scheme.

Sorry, Senator Schumer, but Wall Street should not directly fund the SEC (DailyFinance)
Peter Cohan, DailyFinance | September 9, 2009
I suggest a tweak to the current funding approach. The SEC should be funded by fees on Wall Street’s corporate clients — the entities that issue stocks and bonds — and that money should go directly to the SEC rather than be funneled through the Treasury.

SEC ENFORCEMENT: FROM THE FRYING PAN TO THE FIRE? (SEC ACTIONS)
SEC Actions | September 9, 2009
Out of the frying pan and into the fire seems an apt description of SEC enforcement and the efforts to revive the program. While the agency is moving past the Madoff failures it may have jumped into another fire. This fire is called SEC v. Bank of America.

We need a world financial court with specialist judges (FT)
Jeffrey Golden, Financial Times | September 9, 2009
Do we need an international tribunal for complex financial market disputes and sophisticated, cross-border financial crimes? Should we be recruiting or training specialist judges?

Lessons for the S.E.C. From the Madoff Debacle
DealBook | September 8, 2009
Building up the lines of communication within the agency, and focusing on the larger picture of whether there is a fraud and not just a technical violation of the rules, will go a long way toward restoring its ability to protect investors.

Is the SEC necessary?
Ideoblog | September 8, 2009
We still need the SEC’s fraud enforcement, don’t we? Wouldn’t fraud run rampant if we got rid of it? So shouldn’t we just throw more millions at the SEC and hope it gets better? Well, no. Because the market would do a better job if the SEC just didn’t get in the way.

Judges Punish Wall Street as Regulators Just Talk About Reform
Bloomberg News | September 8, 2009
As the White House and Congress debate how to regulate financial firms to avoid another economic crisis, judges have assumed the point position in punishing Wall Street for causing the worst recession since the 1930s.

Canadian SEC is not the Answer
New Brunswick Bus. Journal | September 8, 2009
The subsequent leap to the need for a Canadian securities regulator styled on the American Securities and Exchange Commission reveals a specious logic.

Combining ’33 and ’34 Securities Act Plaintiffs in the Same Class
David P. Saunders and Howard S. Suskin, Law.com | September 5, 2009
The 2nd Circuit’s ruling that plaintiffs suing under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 may co-exist within the same plaintiff class even if the allegations of misrepresentation underlying the ’33 act and ’34 act claims differ will likely have the effect of enlarging the size of plaintiff classes in securities class actions as well as increasing the number of claims that defendants will be subject to in class action suits.