Typically speaking, a federal regulatory body's enforcement calculus follows this procedure: 1. How big is the target company? 2. How scary are its lawyers?

Typically speaking, a federal regulatory body's enforcement calculus follows this procedure: 1. How big is the target company? 2. How scary are its lawyers? 3. Do we expect the company to put up a fight? 4. Is the fight worth it? (e.g., Are there important precedents at stake? Can we make an example of the company in question?) Ninety-nine times out of a hundred, the desire to pursue the fight in court fizzles out at Step 4. (And sometimes there's an ancillary Step 4a: "How many other battles are we fighting right now?") I'm not being glib here; I'm just being cynical, but realistic. This is pretty much how my friends at various agencies have described it to me. It doesn't seem too farfetched, if perhaps a bit simplified.