Wall Street firms may find a silver lining in talks concerning a planned global settlement with federal and state regulators over alleged market abuses of the late 1990s, The Wall Street Journal is reporting this morning.

Most of the focus of the regulatory settlement, expected to be completed soon, has been on ways to resolve conflict-of-interest allegations that Wall Street research was tainted by pressure to boost investment-banking fees. The pact could cost securities firms as much as $2 billion for overhauling research practices and in fines.

But a less-noticed aspect of the effort is that any settlement may also include the resolution of cases involving alleged misconduct in allocating shares of hot initial public offerings, according to people familiar with the talks. Regulators have been investigating whether securities firms scratched the backs of favored clients by directing coveted IPOs to them in return for investment-banking business or for other improper forms of payback.

The move, if finalized, could allow Wall Street firms to resolve some aspects of alleged misconduct for which they face legal claims without disclosing significant specifics, critics say. Ordinarily, regulatory settlements include an accompanying detailed bill of particulars about the alleged wrongdoing. But in this case, because of the expedited nature of the settlement, it’s possible that the charges could be described only in broad general form. If that happens, any broad settlement could make it more difficult for investors to win private claims filed against Wall Street firms alleging IPO abuses.

The issue is likely to be addressed Tuesday, at a meeting of Wall Street lawyers and regulators. Among the topics will be an estimate of how much securities firms would owe government agencies to resolve the many different cases against them, according to people familiar with the matter.

The securities firms have been reluctant to comment publicly on the talks because they are supposed to be confidential.

At issue are two types of IPO cases. One involves IPO “spinning,” the practice by which securities firms are alleged to have doled out hot IPOs to the personal brokerage accounts of corporate executives in return for their firms’ business. The other involves IPO “laddering,” which involves allegations that securities firms gave out shares in additional hot IPOs to clients who agreed to buy more shares at higher prices after the stocks began trading.

Regulators also could benefit by settling the IPO cases as part of a broad pact. Though many people on Wall Street and elsewhere believe spinning and laddering aren’t proper, regulators say such cases aren’t easy to bring because they require evidence of a clear quid pro quo — a high bar in such matters.