Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.02.06
In Crane & Co. (Jan. 18, 2006, http://www.gao.gov/decisions/bidpro/297398.pdf), GAO held that the plain language of a 1916 statute limiting to four years contracts for “distinctive currency paper” precluded the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) from encouraging competition by issuing an RFP for four years of production following a two-year “mobilization” period to allow new entrants to make required investments and amortize that investment over the production term of the contract. Recognizing that BEP was attempting to respond to criticisms of the absence of competition, including GAO reports, GAO held it still had to enforce the plain meaning of the statute, anti-competitive as that interpretation was, and the only remedy was for Congress to amend the statute.
Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 02.23.26
NYC’s Mayor Mamdani Joins the Wave of Local Consumer Protection Enforcement
While state attorneys general have traditionally led consumer protection enforcement, local governments are increasingly deploying their own powers to prosecute high-stakes affirmative litigation. The results speak for themselves: Los Angeles and Chicago have secured multi-million-dollar judgments and settlements in consumer deception cases over the past decade.
Client Alert | 1 min read | 02.23.26
SCOTUS Tariff Decision: Implications for Retail and E-Commerce
Client Alert | 5 min read | 02.23.26
UK Government Seeks Evidence on Ownership and Control in Financial Sanctions Regulations
Client Alert | 4 min read | 02.20.26
