1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition

Plain Meaning Of Statute Restricts Competition

Client Alert | less than 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 | 7 min read | 10.29.26

7th EU Competition Law Conference, co-hosted by Crowell & Moring, King’s College London and the Competition Law Center at George Washington University

On 8 October 2026, Crowell & Moring, King's College London, and the Competition Law Center at George Washington University co-hosted the 7th EU Competition Law Conference at De Warande in Brussels. Mark Meador, Commissioner at the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), delivered the opening keynote address, followed by four panels bringing together practitioners, regulators, academics, and in-house counsel to discuss the latest developments in EU, UK, and US competition law enforcement. Among other things, the panels examined algorithmic pricing; the European Commission's (Commission) new guidelines on exclusionary abuses under Article 102 TFEU (Article 102 Guidelines); the impact of dominant positions in merger reviews; and lessons from the enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. ...

View All Insights