1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |British Airways and Korean Airlines agree to pay more than $300 million each in deal with Antitrust Division

British Airways and Korean Airlines agree to pay more than $300 million each in deal with Antitrust Division

Client Alert | 1 min read | 08.03.07

The Antitrust Division of the U.S. Department of Justice announced on August 1, 2007 that two major airlines will plead guilty to charges that they conspired with other major airlines to fix prices for passenger and cargo services. Each airline will pay more than $300 million in fines for conduct that affected U.S. passengers and shippers.

In the U.S., both British Airways and Korean Airlines were charged with conspiring with competitors to fix rates, including fuel and security surcharges, in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §1).

Also on August 1, the United Kingdom’s Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced that British Airways had agreed to pay roughly $275 million in fines to that agency. The timing of these announcements demonstrates close coordination between U.S. and foreign antitrust authorities.


Insights

Client Alert | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights