COMPLAINT /no process against Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd., Asiana Airlines, Inc. ( Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 34611009923.). Filed byKaz Fujita. (ga, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/29/2007) Additional attachment(s) added on 9/14/2007 (mcl, COURT STAFF). Additional attachment(s) added on 9/17/2007 (mcl, COURT STAFF).
No tags have been applied so far. Sign in to add some.
There was a problem locating the requested document.
Page 1 No
_ wi
sry: | PILED
ALLAN STEYER (Cal. Bar No. 100318) {jee be be
D. SCOTT MACRAE (Cal. Bar No. 104663) eka
JILL M. MANNING (Cal. Bar No. 178849) Rt ZG EM EY
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP bebe ots me eel w
One California Street, Third Floor TERE ge ob ok ERLE RE
San Francisco, California 94111 a
Telephone: (415) 421-3400
Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
e-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
e-mail: smacrae@steyerlaw.com
e-mail: jmanning/@steverlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Kaz Fujita
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
0.2. 448
ike No. me 9
Plaintiff,
KAZ FUJITA, on behalf of himself and all oth@s . )
)
)
AL
KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., and ASIANA _ ) CLASS ACTION MPLAINT
)
)
)
)
)
similarly situated,
AIRLINES, INC., corporations of the Republic
of Korea, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated for compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to Section | of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (“Sherman Act’),
15 U.S.C. §1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (“Clayton Act”),
15 U.S.C. §§15, 26, against the above-named defendants. Plaintiff, upon personal knowledge
as to his own acts and status, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, alleges the
following:
l
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint wpdPage 2 I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This case arises out of a long-running international conspiracy beginning no later
than January 1, 2000, and continuing until at least July 16, 2006 (“Class Period”), among
Defendants and their co-conspirators with the purpose and effect of eliminating and suppressing
competition by fixing wholesale and passenger fares charged for air travel between the United
States and Korea.
2. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted in concert and conspired to artificially
inflate the prices of passenger air transportation fares by fixing the prices of the base rates
thereof, as well as the fuel surcharges.
3, San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) is a major hub of international air
transportation. The Defendants operate multiple direct international flights between Korean
airports and SFO. In addition to being one of the largest international airports in the United
States, SFO is a significant hub for Defendants.
4. The Defendants, together with their co-conspirators, participated in a conspiracy
to fix or maintain certain charges built into the price of international passenger air transportation
fares. Because of this unlawful conduct and conspiracy, Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid
artificially inflated prices for such fares. Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased those
services and have been damaged thereby.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5, This Complaint is filed under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§15
and 26, seeking injunctive relief for violations of Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
‘The Court has jurisdiction over the federal claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
6. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391
because Defendants reside, transact business, or are found within this District.
7. The activities of the Defendants and their co-conspirators, as described herein,
were within the flow of, were intended to, and did have a substantial effect on the foreign and
interstate commerce of the United States.
8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and their co-conspirators
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Si\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpdPage 3 10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpdPage 6 NO
Mad
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 6of 11
Sd ww
22. Acclass action is superior to the alternatives, if any, for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. This class action would preclude the potential for inconsistent
or contradictory individual judgments that would dispose of or impair the interests of other
prospective Class members not parties to individual litigation. Individualized litigation increases
the delay and expense to all parties and the judicial system due to the complex legal and factual
issues presented by this case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management
difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
supervision by a single court. This class action would establish compatible and consistent
standards of conduct for Defendants.
23. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with
respect to the Class as a whole.
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24, During the Class Period, there was a continuous and uninterrupted flow of
passenger air transportation in interstate and international commerce throughout the United
States and internationally.
25, Korean Air is the largest passenger carrier from the United States to Korea, and
averages more than $250 million per year on those flights. Korean Air does business in
California, including the sale of international passenger air transportation.
26. Asiana is the second largest passenger carrier from the United States to Korea,
and is Korean Air’s main rival on these routes. Asiana does business in California, including the
sale of international passenger air transportation.
27. Defendants’ unlawful activities, as described herein, have directly and
substantially affected interstate commerce in that Defendants and their co-conspirators have
deprived Plaintiff and the Class of free and open competition in the business of passenger air
transportation.
28. By reason of the violations of the Sherman Act as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class paid more for passenger air transportation for flights between the
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Aurlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpdPage 7 20
, ead ww
United States and Korea than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal combination
and conspiracy and, as a result, they have been injured and have suffered damages.
29. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators provided
international air transportation services for passengers. Defendants’ passenger services
transported people on flights within Korea and internationally, including flights to and from the
United States.
30. During the Class Period, Defendants sold or caused to be sold tickets for
passenger air transportation on flights between the United States and Korea. Defendants’
published fares included a base fare and, at times during the Class Period, a fuel surcharge.
31, Beginning no later than January 1, 2000, and continuing through at least July 16,
2006, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price for passenger air fares
charged for flights between the United States and Korea.
32. As part of their conspiracy, and in furtherance thereof, the acts Defendants and
their co-conspirators engaged in included, inter alia, the following:
a. Participating in meetings, conversations and communications in the
United States and elsewhere to discuss one or both components of the
passenger air fares (the base fare and the fuel surcharge) to be charged
for flights between the United States and Korea;
b. Agreeing during such meetings, conversations and communications,
on one or both components of the passenger air fares (i.e., the base fare
and the fuel surcharge) to charge on flights between the United States
and Korea; and
c. Levying passenger air fares on flights between the United States and
Korea in accordance with the agreements reached.
33, As aresult of Defendants’ unlawful conduct and conspiracy, Plaintiff and the
members of the Class paid artificially high prices for passenger air transportation and fuel
surcharges, and have been damaged thereby.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpdPage 8 Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 8of 11
. ow —w
34. The United States Department of Justice’s investigation into Korean Air’s
criminal conduct resulted in charges being filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on August 1, 2007.
35, On August 1, 2007, Defendant Korean Air agreed to plead guilty to violating
Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 by participating in the price-fixing conspiracy
alleged herein, and has agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine.
36. Korean Air admitted its wrongdoing. Korean Air attorney Ahn Yong-Seok, in
confirming the plea agreement, announced that Korean Air “apologises to sharcholders and
customers for causing trouble.” Ahn stated that Korean Air's compliance officer would attempt
to ensure future compliance with United States and global fair trade rules.
37, Under the terms of the plea agreement, Korean Air as agreed to cooperate with
the DOJ’s ongoing investigation.
VI. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
38. ‘Throughout the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators affirmatively
and actively concealed their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and the members of the Class.
39. Defendants and their co-conspirators conducted their conspiracy in secret,
concealed the true nature of their unlawful conduct and acts in furtherance thereof, and actively
concealed their activities through various other means and methods to avoid detection. Plaintiff
and members of the Class did not discover, and could not have discovered through the exercise
of reasonable diligence, that Defendants and their co-conspirators were violating the antitrust
laws as alleged herein until shortly before this class action litigation was commenced.
40, Only on or about August 1, 2007, when the DOJ announced Korean Air’s guilty
pleas and criminal fines with regard to the price fixing passenger air transportation fares was the
existence of the conspiracy disclosed to the public. Plaintiff and the members of the Class could
not have discovered the unlawful conduct at an earlier date thorough the exercise of reasonable
diligence because of Defendants’ active and purposeful concealment of their unlawful activities.
41, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a successful, illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to passenger air transportation fares, as well as fuel surcharges, which
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpdPage 9 nd a
they affirmatively concealed in at least the following respects:
a. By agreeing among themselves not to discuss publicly or otherwise reveal,
the nature and substance of the acts and communications in furtherance of
their illegal scheme;
b. By engaging in secret meetings, telephone calls and other communications
in order to further their illicit conduct; and/or
C, By giving false and pretextual reasons for their pricing of passenger air
transportation fares, and for the increases in those prices during the
relevant period, and by describing such pricing and increases falsely as
being the result of external costs rather than collusion.
42. Asaresult of the active concealment of the conspiracy by Defendants and their
co-conspirators, any and all applicable statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to the
allegations herein have been tolled.
COUNT I
(Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act)
43, Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, as though fully set forth herein, each and
every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
44, Beginning at a time presently unknown to Plaintiff, but at least as early as January
1, 2000, and continuing until at least July 16, 2006, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered
into a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade of commerce by
affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the
prices of air passenger fares for flights between the United States and Korea in violation of
Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 8 1.
45, The acts committed by Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged herein
unlawfully restrained interstate and foreign commerce and were against public policy and
included the following:
a. Agreeing to charge prices for fuel surcharges at certain levels and
otherwise to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of passenger
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpdPage 10 Nw
20)
air transportation fares; and
b. By charging fuel surcharges at agreed upon levels, thereby fixing
passenger air transportation fares at the agreed upon rates.
46. | The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had the following effects,
among others:
a. Price competition in the sale of passenger fares for flights between
the United States and Korea has been restrained, suppressed, and/or
eliminated:
b. Prices for passenger fares between the United States and Korea sold
by Defendants have been fixed, raised, maintained and stabilized at
artificially high, non-competitive levels; and
c. Those who purchased passenger air fares for flights between the United
States and Korea on the Defendants’ airlines have been deprived of the
benefits of free and open competition.
47. Defendants’ anticompetitive activities and their effects are in violation of the
Sherman Act.
48. During the Class Period, Defendants sold passenger air transportation fares in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate and foreign commerce. Defendants received
payment for such products across state and national boundaries. Defendants’ activities, and the
sale of their services, have had a substantial anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce
within the United States and foreign commerce.
49, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been injured by reason of the
unlawful acts of Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged herein and are entitled to relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and direct that reasonable notice of this
action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be given to the Class;
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S\Korea Anrlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpdPage 11 No
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 11 of 11
—_
wa!
B. That the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be
adjudged and decreed to be a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1;
C. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded damages;
Dd. That the Plaintiff and the Class be awarded double or treble damages;
E, That the Plaintiff and the Class recover interest on the damages award;
F. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit;
G. That Defendants be enjoined from continuing the unlawful combination and
conspiracy alleged herein; and
H. That Plaintiff and the Class be granted such other, further and different relief as
the nature of the case may require or as may be deemed just and proper by this
Court.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
Dated: August 29, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
By:__/s/ Allan STEYER
ALLAN STEYER
D. SCOTT MACRAE
JILL M. MANNING
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
One California Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 421-3400
Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
Counsel for Plaintiff
1]
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpd
PDF Page 1
PlainSite Cover Page
PDF Page 2
No
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 1 of 11
_ wi
sry: | PILED
ALLAN STEYER (Cal. Bar No. 100318) {jee be be
D. SCOTT MACRAE (Cal. Bar No. 104663) eka
JILL M. MANNING (Cal. Bar No. 178849) Rt ZG EM EY
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP bebe ots me eel w
One California Street, Third Floor TERE ge ob ok ERLE RE
San Francisco, California 94111 a
Telephone: (415) 421-3400
Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
e-mail: asteyer@steyerlaw.com
e-mail: smacrae@steyerlaw.com
e-mail: jmanning/@steverlaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiff Kaz Fujita
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION
0.2. 448
ike No. me 9
Plaintiff,
KAZ FUJITA, on behalf of himself and all oth@s . )
)
)
AL
KOREAN AIR LINES CO., LTD., and ASIANA _ ) CLASS ACTION MPLAINT
)
)
)
)
)
similarly situated,
AIRLINES, INC., corporations of the Republic
of Korea, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendants.
Plaintiff, by and through his undersigned attorneys, brings this civil action on behalf of
himself and all others similarly situated for compensatory, statutory and exemplary damages and
injunctive relief pursuant to Section | of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 (“Sherman Act’),
15 U.S.C. §1, and Sections 4 and 16 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 (“Clayton Act”),
15 U.S.C. §§15, 26, against the above-named defendants. Plaintiff, upon personal knowledge
as to his own acts and status, and upon information and belief as to all other matters, alleges the
following:
l
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint wpd
PDF Page 3
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 2 of 11
I. NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This case arises out of a long-running international conspiracy beginning no later
than January 1, 2000, and continuing until at least July 16, 2006 (“Class Period”), among
Defendants and their co-conspirators with the purpose and effect of eliminating and suppressing
competition by fixing wholesale and passenger fares charged for air travel between the United
States and Korea.
2. Defendants and their co-conspirators acted in concert and conspired to artificially
inflate the prices of passenger air transportation fares by fixing the prices of the base rates
thereof, as well as the fuel surcharges.
3, San Francisco International Airport (“SFO”) is a major hub of international air
transportation. The Defendants operate multiple direct international flights between Korean
airports and SFO. In addition to being one of the largest international airports in the United
States, SFO is a significant hub for Defendants.
4. The Defendants, together with their co-conspirators, participated in a conspiracy
to fix or maintain certain charges built into the price of international passenger air transportation
fares. Because of this unlawful conduct and conspiracy, Plaintiffs and members of the Class paid
artificially inflated prices for such fares. Plaintiffs and members of the Class purchased those
services and have been damaged thereby.
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
5, This Complaint is filed under Section 16 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. §§15
and 26, seeking injunctive relief for violations of Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1.
‘The Court has jurisdiction over the federal claim under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1337.
6. Venue is proper in this District under 15 U.S.C. § 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1391
because Defendants reside, transact business, or are found within this District.
7. The activities of the Defendants and their co-conspirators, as described herein,
were within the flow of, were intended to, and did have a substantial effect on the foreign and
interstate commerce of the United States.
8. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants and their co-conspirators
2
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Si\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpd
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 4 of 11
ad wi
14. Each of the Defendants named herein acted as the agent or joint venturer of or for
the other Defendants with respect to the acts, violations and common course of conduct alleged
herein.
IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
15. Plaintiff brings this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of himself and a Plaintiff Class (“the Class”) composed of
and defined as follows:
All persons and entities residing in the United States who or that,
between January 1, 2000 and July 16, 2006, purchased passenger
air transportation from Defendants or any predecessor, subsidiary
or affiliate thereof for travel between the United States and Korea.
16. Specifically excluded from this Class are Federal Judges and Magistrates and
their immediate families; Defendants and any parent, subsidiary or affiliate thereof and any entity
of which Defendants have a controlling interest; and Defendants’ officers, directors, employees
and immediate families.
17. Plaintiff does not presently possess information identifying the exact size of the
Class. Based upon the nature of the commerce involved, Plaintiff believes the total number of
class members is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all Class members would be
impracticable.
18. There are questions of law and fact which are common to the claims of Plaintiff
and the Class, which predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members.
Among the questions of law or fact common to the class are:
a. Whether Defendants combined, agreed, and/or conspired with their co-
conspirators to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices for
passenger fares charged for flights between the United States and Korea;
b. Whether the purpose and/or effect of the acts and omissions alleged herein
was to restrain trade, or to affect, fix, control, and/or maintain the prices
for passenger fares charged for flights between the United States and
Korea;
4
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 6
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 5of11
. ed wo
c. The existence and duration of the horizontal agreements alleged herein
to fix, raise, maintain, and/or stabilize the prices for passenger fares
charged for flights between the United States and Korea;
d. Whether Defendants were members of, or participated in, the contract,
combination, and/or conspiracy alleged herein;
e. Whether Defendants took steps to conceal the conspiracy from Plaintiff
and the members of the Class;
f. Whether Defendants’ agents, officers, employees, or representatives
participated in correspondence and meetings in furtherance of the illegal
conspiracy alleged herein, and, if so, whether such agents, officers,
employees, or representatives were acting within the scope of their
authority and in furtherance of Defendants’ business interests;
Q. Whether, and to what extent, the conduct of Defendants caused injury
to Plaintiff and members of the Class and, if so, the appropriate measure
of damages; and
h. Whether Plaintiff and members of the Class are entitled to injunctive
relief,
19. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the members of the Class. The
questions of law and fact which are common to the claims of the Plaintiff and the Class
predominate over questions, if any, that may affect only individual members of the Class
because, among other reasons, Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the
entire Class.
20. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately assert and protect the interests of the members
ofthe Class. The interests of Plaintiff are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the
other members of the Class.
21. Plaintiff has retained counsel competent and experienced in the prosecution of
complex class actions, and in particular, counsel has broad experience in complex antitrust
litigation similar in size, scope, and complexity to the present case.
>
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpd
PDF Page 7
NO
Mad
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 6of 11
Sd ww
22. Acclass action is superior to the alternatives, if any, for the fair and efficient
adjudication of this controversy. This class action would preclude the potential for inconsistent
or contradictory individual judgments that would dispose of or impair the interests of other
prospective Class members not parties to individual litigation. Individualized litigation increases
the delay and expense to all parties and the judicial system due to the complex legal and factual
issues presented by this case. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management
difficulties and provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive
supervision by a single court. This class action would establish compatible and consistent
standards of conduct for Defendants.
23. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the
Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with
respect to the Class as a whole.
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
24, During the Class Period, there was a continuous and uninterrupted flow of
passenger air transportation in interstate and international commerce throughout the United
States and internationally.
25, Korean Air is the largest passenger carrier from the United States to Korea, and
averages more than $250 million per year on those flights. Korean Air does business in
California, including the sale of international passenger air transportation.
26. Asiana is the second largest passenger carrier from the United States to Korea,
and is Korean Air’s main rival on these routes. Asiana does business in California, including the
sale of international passenger air transportation.
27. Defendants’ unlawful activities, as described herein, have directly and
substantially affected interstate commerce in that Defendants and their co-conspirators have
deprived Plaintiff and the Class of free and open competition in the business of passenger air
transportation.
28. By reason of the violations of the Sherman Act as alleged herein, Plaintiff and the
other members of the Class paid more for passenger air transportation for flights between the
6
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Aurlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 8
20
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 7 of 11
, ead ww
United States and Korea than they would have paid in the absence of the illegal combination
and conspiracy and, as a result, they have been injured and have suffered damages.
29. During the Class Period, Defendants and their co-conspirators provided
international air transportation services for passengers. Defendants’ passenger services
transported people on flights within Korea and internationally, including flights to and from the
United States.
30. During the Class Period, Defendants sold or caused to be sold tickets for
passenger air transportation on flights between the United States and Korea. Defendants’
published fares included a base fare and, at times during the Class Period, a fuel surcharge.
31, Beginning no later than January 1, 2000, and continuing through at least July 16,
2006, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered into and engaged in a combination and
conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price for passenger air fares
charged for flights between the United States and Korea.
32. As part of their conspiracy, and in furtherance thereof, the acts Defendants and
their co-conspirators engaged in included, inter alia, the following:
a. Participating in meetings, conversations and communications in the
United States and elsewhere to discuss one or both components of the
passenger air fares (the base fare and the fuel surcharge) to be charged
for flights between the United States and Korea;
b. Agreeing during such meetings, conversations and communications,
on one or both components of the passenger air fares (i.e., the base fare
and the fuel surcharge) to charge on flights between the United States
and Korea; and
c. Levying passenger air fares on flights between the United States and
Korea in accordance with the agreements reached.
33, As aresult of Defendants’ unlawful conduct and conspiracy, Plaintiff and the
members of the Class paid artificially high prices for passenger air transportation and fuel
surcharges, and have been damaged thereby.
7
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 9
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 8of 11
. ow —w
34. The United States Department of Justice’s investigation into Korean Air’s
criminal conduct resulted in charges being filed in the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia on August 1, 2007.
35, On August 1, 2007, Defendant Korean Air agreed to plead guilty to violating
Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1 by participating in the price-fixing conspiracy
alleged herein, and has agreed to pay a $300 million criminal fine.
36. Korean Air admitted its wrongdoing. Korean Air attorney Ahn Yong-Seok, in
confirming the plea agreement, announced that Korean Air “apologises to sharcholders and
customers for causing trouble.” Ahn stated that Korean Air's compliance officer would attempt
to ensure future compliance with United States and global fair trade rules.
37, Under the terms of the plea agreement, Korean Air as agreed to cooperate with
the DOJ’s ongoing investigation.
VI. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT
38. ‘Throughout the conspiracy, Defendants and their co-conspirators affirmatively
and actively concealed their unlawful conduct from Plaintiff and the members of the Class.
39. Defendants and their co-conspirators conducted their conspiracy in secret,
concealed the true nature of their unlawful conduct and acts in furtherance thereof, and actively
concealed their activities through various other means and methods to avoid detection. Plaintiff
and members of the Class did not discover, and could not have discovered through the exercise
of reasonable diligence, that Defendants and their co-conspirators were violating the antitrust
laws as alleged herein until shortly before this class action litigation was commenced.
40, Only on or about August 1, 2007, when the DOJ announced Korean Air’s guilty
pleas and criminal fines with regard to the price fixing passenger air transportation fares was the
existence of the conspiracy disclosed to the public. Plaintiff and the members of the Class could
not have discovered the unlawful conduct at an earlier date thorough the exercise of reasonable
diligence because of Defendants’ active and purposeful concealment of their unlawful activities.
41, Defendants and their co-conspirators engaged in a successful, illegal price-fixing
conspiracy with respect to passenger air transportation fares, as well as fuel surcharges, which
8
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 10
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 9 of 11
nd a
they affirmatively concealed in at least the following respects:
a. By agreeing among themselves not to discuss publicly or otherwise reveal,
the nature and substance of the acts and communications in furtherance of
their illegal scheme;
b. By engaging in secret meetings, telephone calls and other communications
in order to further their illicit conduct; and/or
C, By giving false and pretextual reasons for their pricing of passenger air
transportation fares, and for the increases in those prices during the
relevant period, and by describing such pricing and increases falsely as
being the result of external costs rather than collusion.
42. Asaresult of the active concealment of the conspiracy by Defendants and their
co-conspirators, any and all applicable statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to the
allegations herein have been tolled.
COUNT I
(Violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act)
43, Plaintiff incorporates and realleges, as though fully set forth herein, each and
every allegation set forth in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.
44, Beginning at a time presently unknown to Plaintiff, but at least as early as January
1, 2000, and continuing until at least July 16, 2006, Defendants and their co-conspirators entered
into a continuing agreement, understanding, and conspiracy in restraint of trade of commerce by
affecting, fixing, controlling and/or maintaining, at artificial and non-competitive levels, the
prices of air passenger fares for flights between the United States and Korea in violation of
Section | of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. 8 1.
45, The acts committed by Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged herein
unlawfully restrained interstate and foreign commerce and were against public policy and
included the following:
a. Agreeing to charge prices for fuel surcharges at certain levels and
otherwise to fix, raise, maintain and/or stabilize the prices of passenger
9
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S:\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 11
Nw
20)
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document 1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 10 of 11
air transportation fares; and
b. By charging fuel surcharges at agreed upon levels, thereby fixing
passenger air transportation fares at the agreed upon rates.
46. | The combination and conspiracy alleged herein has had the following effects,
among others:
a. Price competition in the sale of passenger fares for flights between
the United States and Korea has been restrained, suppressed, and/or
eliminated:
b. Prices for passenger fares between the United States and Korea sold
by Defendants have been fixed, raised, maintained and stabilized at
artificially high, non-competitive levels; and
c. Those who purchased passenger air fares for flights between the United
States and Korea on the Defendants’ airlines have been deprived of the
benefits of free and open competition.
47. Defendants’ anticompetitive activities and their effects are in violation of the
Sherman Act.
48. During the Class Period, Defendants sold passenger air transportation fares in a
continuous and uninterrupted flow of interstate and foreign commerce. Defendants received
payment for such products across state and national boundaries. Defendants’ activities, and the
sale of their services, have had a substantial anticompetitive effect upon interstate commerce
within the United States and foreign commerce.
49, Plaintiff and the members of the Class have been injured by reason of the
unlawful acts of Defendants and their co-conspirators as alleged herein and are entitled to relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays:
A. That the Court determine that this action may be maintained as a class action
pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and direct that reasonable notice of this
action, as provided by Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, be given to the Class;
10
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S\Korea Anrlines\Pleadings\Complaint.wpd
PDF Page 12
No
Case 3:07-cv-04489-CRB Document1 Filed 08/29/2007 Page 11 of 11
—_
wa!
B. That the unlawful conduct, contract, conspiracy or combination alleged herein be
adjudged and decreed to be a violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. §1;
C. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded damages;
Dd. That the Plaintiff and the Class be awarded double or treble damages;
E, That the Plaintiff and the Class recover interest on the damages award;
F. That Plaintiff and the Class be awarded reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs
of suit;
G. That Defendants be enjoined from continuing the unlawful combination and
conspiracy alleged herein; and
H. That Plaintiff and the Class be granted such other, further and different relief as
the nature of the case may require or as may be deemed just and proper by this
Court.
JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues triable by jury.
Dated: August 29, 2007
Respectfully submitted,
By:__/s/ Allan STEYER
ALLAN STEYER
D. SCOTT MACRAE
JILL M. MANNING
STEYER LOWENTHAL BOODROOKAS
ALVAREZ & SMITH LLP
One California Street, Third Floor
San Francisco, California 94111
Telephone: (415) 421-3400
Facsimile: (415) 421-2234
Counsel for Plaintiff
1]
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND
S\Korea Airlines\Pleadings\Complaint. wpd
Back to 
