June 17 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday

declined to hear an appeal by international deals broker

Blenheim Capital alleging it was cut out of a

multibillion-dollar transaction involving South Korea's purchase

of F-35 fighter jets and a satellite.

The justices without comment turned away an appeal by

Blenheim of a decision by the Richmond, Virginia-based 4th U.S.

Circuit Court of Appeals that said the deal involving South

Korea and defense giants Lockheed Martin ( LMT ) and Airbus was a

military transaction beyond the reach of U.S. courts.

Blenheim alleged in its lawsuit that Lockheed and Airbus

conspired to eliminate it from the South Korea deal, which

Blenheim said cost it hundreds of millions of dollars in lost

compensation.

Blenheim founder and chief executive Grant Rogan said in a

statement on Monday that the company was disappointed by the

decision. "Our concern is and remains that this has set a

precedent in which confusion will prevail in the lower courts,"

he said.

Lockheed in a statement said the justices upheld a

"well-founded" decision. "We appreciate the Supreme Court

putting this matter to rest," it said.

Airbus did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Lockheed and Airbus denied Blenheim's claims.

The U.S. Justice Department had urged the justices not to

take up the dispute. Lockheed also asked the justices to leave

the November 2022 4th Circuit ruling in place.

Blenheim specializes in corporate and governmental deals

involving "offsets," where a buyer receives some additional

goods or services apart from the core transaction to help lower

overall costs.

Blenheim in 2021 sued South Korea, Lockheed and Airbus in

Virginia federal court, alleging violations of U.S. antitrust

law and interference with its brokerage arrangement. The company

later dropped its antitrust claim.

Blenheim said between 2011 and 2016 it developed and began

to implement a deal in which South Korea would buy 40 F-35s from

Lockheed - valued at about $7 billion - and receive a military

satellite as an offset from Airbus. Blenheim was the offset

broker to Lockheed.

Blenheim in its Supreme Court appeal argued that an

exception in federal law for "commercial activity" should trump

South Korea's immunity claim.

Offset transactions are commercial because they are

"executed and implemented directly between the private defense

contractor and the foreign government," Blenheim argued.

The Justice Department countered that South Korea's purchase

of fighter jets and a military satellite were interconnected and

a matter for U.S. government review and approval.

"South Korea did not act as a private player in a market

when it purchased F-35s and engaged in the connected offset

transaction," the Justice Department said in its filing.

The case is Blenheim Capital Holdings Ltd v. Lockheed Martin

Corp ( LMT ), U.S. Supreme Court, No. 22-886.

For Blenheim: Hamish Hume of Boies Schiller Flexner

For Lockheed: Nicole Saharsky of Mayer Brown

For United States: Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar of

the Justice Department

Read more:

White House urges Supreme Court to reject case over F-35

sales to South Korea