Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—E.D. Pa.: Up to $88.4M in generic drug price-fixing settlements with Glenmark, Pfizer given final approval, (Jul 20, 2026)

By Martin A. Steinberg, J.D.

Settlements resolving direct purchasers’ generic-drug price-fixing claims currently total approximately $62.26 million and could increase under most-favored-nation provisions.

The federal district court in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania has granted final approval of class action settlements resolving antitrust claims brought by direct purchaser plaintiffs César Castillo, LLC; FWK Holdings, LLC; Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.; and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., doing business as Kinney Drugs, Inc., against Glenmark Pharmaceutical Inc. and Greenstone LLC/Pfizer Inc. in multidistrict litigation over alleged price fixing in the generic-drug industry. The court certified settlement classes of more than 700 direct purchasers that bought named generic drugs between May 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, finding that the requirements of Rule 23 were satisfied and that the notice program was adequate. After reductions for opt-outs, the Glenmark settlement provides approximately $33.22 million and the Greenstone/Pfizer settlement approximately $29.04 million, although the amounts may increase to roughly $47.17 million and $41.24 million, respectively, under most-favored-nation provisions. The court also approved $6 million in litigation expenses and service awards totaling $80,000 and, in a separate order incorporated by reference, approved attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of each net settlement fund. Finding no objections and concluding that the settlements were fair, reasonable, and adequate in light of the complexity, expense, delay, and risks of continued litigation, the court approved both agreements (In Re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR (E.D. Pa. Jul. 16, 2026)).

Background. The settlements arise from multidistrict litigation alleging that generic-drug manufacturers conspired to fix prices, rig bids, and allocate customers and markets for numerous generic pharmaceuticals. Direct Purchaser Plaintiffs César Castillo, LLC; FWK Holdings, LLC; Rochester Drug Cooperative, Inc.; and KPH Healthcare Services, Inc., doing business as Kinney Drugs, reached separate settlements with Glenmark Pharmaceutical Inc. and with Greenstone LLC and Pfizer Inc. The court preliminarily approved the settlements and directed that notice be provided to the proposed classes. After conducting a final-approval hearing on April 8, 2026, and confirming that the required notice had been completed, the court considered whether to certify the settlement classes and approve the agreements under Rule 23.

Rule 23(a). The court first addressed whether the proposed settlement classes satisfied Rule 23(a)’s requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy. The court certified identical Glenmark and Greenstone/Pfizer settlement classes consisting of persons and entities that directly purchased one or more named generic drugs from a current or former defendant in the United States or its territories between May 1, 2009, and December 31, 2019, excluding defendants, affiliated persons and entities, judicial personnel, and governmental entities. Each class contained more than 700 geographically dispersed members, satisfying numerosity. Commonality and typicality were met because all class members allegedly paid inflated prices for generic drugs as a result of the same manufacturer conspiracy, and the named plaintiffs’ claims and incentives aligned with those of the absent class members.

The court also found the class representatives and class counsel adequate. The four representatives had actively participated in the litigation, including through depositions and substantial document production, and each was awarded $20,000, for a total of $80,000 split equally between the two settlements. Class counsel were experienced and capable of protecting the classes’ interests. The settlements provided for pro rata distributions, preserved the direct purchasers’ ability to rely on the settling defendants’ sales when pursuing joint-and-several liability against nonsettling defendants, and required the settling defendants to cooperate in administering the settlements and in the continuing litigation.

Rule 23(b)(3). The court next addressed whether the settlement classes satisfied Rule 23(b)(3). The court found that common questions predominated because the alleged collusive conduct affected all class members in the same manner by increasing the prices they paid for generic drugs. It also concluded that a class action was superior to individual litigation, given the complexity of the MDL and the impracticality of pursuing more than 700 separate actions, even though some plaintiffs were already proceeding individually.

The court further found that the classes were ascertainable under Third Circuit law. Membership depended on objective criteria, whether a person or entity directly purchased a named generic drug from a settling defendant during the class period, and could be determined primarily from the defendants’ transactional data. Potential members not identified in those records could submit supporting evidence of their purchases. The court therefore certified both settlement classes for purposes of the final settlement agreements.

Notice. The court found that the settlement notice satisfied Rule 23. It clearly explained the nature of the litigation, the class definitions and claims, class members’ rights to appear through counsel or request exclusion, the exclusion procedures, and the binding effect of a class judgment. Notice was distributed through direct mail based on defendants’ transactional records, targeted digital advertising, publication in The Wall Street Journal, a Business Wire release, and a dedicated telephone number, email address, and website.

Rule 23(e) and the Girsh factors. Lastly, the court addressed whether the settlements were fair, reasonable, and adequate under Rule 23(e) and the Third Circuit’s Girsh factors. See Girsh v. Jepson, 521 F.2d 153 (3d Cir. 1975). The court found that both settlements resulted from arm’s-length negotiations conducted by experienced counsel after extensive discovery and motion practice, and that no class member had objected. Although numerous entities submitted opt-out requests, only a smaller number were identified through transactional data as actual settlement-class members.

The Glenmark settlement originally provided $37.75 million but was reduced to approximately $33.22 million to account for opt-outs; it could increase to about $47.17 million under a most-favored-nation provision. The Greenstone/Pfizer settlement likewise declined from $33 million to approximately $29.04 million after opt-outs but could increase to about $41.24 million. The court also approved $6 million in unreimbursed litigation expenses, divided equally between the settlements, and addressed separately class counsel’s request for attorneys’ fees equal to one-third of each net settlement fund.

The court concluded that the relief was adequate when weighed against the costs, risks, and delay of continued litigation, including additional class-certification proceedings, dispositive motions, evidentiary disputes, trials, and appeals. The settlement agreements preserved the plaintiffs’ ability, where legally permitted, to rely on the settling defendants’ sales when seeking joint-and-several liability from nonsettling defendants. They also required the settling defendants to cooperate in administering the settlements and in the continuing litigation. Because the funds would be distributed pro rata, the court found that class members were treated equitably.

The Girsh factors also favored approval. The litigation was highly complex and likely would continue for years without settlement; discovery and motion practice had developed the factual and legal issues; the defendants continued to deny liability; and substantial risks remained as to liability, damages, and maintaining class certification. In light of those risks and the absence of objections, the court concluded that the settlements fell within a reasonable range of recovery and approved them.

The Case is No. 2:16-md-02724-CMR.

Judge: Rufe, C.

Attorneys: Jason H. Kim (Schneider Wallace Cottrell Kim LLP) for Health Care Service Corp. Abram J. Ellis (Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP) for McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc.

Companies: Health Care Service Corp.; McKesson Medical-Surgical, Inc.

Cases: Antitrust PennsylvaniaNews