The California Attorney General has joined a coalition of 48 states and territories in a $29.6 million settlement with generic drug maker Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, resolving California’s and the other states’ claims that Glenmark took part in a sprawling, years-long conspiracy among generic drug manufacturers to fix prices, allocate customers, and rig bids across the industry. The California Attorney General announced the deal on July 16, 2026, calling the conduct at issue a straightforward harm to consumers and the marketplace. As part of the agreement, Glenmark also agreed to cooperate with the states’ ongoing litigation against dozens of remaining corporate and individual defendants and to adopt internal antitrust-compliance reforms.

The Glenmark settlement is the latest development in litigation that traces back nearly a decade. In December 2016, the Connecticut Attorney General and a group of other states filed the first of what would become three related civil complaints, alleging that six generic drug manufacturers, later expanded to 18 corporate defendants and two individual defendants, conspired over 15 generic drugs. A second complaint followed in 2019, naming Teva Pharmaceuticals and roughly 21 other major generic manufacturers, along with 16 individual senior executives, over a far larger set of 116 drugs. A third complaint, filed in 2020 and captioned Connecticut et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al., No. 3:20-cv-00802 (D. Conn.), targets 26 corporate defendants and 10 individual defendants over roughly 80 topical generic drugs used to treat skin conditions — a category the states say accounts for billions of dollars in annual U.S. sales. All three actions were originally filed in the District of Connecticut but were transferred for pretrial proceedings to the multidistrict litigation captioned In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 2724, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, before the topical-drug case was remanded back to Connecticut, where it is now proceeding before U.S. District Judge Michael P. Shea.

The states describe their case as resting on an unusually deep evidentiary record: more than 20 million documents, a phone-records database covering millions of call detail records tied to more than 600 sales and pricing personnel across the generics industry, and testimony from multiple cooperating witnesses, including a two-volume notebook kept by one cooperator memorializing years of calls and internal meetings with competitors. According to the states’ filings, industry executives allegedly coordinated through industry dinners, golf outings, and frequent calls and texts, using phrases like “fair share” and “playing nice in the sandbox” to describe an informal, industry-wide understanding not to undercut each other on price.

The Connecticut case has continued to move forward even as individual defendants settle out. Court records show that in an October 2025 summary judgment ruling, Judge Shea addressed defense arguments that some of the states’ claims were barred by laches and the statute of limitations, narrowing the case in part while leaving the bulk of it intact. More significantly, in a December 2025 ruling, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on whether an “overarching conspiracy” existed among the 26 corporate defendants that would make them jointly and severally liable, allowing the states’ central theory of the case to proceed toward trial. Along the way, individual states have seen mixed results on procedural motions — for example, Florida was permitted to withdraw certain claims in July 2025, while Tennessee’s state-law claims survived a motion to dismiss in April 2025.

Glenmark is not the first defendant to resolve its exposure short of trial. Two former Heritage Pharmaceuticals executives, Jeffery Glazer and Jason Malek, reached cooperation agreements early in the litigation. Heritage and Apotex settled in 2024 for a combined $49.1 million; Lannett and Bausch Health settled in February 2026 for a combined $17.85 million; and Glenmark’s $29.6 million settlement now brings total recoveries from settled defendants to roughly $96 million. Under the settlement, consumers and other purchasers who bought a generic drug manufactured by Glenmark, Lannett, Bausch, Apotex, or Heritage between May 2009 and December 2019 may be eligible for compensation, with claims administered through a dedicated hotline and the states’ joint case website, AGGenericDrugs.com.

As for what remains: the states’ press materials indicate that roughly 30 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives are still contesting the litigation across the three complaints, with seven additional pharmaceutical executives now cooperating as witnesses. The topical-drug case is expected to be the first of the three complaints to go to trial, with the states and reporting from other participating attorneys general offices projecting a trial date in Hartford sometime in late 2026 or early 2027, though no firm date had been set as of this settlement’s announcement. The other two complaints — covering the original 15-drug case and the larger 116-drug Teva-led case — remain pending behind the topical-drug case in the litigation queue.