Glenmark has agreed to a $29.6 million multistate settlement over allegations that it joined a long-running conspiracy to inflate prices and curb competition for generic prescription drugs.

What happened

California Attorney General Rob Bonta announced Thursday that he joined a coalition of 48 states and territories in a $29.6 million settlement with Glenmark resolving allegations that the generic-drug maker participated in a broad conspiracy to inflate prices, limit competition and restrain trade.

The agency said Glenmark will cooperate in ongoing multistate litigation against 33 corporate defendants and 25 individual executives and adopt internal reforms intended to ensure fair competition and antitrust compliance. Bonta said artificially inflating drug prices and blocking competition “hurts consumers and the marketplace — full stop.”

Consumers who bought generic prescription drugs made by Glenmark, Lannett, Bausch, Apotex or Heritage from May 2009 through December 2019 may be eligible for compensation, according to the release. The Glenmark settlement follows settlements with Lannett, Bausch, Apotex and Heritage totaling $66.95 million, and the states are preparing for the first trial in Hartford, Connecticut.

The California Attorney General’s Office said it has participated since 2016 in a coalition pursuing a series of generic-drug antitrust cases. The first complaint included Heritage and 17 other corporate defendants, two individual defendants and 15 generic drugs, while a 2019 complaint targeted Teva Pharmaceuticals and 21 of the nation’s largest generic-drug manufacturers.

The release says the third complaint, slated to be tried first, concerns 80 topical generic drugs and names 26 corporate defendants and 10 individual defendants. Seven additional pharmaceutical executives have been cooperating to support the states’ claims, according to the agency.

The states describe their cases as relying on cooperating witnesses, more than 20 million documents and phone-record data covering more than 600 sales and pricing individuals in the generics industry. The supplied source does not include the settlement agreement, the operative complaints, a court order or a Glenmark response, so the alleged conduct should be treated as unproven unless confirmed in primary litigation materials.