A Pennsylvania federal judge granted final approval Friday for a $200 million deal resolving employee benefits plans' claims against Sun Pharmaceutical and Taro Pharmaceuticals in the sprawling price-fixing litigation against generic-drug makers, while again ensuring the claims from dozens of state attorneys general remain untouched by the settlement.

U.S. District Judge Cynthia M. Rufe said the latest deal in the multidistrict litigation, between Sun and Taro and end payor plaintiffs, bears all the hallmarks required for final approval. She said class action treatment was appropriate for the "thousands, if not millions, of class members," who she said shared common issues and were adequately represented by the named plaintiffs and class counsel now set under the order for one-third of the settlement.

"There has been extensive motion practice and discovery through which the parties have learned of the claims. Sun/Taro have denied liability, and in the absence of the settlement, [end payor plaintiffs] would be required to litigate issues of liability, damages, and class certification," Judge Rufe said. "Sun/Taro faces many other cases and claims in this MDL, and settlement at this time assures a fair payment to [end payor plaintiffs] on their claims against Sun/Taro."

According to Judge Rufe's order, no class members objected to the settlement. The judge heard, however, from state attorneys general who asked for the same consideration the court gave to a deal between the end payor plaintiffs and Sandoz, ensuring that the MDL agreement doesn't affect their ability to pursue sovereign claims in Connecticut federal court.

"The amici states ask this court to mirror its ruling on [end payor plaintiffs]' settlement with Sandoz Inc. and Fougera Pharmaceuticals. That request is approved," Judge Rufe said. "As it has previously, the court stresses that there is no question that the state attorneys general have played a key role in the litigation over the prices of generic pharmaceuticals, and that their lawsuits could also result in meaningful relief in some form to some of the class members here."

Judge Rufe did, however, repeat her findings that the enforcers haven't shown that their authority to sue on behalf of their citizens can supplant the ability of consumers to seek damages. "Further, once again, this court determines that any requests for the reporting of claims data, anti-suit injunctions, and potential offsets are premature at this stage," she said.

The amicus brief filed in early December represented nearly four dozen enforcers from states including Alaska, California, Colorado, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Vermont and Virginia, along with the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands and the Northern Mariana Islands.

Both the MDL and the Connecticut case target dozens of drugmakers accused of fixing the prices of a range of generic drugs. Multiple settlements have already been inked while other parts of the litigation move forward.

In Friday's order, Judge Rufe also imposed the same requirements for opting out of the deal that she previously put in place for insurers seeking to exclude their administrative services to only customers, who have signed over their ability to sue to the insurers.

A pair of Blue Cross Blue Shield units said they shouldn't have to submit declarations attesting to their ability to opt out of the agreement on behalf of their customers. Judge Rufe on Friday stood by a mandate to show contract language attesting to the opt-out authority for specific clients, which she also said had been met by Health Care Services Corp. for its list of 504 entities.

In a separate decision Thursday, Judge Rufe granted a bid from the wider group of generic-drug makers seeking to again dismiss the state law claims she tossed in February 2019 under the laws of Illinois, South Carolina, Montana, Rhode Island, Georgia and West Virginia. According to the ruling, the drugmakers sought the dismissal of the claims from end payor plaintiffs, indirect reseller plaintiffs and direct action plaintiffs because the MDL had expanded since the 2019 decision. Judge Rufe held that nothing in the law has changed in the intervening years that would make those claims now live.

Representatives for the parties did not immediately respond to request for comment Friday.

The states are represented by their respective attorneys general.

The end payor plaintiffs are represented by Roberta Liebenberg of Fine Kaplan & Black.

The indirect reseller plaintiffs are represented by Christian Hudson of Cuneo Gilbert & Laduca LLP.

Sun and Taro are represented by John M. Taladay, Christopher P. Wilson, Edward W. Duffy, JoAnna B. Adkisson and Michael A. Munoz of Baker Botts LLP and Lauri A. Kavulich and Lindsay S. Fouse-Hopkins of Clark Hill PLC.

The case is In re: Generic Pharmaceuticals Pricing Antitrust Litigation, MDL number 2724, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.