Washington Mutual Inc. and its fellow defendants have agreed to pay $208.5 million to settle a class-action lawsuit stemming from the lender's collapse in 2008, the biggest U.S. bank failure in history.

The defendants and lead plaintiff Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan Board outlined the terms of the agreement in documents filed with U.S. District Court in Seattle on Thursday.

The pact calls for Washington Mutual to pay $105 million, for a group of underwriters that includes Goldman, Sachs & Co., to pay $85 million, and for Deloitte & Touche LLP to kick in another $18.5 million. In exchange, the plaintiffs have agreed to dismiss all claims against the lender and its co-defendants.

The settlement must be approved by a bankruptcy court overseeing Washington Mutual's reorganization plan.

In 2008, the federal government seized WMI's flagship bank, based in Seattle, and sold its assets to JPMorgan Chase & Co. for $1.9 billion.

Plaintiffs ranging from huge pension funds to small individual investigators accused WMI and its banking executives of securities fraud, claiming the bank's lending standards and practices were misrepresented, questionable business practices were not disclosed and federal financial reports were misleading.

The Ontario teachers' pension fund has claimed it lost $24 million from alleged wrongdoing by WMI and the other defendants.

Under the terms of the settlement deal, WMI and the other defendants did not admit any wrongdoing.

Mounting a large-scale bias claim against a huge company will be more difficult in light of a Supreme Court decision that found no convincing proof of discrimination on which to allow a class action against retail giant Wal-Mart on behalf of as many as 1.6 million women.

All the justices agreed in the decision released Monday that the case couldn't proceed as a class action in its current form, reversing a decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. By a 5-4 vote along ideological lines, the court also said there were too many women in too many jobs at Wal-Mart to wrap into one lawsuit.

While individuals could still pursue their own cases, they would continue with the prospect of costly legal fees and long time frames and ultimately lack the power that would have accompanied the largest sex-discrimination lawsuit in U.S. history.

Two of the named plaintiffs, Christine Kwapnoski and Betty Dukes, vowed to continue their fight, even as they expressed disappointment about the ruling.

"We still are determined to go forward to present our case in court. We believe we will prevail there," said Dukes, a greeter at the Wal-Mart in Pittsburg, Calif.

The Supreme Court will let two West Virginia residents revive a lawsuit against Bayer AG over its anti-cholesterol drug Baycol, which was withdrawn from the market in 2001 after reports of a severe and sometimes fatal muscle disorder.

The high court on Thursday unanimously agreed to let Kevin Smith and Shirley Sperlazza's class-action lawsuit against Bayer go forward.

The 8th U.S. Court of Appeals had thrown out their lawsuit out after a federal judge overseeing multistate litigation against Bayer refused to let other West Virginians file a similar class-action lawsuit against the corporation.

The high court said that decision was incorrect.