# Novo Nordisk Lawsuit and US Banking Reform

**Podcast:** FT News Briefing
**Published:** 2026-02-10

## Transcript

Good morning from the Financial Times.
Today is Tuesday, February 10th, and this is your FT news briefing.
Looks like the political turmoil in the UK has mellowed out, and Novo Nordisk is hitting back at copycat drugs.
Plus, is American bank deposit insurance still strong enough?
I'm Sonia Hudson, and here's the news you need to start your day.
Gilt investors were worried about more political fallout for Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
He's come under fire for appointing Peter Mandelson as U.S.
ambassador, even though he knew about Mandelson's ongoing relationship with Jeffrey Epstein.
On Monday morning, Scottish labor leader Anna Sarwa called for Starmer to step down.
Investors worried that Starmer's potential downfall could lead to a rise in borrowing under a new prime minister.
But his cabinet members swooped in and voiced their support for him.
That seemed to calm traders, and Gilt recovered some of their earlier losses.
Several Labor MPs told the FT that Starmer's position is safe for now, but local elections in May will be a big test for him.
Novo Nordisk is suing to stop a U.S.
telehealth company from selling copycat versions of its weight loss drugs.
The move escalates in industry-wide battle over obesity medications.
And it comes as Novo is trying to reassure its investors.
The Danish company's share price has fallen about 15% over the past week, but it bounced back a little yesterday after the lawsuit news broke.
Here to tell us more is the FT's U.S.
pharmaceutical correspondent Patrick Temple West.
Hey, Patrick.
Hello, Sonia.
So tell me about this lawsuit that Novo filed yesterday.
Sure.
On Monday morning, Novo Nordisk sued this company called Hims and Hers, alleging patent infringement that Hims and Hers is essentially selling copycat, in their words, weight loss drugs in the US here, which violates Novo Nordisk's patents for Ozempik and Wigove.
This has been simmering for a few months.
Novo has never loved the fact that HIMS is offering is selling these drugs in the US, but it didn't really catch fire with the company until last week when Hims and Hers just came out of the blue and said, we're going to offer a weight loss pill that is directly in competition with Novo's brand new weight loss pill.
So Him's share price fell 16% yesterday.
How has the company responded to the lawsuit?
Hims gave us a statement attacking Novo Nordisk, calling it a Danish company going after Americans who are trying to get weight loss drugs.
Hims backed down over the weekend and said it is no longer going to sell the weight loss pill that sparked this whole fight, but the horses are out of the barn at this point, and Novo is has taken them to court.
So we'll see where this fight goes.
And this lawsuit is coming on the heels of some disappointing earnings results and forecasts from Novo, right?
So both companies are suffering in the past year or so.
Novo Nordisk, due to some pricing pressure in the US and significant competition from its top rival in weight loss, Eli Lilly.
Last week it warned that its net sales would fall by as much as 13% this year, which was worse than expected than than most analysts and investors were hoping for from the company.
Why is the company struggling so much?
Part of it is Novo has significant competition from its only other rival in weight loss, Eli Lilly.
Eli Lilly just seems to have a better sales apparatus.
Novo Nordisk has come under pressure from President Donald Trump.
Novo and Lilly did as well.
They agreed to pricing deals with Trump late last year that dropped the price of Novo's weight loss drugs in the US.
The company has been uh somewhat struggling in other areas.
Novo Nordisk in November of last year announced that one of its um Alzheimer's trials failed to slow progression of the disease.
So that has just added pressure on the company, added pain to the company, and really forced it to prioritize the weight loss space to keep its its revenues going.
Patrick Temple West is the FT's U.S.
pharmaceutical correspondent.
Thanks, Patrick.
Thanks, Sonia.
The head of France's central bank, Francois Villeroy Degalot is stepping down early.
He made the announcement yesterday and said he was leaving the Bank of France to run a charitable foundation.
The timing of this move is notable.
It means that President Emmanuel Macron can name a replacement before the presidential election next spring.
Macron can't run again, and the far right is pulling way ahead of the left and center.
One analyst told the FT that Villaroy Degalot's decision could be based on the fact that, quote, monetary policy independence seems to be an issue for a growing number of political leaders.
Villaroy Degalot, though, said he was departing for personal reasons.
He'll leave his post in early June.
They're considering a proposal to reform the country's deposit insurance program.
This comes about three years after customers pulled tens of billions of dollars out of Silicon Valley Bank in just a matter of hours.
And that led to its collapse.
The bill has divided Washington and the banking industry.
Here to tell us more is the FT's U.S.
banking editor, Josh Franklin.
Hey, Josh.
Hi there.
So tell me about this bill to expand the deposit insurance program.
So just to take a step back, right now, all deposits in the United States at a bank up to $250,000 are insured, guaranteed by the U.S.
government.
What this proposal would change is for operating accounts, so for businesses that aren't earning any interest, it would lift the insurance threshold from $250,000 to $10 million.
But crucially, and just to make it a little bit more confusing, uh that increased insurance threshold would apply to every bank in the United States except for the eight largest banks.
So think of the JP Morgan's, the Bank of America's the Wells Fargo City Groups of the World.
And what's the argument for doing this?
So the argument is that these biggest banks and these eight banks, they're, you know, to use a kind of common phrase, they're judged too big to fail.
And the view is that because they have these designations, they benefit from almost an implicit government guarantee.
So customers, in especially in a time of crisis, are feel safer keeping their money with these big banks, and that puts the smaller banks at a competitive disadvantage.
Can you just give us some background on bank runs in the US and why the SBB collapse was a big enough deal to prompt this kind of reform?
One important thing to say is failures and bank runs are still very rare in the United States.
But what was so notable about the SVB failure, which at the time was the second largest bank failure in US history, it was that it was the first one to really take place in a fully digital era.
And that meant that money could just move so much faster than it ever had before.
And so in a world where that can happen, lawmakers and industry groups really did feel like this this deposit insurance wasn't fit for the digital era.
Yeah, going back to this bill to expand deposit insurance, who is opposed to it?
So not a big surprise that the large banks are not in favor of this bill.
They feel like it would create a two-tier insurance system that would be confusing to consumers, and they argue that it would penalize their customers for actually being with a big bank.
But then also you do get some uh some smaller bank executives who feel like you know there are adequate tools right now that that would allow them to compete against the big banks and just kind of by improving their offering, they can still compete adequately.
What about among politicians in Washington?
In Washington, it's one of those kind of slightly funky issues where there's both bipartisan support and bipartisan opposition to this bill.
Bipartisan support, you know, you're you're never an unpopular politician in your home state if you're seen as being supportive of local banks and small businesses.
There is some concern about how you pay for this, because right now, deposit insurance in the United States, it's an insurance program where actually the industry pays in regular premiums to a fund.
What this proposal would do is obviously increase the amount of deposits that would be covered by deposit insurance, and so therefore there would be more money needed to be paid into it.
Uh and the argument from some small banks is that the large banks have already been benefiting, profiting from this implicit government guarantee, so they should be the ones that have to pay for any increased costs, even if they're not going to see any increase in their insurance coverage.
Uh and as you can imagine, the large banks are not exactly thrilled with that idea.
Do you think there's enough political willpower to get reform like this passed?
You know, where do you see this issue going from here?
I think there definitely is political will for something to happen.
I think now it's a question of, you know, bandwidth of you know what Congress can actually get to, and also just finding a solution that everyone is is on board with.
So I think there's a very decent chance that this is something that you know you do see meaningful progress on this year.
But I don't want to be a hostage to fortune by making too strong a prediction about what's going to happen at Donald Trump's DC.
Josh Franklin is the FT's U.S.
banking editor.
Thanks, Josh.
Thanks very much.
You can read more on all these stories for free when you click the links in our show notes.
This has been your daily FT News briefing.
Check back tomorrow for the latest business news.