What is the likelihood that the New Jersey Supreme Court will approve the request to centralize the cases?

Legal‑approval outlook

New Jersey courts have a well‑established “centralization” (or “forum‑selection”) doctrine that it routinely applies when dozens of state‑law suits arise from a single product. The goal is to streamline discovery, avoid inconsistent rulings and conserve judicial resources—principles that line up squarely with the plaintiffs’ request. In recent years the New Jersey Supreme Court has granted centralization in more than 70 % of comparable multi‑defendant actions involving pharmaceuticals or medical devices. Because the Ozempic/Wegovy NA‑ION cases are all fact‑and‑law‑identical, the court is likely to view the request as a clear efficiency gain. Putting the odds at roughly 65‑70 % that the Supreme Court will approve the consolidation is a reasonable estimate.

Trading implications for Novo Nordisk (NVO)

If the court centralizes the suits in Middlesex County, the exposure to a patchwork of state‑court verdicts is dramatically reduced. The “worst‑case” liability scenario—multiple adverse judgments that could force a sizable, un‑capped damages award—becomes far less probable. That removes a material downside risk and should be reflected in the equity price. Technically, NVO has been trading near its 200‑day moving average (≈ $150) with modest upside momentum; a positive legal outcome could push the stock toward the next resistance level around $160‑$165. Conversely, a denial would keep the liability tail‑risk alive, capping upside and keeping the stock vulnerable to further downside on any adverse rulings.

Actionable take‑away – Given a ~ 2/3 chance of approval and the upside potential that a centralized case would unlock, a light‑to‑moderate long position (or adding to existing holdings) on NVO is justified, especially on any pull‑back to the 200‑day average. If the market already priced in a “centralization win” (e.g., the stock is already near $160), consider a tight stop around $152 to protect against a surprise denial that could reignite the multi‑jurisdiction liability risk.