Mod­er­na boosts uni­corn sta­tus with a whop­ping $500M raise and $7B val­u­a­tion

Stéphane Ban­cel, Mod­er­na CEO

The biotech world’s biggest uni­corn just raised $500 mil­lion, bring­ing its to­tal haul to about $2.5 bil­lion from part­ner­ships and in­vestors while valu­ing the com­pa­ny at close to $7 bil­lion.

This year Mod­er­na will burn through about $450 mil­lion, the ex­ec­u­tive team tells me to­day. And with this new fi­nanc­ing, the com­pa­ny has three years of run­way — plen­ty of time to fig­ure out the right tim­ing for an even­tu­al IPO.

“We al­ways like to have sev­er­al years of cap­i­tal,” says CEO Stéphane Ban­cel. “And we want to keep on ex­pand­ing the in­vestor base.”

They ac­com­plished that goal in style.

Mod­er­na raised the cash from a broad, glob­al syn­di­cate that stretched from the Mid­dle East to Eu­rope and on to Chi­na. The group in­clud­ed the Abu Dhabi In­vest­ment Au­thor­i­ty, BB Biotech AG, Julius Baer, Sin­ga­pore-based ED­BI and Se­quoia Cap­i­tal Chi­na. Ex­ist­ing in­vestors that al­so par­tic­i­pat­ed in this round in­clude Fi­deli­ty Man­age­ment and Re­search, Pictet, Viking Glob­al In­vestors, Ar­row­Mark Part­ners and Alexan­dria Ven­ture In­vest­ments.

With the raise, the com­pa­ny has $1.4 bil­lion in cash in the bank, and an­oth­er $250 mil­lion com­ing from es­tab­lished grants. That trea­sure trove will be used to back a staff that has grown in­to the hun­dreds, with ded­i­cat­ed man­u­fac­tur­ing sup­port and a host of big part­ners work­ing with them on de­vel­op­ment pro­grams.

That leaves every­one ask­ing the same big ques­tion: When will Mod­er­na go pub­lic?

“We’re not pre­pared to go there,” re­spond­ed CFO Lorence Kim when I asked. “With this cap­i­tal we will now look at the ad­vance­ment of our pro­grams through and in the clin­ic” as they pon­der the right next step on fi­nanc­ing.

But it’s cer­tain­ly on the radar. Adds Kim: “We are be­gin­ning the process of prepar­ing and eval­u­at­ing the costs and in­fra­struc­ture of be­ing pub­lic.”

For a pri­vate biotech with deep-pock­et in­vestors back­ing it, Mod­er­na has stirred some pow­er­ful feel­ings — both pro and con — in the Cam­bridge/Boston biotech hub where it’s based.

Noubar Afeyan

Sup­port­ers look at a broad­en­ing pipeline that cur­rent­ly has 19 pro­grams in clin­i­cal de­vel­op­ment for a po­ten­tial­ly break­through ap­proach us­ing mes­sen­ger RNA, as of the most re­cent up­date at JP­Mor­gan. And Noubar Afeyan, the chief at Flag­ship, has made it a prime ex­am­ple of the kind of ma­jor league play­er he wants to bring up from the AAA.

For them, Mod­er­na is part of the new breed of biotechs.

Crit­ics have hit the com­pa­ny for a huge val­u­a­tion that’s ex­tra­or­di­nary for a biotech that has no mar­ket­ed prod­ucts and a pipeline that still has some ma­jor strides to go be­fore get­ting in­to late-stage de­vel­op­ment. For that crowd, the big mon­ey and pay­roll at Mod­er­na are a sign of pure froth in an over­heat­ed mar­ket.

For them, Mod­er­na is an aber­ra­tion that threat­ens to crum­ble.

Love them or hate them, though, Mod­er­na is play­ing for all the mar­bles, and this lat­est $500 mil­lion raise and multi­bil­lion-dol­lar val­u­a­tion speaks to their suc­cess in get­ting some well heeled back­ers to go very deep, and very long, in giv­ing them the funds to go all the way.

BY­OD Best Prac­tices: How Mo­bile De­vice Strat­e­gy Leads to More Pa­tient-Cen­tric Clin­i­cal Tri­als

Some of the most time- and cost-consuming components of clinical research center on gathering, analyzing, and reporting data. To improve efficiency, many clinical trial sponsors have shifted to electronic clinical outcome assessments (eCOA), including electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) tools.

In most cases, patients enter data using apps installed on provisioned devices. At a time when 81% of Americans own a smartphone, why not use the device they rely on every day?

Chris Gibson (Photo By Vaughn Ridley/Sportsfile for Web Summit via Getty Images)

Re­cur­sion founders gin for­tunes as IPO back­ers show­er $436M on one of the biggest boasts in AI -- based on some very small deals

In the AI drug development world, boasting often comes with the territory. Yet few can rival Recursion when it comes to claiming the lead role in what company execs like to call the industrialization of drug development, with promises of continued exponential growth in the number of drugs it has in the pipeline.

On Friday, the Salt Lake City-based biotech translated its unicorn-sized boasts into a killer IPO, pricing more than 24 million shares at the high end of its range and bringing in $436 million — with a large chunk of that promised by some deep-pocket backers.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Covid-19 vac­cine halt drags on, an FDA ap­point­ment at long last, the great CRO con­sol­i­da­tion, and more

Welcome back to Endpoints Weekly, your review of the week’s top biopharma headlines. Want this in your inbox every Saturday morning? Current Endpoints readers can visit their reader profile to add Endpoints Weekly. New to Endpoints? Sign up here.

Conference season is upon us, and while we’d much prefer to be wandering down the hallways and presentation rooms in person, the team is ready to cover the most consequential data coming out of these scientific meetings. Get in touch early if you have news to share.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Image: Shutterstock

Eli Lil­ly asks FDA to re­voke EUA for Covid-19 treat­ment

Eli Lilly on Friday requested that the FDA revoke the emergency authorization for its Covid-19 drug bamlanivimab, which is no longer as effective as a combo therapy because of a rise in coronavirus variants across the US.

“With the growing prevalence of variants in the U.S. that bamlanivimab alone may not fully neutralize, and with sufficient supply of etesevimab, we believe now is the right time to complete our planned transition and focus on the administration of these two neutralizing antibodies together,” Daniel Skovronsky, Lilly’s CSO, said in a statement.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Osman Kibar (Samumed, now Biosplice)

Os­man Kibar lays down his hand at Sa­mumed, step­ping away from CEO role as his once-her­ald­ed an­ti-ag­ing biotech re­brands

Samumed made quite the entrance back in 2016, when it launched with some anti-aging programs and a whopping $12 billion valuation. That level of fanfare was nowhere to be found on Thursday, when the company added another $120 million to its coffers and quietly changed its name to Biosplice Therapeutics.

Why the sudden rebrand?

“We did that for obvious reasons,” CFO and CBO Erich Horsley told Endpoints News. “The name Biosplice echoes our science much more than Samumed does.”

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ex­clu­sive in­ter­view: Pe­ter Marks on why full Covid-19 vac­cine ap­provals could be just months away

Peter Marks, director of the FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, took time out of his busy schedule last Friday to discuss with Endpoints News all things related to his work regulating vaccines and the pandemic.

Marks, who quietly coined the name “Operation Warp Speed” before deciding to stick with his work regulating vaccines at the FDA rather than join the Trump-era program, has been the face of vaccine regulation for the FDA throughout the pandemic, and is usually spotted in Zoom meetings seated in front of his wife’s paintings.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

Near­ly a year af­ter Au­den­tes' gene ther­a­py deaths, the tri­al con­tin­ues. What hap­pened re­mains a mys­tery

Natalie Holles was five months into her tenure as Audentes CEO and working to smooth out a $3 billion merger when the world crashed in.

Holles and her team received word on the morning of May 5 that, hours before, a patient died in a trial for their lead gene therapy. They went into triage mode, alerting the FDA, calling trial investigators to begin to understand what happened, and, the next day, writing a letter to alert the patient community so they would be the first to know. “We wanted to be as forthright and transparent as possible,” Holles told me late last month.

The brief letter noted two other patients also suffered severe reactions after receiving a high dose of the therapy and were undergoing treatment. One died a month and a half later, at which point news of the deaths became public, jolting an emergent gene therapy field and raising questions about the safety of the high doses Audentes and others were now using. The third patient died in August.

“It was deeply saddening,” Holles said. “But I was — we were — resolute and determined to understand what happened and learn from it and get back on track.”

Eleven months have now passed since the first death and the therapy, a potential cure for a rare and fatal muscle-wasting disease called X-linked myotubular myopathy, is back on track, the FDA having cleared the company to resume dosing at a lower level. Audentes itself is no more; last month, Japanese pharma giant Astellas announced it had completed working out the kinks of the $3 billion merger and had restructured and rebranded the subsidiary as Astellas Gene Therapies. Holles, having successfully steered both efforts, departed.

Still, questions about precisely what led to the deaths of the 3 boys still linger. Trial investigators released key details about the case last August and December, pointing to a biological landmine that Audentes could not have seen coming — a moment of profound medical misfortune. In an emerging field that’s promised cures for devastating diseases but also seen its share of safety setbacks, the cases provided a cautionary tale.

Audentes “contributed in a positive way by giving a painful but important example for others to look at and learn from,” Terry Flotte, dean of the UMass School of Medicine and editor of the journal Human Gene Therapy, told me. “I can’t see anything they did wrong.”

Yet some researchers say they’re still waiting on Astellas to release more data. The company has yet to publish a full paper detailing what happened, nor have they indicated that they will. In the meantime, it remains unclear what triggered the events and how to prevent them in the future.

“Since Audentes was the first one and we don’t have additional information, we’re kind of in a holding pattern, flying around, waiting to figure out how to land our vehicles,” said Jude Samulski, professor of pharmacology at UNC’s Gene Therapy Center and CSO of the gene therapy biotech AskBio, now a subsidiary of Bayer.

Endpoints Premium

Premium subscription required

Unlock this article along with other benefits by subscribing to one of our paid plans.

J&J faces CDC ad­vi­so­ry com­mit­tee again next week to weigh Covid-19 vac­cine risks

The CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices punted earlier this week on deciding whether or not to recommend lifting a pause on the administration of J&J’s Covid-19 vaccine, but the committee will meet again in an emergency session next Friday to discuss the safety issues further.

The timing of the meeting likely means that the J&J vaccine will not return to the US market before the end of next week as the FDA looks to work hand-in-hand with the CDC to ensure the benefits of the vaccine still outweigh the risks for all age groups.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Pascal Soriot (AstraZeneca via YouTube)

Af­ter be­ing goad­ed to sell the com­pa­ny, Alex­ion's CEO set some am­bi­tious new goals for in­vestors. Then Pas­cal So­ri­ot came call­ing

Back in the spring of 2020, Alexion $ALXN CEO Ludwig Hantson was under considerable pressure to perform and had been for months. Elliott Advisers had been applying some high public heat on the biotech’s numbers. And in reaching out to some major stockholders, one thread of advice came through loud and clear: Sell the company or do something dramatic to change the narrative.

In the words of the rather dry SEC filing that offers a detailed backgrounder on the buyout deal, Alexion stated: ‘During the summer and fall of 2020, Alexion also continued to engage with its stockholders, and in these interactions, several stockholders encouraged the company to explore strategic alternatives.’

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 107,000+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.