There’s no sign that the wind­fall of cash drop­ping biotech’s way on Wall Street is abat­ing. Three more bio­phar­mas priced IPOs on Thurs­day and Fri­day morn­ing, rid­ing a his­toric boom with a $364 mil­lion pay­off.

Lon­don-based biotech Free­line Ther­a­peu­tics took home the li­on’s share of the cash with $159 mil­lion af­ter pric­ing 8,823,529 shares at $18 a pop. Check­mate Phar­ma­ceu­ti­cals, of Cam­bridge, MA, raised $75 mil­lion with an of­fer of 5 mil­lion shares at $15 — right at the mid­point of its range. And Arya Sci­ences Ac­qui­si­tion Corp III, the third in a se­ries from Per­cep­tive, priced 13,000,000 shares at $10 per share.

Drug­mak­ers are se­cur­ing big sums amid the pan­dem­ic boom, in­clud­ing AlloVir, which bagged $276 mil­lion from 16.3 mil­lion shares last week. Ini­tial­ly, the com­pa­ny had filed for a $100 mil­lion IPO. By June, all 23 new­ly pub­lic com­pa­nies had priced above their mid­point or up­sized their of­fer­ing.

And there’s more com­ing: Kymera Ther­a­peu­tics an­nounced plans to go pub­lic on Mon­day, when it filed for a $100 mil­lion IPO.

Check­mate ini­tial­ly filed for an IPO on Ju­ly 17, then raised its max­i­mum of­fer­ing price to $92 mil­lion in an amend­ed S-1 fil­ing. The im­muno-on­col­o­gy biotech is in­ves­ti­gat­ing its drug CMP-001 across mul­ti­ple can­cers, in­clud­ing melanoma and head and neck squa­mous cell car­ci­no­ma (HN­SCC), and says it will use the funds to ad­vance clin­i­cal tri­als. Bo­fA Se­cu­ri­ties, Jef­feries Group and BMO Cap­i­tal Mar­kets are man­ag­ing the deal.

CMP-001 us­es the im­mune sys­tem to its ad­van­tage, di­rect­ing ac­ti­vat­ed an­ti-tu­mor T cells to at­tack both the in­ject­ed tu­mor and tu­mors through­out the body. It’s been test­ed on more than 200 melanoma pa­tients to date, and based on clin­i­cal da­ta, the com­pa­ny be­lieves “there is an op­por­tu­ni­ty for CMP-001 to be de­vel­oped as a dif­fer­en­ti­at­ed im­muno-on­col­o­gy ther­a­py,” ac­cord­ing to the S-1 fil­ing.

Free­line ini­tial­ly filed for a $100 mil­lion IPO, with JP Mor­gan Se­cu­ri­ties LLC, Mor­gan Stan­ley & Co. and Ever­core Group as joint bookrun­ners. Its AAV gene-ther­a­py treat­ments tar­get he­mo­phil­ia A and B, Fab­ry dis­ease, and Type 1 Gauch­er dis­ease.

The biotech’s lead can­di­date, FLT180a, is cur­rent­ly in a Phase I/II tri­al for he­mo­phil­ia B. IPO funds will pro­pel the com­pa­ny’s pipeline, in­clud­ing Phase I/II tri­als for FLT180a and FLT190, a po­ten­tial drug to treat Fab­ry dis­ease.

SPACs (spe­cial pur­pose ac­qui­si­tion com­pa­nies) are ben­e­fit­ing from the boom, too. Once rare in the biotech world, they now rep­re­sent near­ly 35% of list­ings, Nas­daq’s Jay Heller told End­points last month.

Per­cep­tive Ad­vi­sors’ blank check com­pa­ny Arya III filed for a $143.7 mil­lion IPO on Ju­ly 21, and in­vestors are bet­ting on a prof­itable merg­er. In March, Arya I merged with biotech Im­mat­ics in a $252 mil­lion deal. Cerev­el Ther­a­peu­tics merged with Arya II in Ju­ly, ex­pect­ing to raise about $445 mil­lion to de­vel­op its pipeline.

The co-owner of a Florida-based clinical research site pleaded guilty to lying to an FDA investigator during a 2017 inspection, revealing that she falsely portrayed part of a GlaxoSmithKline pediatric asthma study as legitimate, when in fact she knew that certain data had been falsified, the Department of Justice said Wednesday.

Three other employees — Yvelice Villaman Bencosme, Lisett Raventos and Maytee Lledo — previously pleaded guilty and were sentenced in connection with falsifying data associated with the trial at the CRO Unlimited Medical Research.

New research shows how generic drug companies can successfully market a limited number of approved indications for a brand name drug, prior to coming to market for all of the indications. But several recent court decisions have created a layer of uncertainty around these so-called “skinny” labels.

While courts have generally allowed generic manufacturers to use their statutorily permitted skinny-label approvals, last summer, a federal circuit court found that Teva Pharmaceuticals was liable for inducing prescribers and patients to infringe GlaxoSmithKline’s patents through advertising and marketing practices that suggested Teva’s generic, with its skinny label, could be employed for the patented uses.