23andMe's Founder Anne Wojcicki Wins Bid For DNA Testing Firm

Anne Wojcicki, co-founder of 23andMe, has regained control of the bankrupt DNA-testing company after a nonprofit she controls outbid Regeneron Pharmaceuticals with a $305 million offer. The company filed for bankruptcy in March due to declining demand and fallout from a major 2023 data breach.

"The agreement with non-profit TTAM Research Institute is the result of a final round of bidding that occurred earlier today between TTAM and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals," the company said in a statement.

It needs as much of the original cast as possible

[Revek]

Perhaps not in the lead roles but this better be a stroll down memory lane.

Stiff the investors and start again

[Art Challenor]

Brilliant. VC fund a company for $XXX (seems to be about $1B), run the company into the ground. Find some more VCs to buy it at ~1/3 the original price, repeat.

Re:

[Tony Isaac]

While your characterization is correct, it's also not inherently a bad thing. The American system works because it encourages risk-taking. That's literally what bankruptcy court is about: a better alternative to throwing debtors in prison.

Those original VC investors knew they were taking a risk, they were in it because there was a chance of a big payoff. Many VC ventures fail, but the ones that work, might work spectacularly. If the VC investors weren't anticipating that their investment could all be gone,

Re:

[Art Challenor]

All valid, and, if you look at the investors, none of them (that I saw) will really notice the money lost - I have no sympathies for them. And, unlike, say Theranos, it seems that there's still some faith in the founder. I feel 23andme just doesn't have a business model, certainly not one that doesn't involve selling large amounts of private data to 3rd parties, but is not hiding anything, (I haven't looked that closely, so presumably the new investors have a plan).

Re:

[Tony Isaac]

Also unlike Theranos, 23andMe wasn't / isn't selling a fraudulent product. The DNA testing they do is valid. I know this because I developed and run my own nonprofit genetic genealogy site, and have been able to personally corroborate the results 23andMe provides.

Their business model wasn't the best, but the company was OK financially until they had the big data breach. That tends to give any kind of company a hard time, but a genetics company, much, much worse.

Re:

[dfghjk]

Those who have a financial stake in bankruptcy proceedings should not be able to play both sides of bankruptcy.

And here again, your excuse is that 23andMe isn't engaging in THAT kind of fraud. So what? The problem wasn't with the "results" to the end customer and no one argued it was. The problem is the company blew the money of the investors and are now taking the company from its rightful owners, something you think sounds great.

Re:

[dfghjk]

"The American system works because it encourages risk-taking."

That's a lie told by sociopaths.

"That's literally what bankruptcy court is about: a better alternative to throwing debtors in prison."

That's also a lie. A "better alternative to throwing debtors in prison" is not allowing debtors to exploit investors deliberately, and that's not what "bankruptcy court is about".

"Those original VC investors knew they were taking a risk ... The new investors also know that their money is at risk ..."

Yes, but that'

Might make the sates' lawsuits hard to win

[Tony Isaac]

https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/s... [nbcnews.com]

If the company is being sold basically to its original owners (certainly to its founder), they might have a hard time winning a case against the sale of the DNA data.