23andMe gets a $74.7M offer from Wojcicki and New Mountain Capital–this time for real?

February 27, 2025 | by | 2 Comments

If at first you don’t succeed, make another take-private offer, as the company is sinking. Anne Wojcicki, CEO of the terminally beleaguered 23andMe, has with little fanfare placed on the table a take-private offer for $2.53 per share, or $74.7 million, a small premium above their Friday close on Nasdaq CM at $2.42. (Wednesday’s close was $2.23.) With a market cap today of $65 million, it is a far cry from their post-SPAC days in 2021 where their valuation hit a peak of $4.8 billion by October. The news was revealed in their filing of a Schedule 13D with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Ms. Wojcicki, or more exactly the Anne Wojcicki Revocable Trust, is backed in this take-private transaction by New Mountain Capital, with her legal advice from heavyweight law firm Skadden Arps Slate Meagher & Flom LLP. New Mountain Capital is being advised by Ropes & Gray LLP. Dechert LLP is reportedly on the company’s side although in January Goodwin Procter LLP was listed.

This is a far cry from her seemingly off-the-cuff offer of $0.40 on 31 July to the previous board’s Special Committee, which this Editor estimates at a $11-12 million offer. The 23andMe seven-person board rejected it a few days later, then departed in frustration on 17 September 2024. They were replaced by a three-person board–plus Ms. Wojcicki, the controlling shareholder. After their 28 January Q3 report that simply confirmed their sinking liquidity and revenue despite shedding/closing lines of business, the new Special Committee, consisting of the three outside directors, opened up 23andMe to ‘strategic alternatives’ on 31 January. 

The consumer/research genetics company’s cash on hand is an anemic $79.4 million as of 31 December–barely above, and likely currently below the $74.7 million Wojcicki/NMC offer. There is nothing left to sell other than Lemonaid [TTA 22 Jan]–but why no one is stepping up to buy a company with a foothold in telehealth remedies including GLP-1 drugs, even with FDA’s change away from compounded drugs, is a mystery

Assume this is a best offer? Whether this non-binding proposal will be countered by others is not known, but a safe assumption is that this will be the only one on the table. Ms. Wojcicki has effective majority control, confirmed in the Schedule 13D filing as 20% of Class A common stock and 69.4% of Class B common stock. Reportedly this gives her 49.99% of the voting power. Both Ms. Wojcicki and New Mountain are offering secured debt financing to fund 23andMe’s operations through the transaction’s closing, As a result, other offers are not likely in this Editor’s estimation.

No timing is reported or comment available from 23andMe.   CNBC, Lawyer Monthly

Jawbone gets its day in California Superior Court versus Fitbit

March 25, 2017 | by

It looks like the long-running Jawbone v. Fitbit trade secrets show will continue in California Superior Court. Judge Richard Ulmer on Friday (24 Mar) in San Francisco ruled that the scope of the Jawbone-initiated lawsuit, charging that Fitbit and five former Jawbone employees stole trade secrets, was far larger than the dismissal handed down last October by the US International Trade Commission (ITC) in Washington, DC, rejecting Fitbit’s claim. To Bloomberg Technology, a Jawbone spokesperson crowed, “We look forward now to focusing on presenting our case to a California jury, which will not be bound by the strict procedural limitations that we faced in the ITC. We will push the case to trial as quickly as possible and are confident that justice will be done.” Fitbit is expected to appeal, but this is not good news for them if this drags out–their share price is down 72 percent from a year ago (Marketwatch)–and threatens their IP which is key to a pivot to the clinical monitoring market.

A sidebar to this is Business Insider’s recent report that one of Jawbone’s law firms, Susman Godfrey LLP, has withdrawn from three pending cases citing ‘professional considerations’, remaining on two. This Editor cannot confirm whether Susman Godfrey is representing Jawbone in the above case, as Plainsite records indicate that Skadden Arps is their counsel. The California courts website has not been updated for the case (Aliphcom Inc. v. Fitbit Inc., CGC15-546004). Previous TTA coverage 9 Feb.