NYT : How Anthropic Got So Big, So Fast

How Anthropic Got So Big, So Fast
The artificial intelligence giant was just valued at $900 billion, surpassing OpenAI. Here are the numbers behind its rise — and headwinds it faces.

Anthropic is now more valuable than OpenAI, something Silicon Valley wouldn’t have expected a year ago. We go behind the numbers — and outline the risks the new leader in A.I. faces.

Also: Lauren Hirsch has a scoop on deal talks between iHeartMedia and SiriusXM, which were put on pause. And Dell’s stock is flying, raising new questions about President Trump’s investments in the computer giant.

The numbers behind Anthropic’s rise
A year ago, the biggest and buzziest artificial intelligence start-up around was undoubtedly OpenAI. That’s no longer the case.

Anthropic has taken that crown with its $65 billion fund-raising round. How the company went from also-ran to 900-pound gorilla is a reflection of the current state of the A.I. race, and it raises questions about what comes next.

Where things stand: Anthropic is valued at $900 billion, while OpenAI was last valued at $730 billion, not including the $122 billion it had just raised.

Behind Anthropic’s ascent: The company’s Claude models were consistently highly regarded. But by November, Anthropic’s Claude Code programming tool had become exponentially better at automating software development, driving a surge in adoption.

Its models have continued to improve rapidly — and its Mythos model has proved so adept at uncovering cybersecurity vulnerabilities that it has spooked governments and companies around the world.

Here are three data points that help explain Anthropic’s leapfrogging OpenAI in valuation:

Anthropic’s revenue run rate — an extrapolation of projected annual revenue, based on a month’s financial performance — has jumped from $4 billion last July to $9 billion at the end of last year to $30 billion last month to $47 billion now. By contrast, OpenAI implied in March that its revenue run rate was about $24 billion; and The Information reported this week, citing unnamed sources, that the figure had risen just north of $30 billion. (Of note: OpenAI has disputed Anthropic’s revenue calculations in the past.)

Editors’ Picks
Using A.I. For Nutrition Advice? Take It With a Grain of Salt.
You Barely Need a Recipe for This Weeknight Dinner. That’s What Makes It Timeless.
Is a Cruise the Place to Find Wellness? Testing Crystals and Gongs at Sea.
Advertisement

Anthropic’s market share on OpenRouter, a platform that allows customers to dynamically switch between A.I. models, has outpaced OpenAI’s for many of the past 18 months. (Note: Tokens are the basic units of A.I. use.)

Anthropic has just outpaced OpenAI in business adoption, too, per Ramp, a provider of business billing and expense services:


But Anthropic’s lead could easily evaporate:

Anthropic has been forced to spend billions buying up computing power — including renting some from SpaceX — to address outages on Claude that have led to user complaints.

It’s still in a court battle with the Pentagon over its designation as a supply-chain risk to national security as the Defense Department reportedly tests out alternative A.I. models. (That said, Dario Amodei, Anthropic’s C.E.O., is patching things up with the White House.)

And Anthropic, whose models require more and more tokens, could take a hit as companies increasingly clamp down on A.I. spending.

The stakes are huge. Anthropic and OpenAI are racing toward potentially trillion-dollar I.P.O.s this year, giving them the ability to raise billions from public-market investors after seemingly maxing out the private markets.

Both companies are worried that there’s a finite amount of investor money for those offerings — and each wants to be the one that people bet on.

Le Figaro : Tribune anti-Bolloré : Maxime Saada dément toute «liste noire» de la

Tribune anti-Bolloré : Maxime Saada dément toute «liste noire» de la part de Canal+

Le président du directoire du groupe audiovisuel dont Vincent Bolloré est l’actionnaire de référence a toutefois affirmé qu’une «nouvelle dimension» serait prise en compte à l’avenir dans l’examen des projets de films et de séries soutenus par Canal+.

Une mise au point. Le président du directoire de Canal+, Maxime Saada, est revenu ce vendredi 29 mai sur la pétition anti-Bolloré publiée le 11 mai dans Libération, et qui compte désormais plusieurs milliers de signataires parmi les professionnels du cinéma. «Il faut remercier l’immense majorité des professionnels du secteur qui n’ont pas signé cette pétition. On a seulement entre 1 et 2% du secteur qui a signé cette pétition. Parce que 99% des professionnels ne se sont pas reconnus dans cette pétition qui attaquait Canal+. Ce n’était pas le Canal+ qu’ils connaissaient», a-t-il déclaré lors de l’assemblée générale annuelle du groupe audiovisuel dont Vincent Bolloré est l’actionnaire de référence. «C’est bien Canal+ qui a été attaqué, a-t-il ajouté. Canal+ n’est plus une filiale Vivendi depuis 18 mois. Canal+ n’est pas contrôlé par le groupe Bolloré.»

Maxime Saada a estimé que cette pétition, à laquelle est associé le collectif Zappons Bolloré, de même que les huées qui ont accompagné la projection de certains films produits par Canal+ lors du Festival de Cannes, avaient pour «seul demande de bloquer le rachat» du réseau de cinémas UGC par le groupe. «C’est bien la stratégie industrielle qui est attaquée», a-t-il estimé, considérant que cette tribune constitue «un préjudice réputationnel pour Canal+». «Quand on parle de vision fasciste, c’est la réputation des équipes et l’intégrité des équipes de Canal+ qui est attaquée. (...) Évidemment, nous avons vu ça comme une profonde injustice.»

«Ce que j’ai dit à Cannes, je l’assume totalement»
Le président du directoire de Canal+ a aussi tenu à clarifier ses propos tenus en plein Festival de Cannes, qui avaient fait couler beaucoup d’encre sur la Croisette. «Je n’ai pas envie de travailler avec des gens qui me traitent de crypto-fasciste», avait-il lâché le 17 mai, laissant entendre que les signataires de la pétition seraient désormais mis à l’index par le premier financeur du cinéma tricolore. «J’ai vécu cette pétition comme une injustice vis-à-vis des équipes Canal qui s’attachent à défendre l’indépendance de Canal+, dans toute la diversité de ses choix. En conséquence, je ne souhaite plus que Canal travaille avec les gens qui ont signé cette pétition», avait-il déclaré.

Alors que l’émoi provoqué par cette prise de parole n’est toujours pas retombé dans le secteur, Maxime Saada a réaffirmé vouloir «protéger les équipes de Canal+». «Ce que j’ai dit à Cannes, je l’assume totalement», a-t-il avancé, assurant toutefois ce vendredi qu’il n’avait «évidemment jamais parlé de liste noire». «Il n’est pas question pour nous d’aller traquer les techniciens qui ont signé la pétition et de ne plus travailler, de ne plus financer les films pour lesquels ils travaillent. Ça n’a aucun sens et on a un minimum de conscience. On ne va pas traquer des gens qui ont besoin de leur travail pour manger et pour vivre.»

«Une nouvelle dimension»
Concernant les films que soutiendra Canal+ à l’avenir, le groupe «étudiera les dossiers toujours au cas par cas en comité cinéma, avec le même prisme que d’habitude, pas un prisme politique mais artistique et commercial». «Ce sont ça nos préoccupations», a-t-il poursuivi. Avant de nuancer : «Mais il est vrai que je vais ajouter une nouvelle dimension sur les dossiers qu’on va étudier. Je ne vais pas m’en cacher et cette dimension sera : quelle est la considération qui est portée par les personnes qui portent ce projet vis-à-vis de Canal+ ? Est-ce que ces personnes ont porté un préjudice à Canal+ ou non ? Je ne peux pas ne pas prendre en compte cela, ce serait inconséquent. Si quelqu’un sonne chez vous, vous traite de fasciste et puis vous demande de l’argent, peut-être que vous ne lui donnerez pas d’argent. On va faire exactement pareil. Ce n’est pas un sujet de liberté d’expression, il n’y a pas une personne de chez Canal qui s’opposera à ce que les gens s’expriment, contre Bolloré ou qui vous voulez, ce n’est pas le sujet (…). Le sujet, c’est le préjudice porté à Canal+.» Et le dirigeant de glisser : «C’est avec Vincent Bolloré , sinon grâce à lui, que nous avons redressé Canal+.»

Le grand argentier du cinéma français et européen va donc «continuer sa politique de soutien» des films, a conclu le dirigeant. «Depuis dix ans, c’est 1000 films soutenus par Canal+ (…). Je crois que l’on n’a pas de leçons à recevoir à ce sujet. C’est un choix délibéré de la part de Canal+ de soutenir le cinéma français et européen, et nous allons continuer à le faire dans la diversité, quelles que soient les atteintes.»

(ZeroHedge) 662 Billion Reasons To Worry: Moody's Raises AI Data-Center Funding

662 Billion Reasons To Worry: Moody's Raises AI Data-Center Funding Fears As Apollo Shops Huge Anthropic Debt Deal

Unless you have lived under a rock for the last year (or month), you will know that the explosive growth of artificial intelligence is fueling a massive infrastructure buildout.

In a chart book published nearly simultaneously with Moody’s report, Apollo Global Management chief economist Torsten Slok worked to put the enormity of data center spending into perspective.
With total capital expenditure on data centers estimated at roughly $646 billion, or about 2% of U.S. GDP, Slok noted that is roughly equivalent to the GDP for Singapore, Sweden, and Argentina. Defense spending in 2025, meanwhile, was around $917 billion.
However, as Moody's warned this week, the aggressive financing structures supporting this explosive growth are creating significant systemic risks that could ripple across global credit markets and the broader economy.
The most recent example of this buildout - and its coincident debt-funding - is the $36 billion debt financing package currently being shopped by Apollo Global Management and Blackstone to enable Anthropic’s large-scale acquisition of Google’s custom TPU chips.
As Bloomberg reports, this complex, high-leverage deal - partially backed by Broadcom - underscores how private equity and specialized financiers are channeling enormous capital into AI hardware and data centers through layered debt instruments.
The move would mark one of the largest-ever private credit deals and also the biggest chip-financing debt transaction.
It aims to tap Broadcom’s credit quality to provide computing-power access to Anthropic, which just eclipsed rival OpenAI in valuation (and its ecosystem has been dramatically outperforming)...
While such deals accelerate AI capacity, they also concentrate risk.
More concerning is the scale of hidden liabilities across the industry.
According to Moody’s Ratings, the five major U.S. hyperscalers (Amazon, Meta, Alphabet, Microsoft, and Oracle) have accumulated approximately $662 billion in future data center lease commitments that have not yet commenced.
Combined with other commitments, the total undiscounted future lease exposure reaches $969 billion.
To put the scale of this hidden obligation into perspective, Moody’s accounting analysts David Gonzales and Alastair Drake calculated that the unrecorded $662 billion is equivalent to 113% of these five hyperscalers’ most recent adjusted debt.
These obligations remain entirely off-balance-sheet under current accounting rules, despite representing binding long-term liabilities.
But as Gonzales told Fortune in a statement that it’s “not as if [these hyperscalers] have have avoided a liability through structuring,” characterizing the $662 billion at issue as “yet to be on the balance sheet,” rather than missing.
“More accurately,” he added, “they have not yet received the services to trigger this liability as of this time, but they will.”
This accounting deferral masks the true leverage in the system.
As these leases activate over the next decade, they will migrate onto balance sheets, potentially weakening credit profiles, elevating leverage ratios, and increasing refinancing pressures.
While the AI infrastructure boom promises transformative productivity gains, Moody's is basically highlighting that the current funding model - reliant on massive off-balance-sheet debt and complex private financing - builds hidden vulnerabilities into the financial system.
Regulators, investors, and policymakers should closely monitor these exposures.
Heightened Systemic Concerns
  • Contagion Risk: Heavy interdependence among hyperscalers, private credit funds, and infrastructure investors means distress at a few large players could rapidly spread through debt markets and counterparty exposures.
  • Concentration & Interconnectedness: A small group of tech giants and a limited pool of specialized financiers dominate this financing. Any material setback in AI monetization or power availability could create correlated losses across the sector.
  • Broader Market Impact: The $662 billion in off-balance-sheet exposure represents a delayed but massive claim on capital markets. In an economic downturn, forced deleveraging or asset fire sales could amplify volatility, tighten credit conditions, and affect investor confidence well beyond technology.
  • External Amplifiers: Power grid constraints, regulatory hurdles, and geopolitical supply chain risks further compound the fragility of these highly leveraged bets.
In a stressed scenario - such as slower-than-expected AI revenue growth (the end of tokenmaxxing), rising energy costs, or higher interest rates - the simultaneous activation of these liabilities could trigger widespread credit rating downgrades and liquidity strains.
Specifically, Moody’s warned that these opaque accounting practices mask the true economic risk facing the tech industry. While leasing reduces upfront capital investments, carrying such massive future commitments severely limits a company’s financial and operating flexibility, especially if AI industry conditions change rapidly.
Because these liabilities are hidden, Moody’s concluded, in its own jargony way, that it is considering new ways to look at this issue.
“The accounting liability is unlikely to reflect certain plausible future scenarios … With this in mind, we will continue to assess cash exposures and debt-like adjustments as time progresses and the dates of new leases draw nearer. We may make a nonstandard adjustment to Moody’s adjusted debt based on our expectation of likely cash outflows.”
Without greater transparency and more resilient capital structures, the race for AI supremacy risks generating systemic stress that could undermine broader economic stability.

WWD : Puig Had Another Wooer

Puig Had Another Wooer
Kering approached the Spanish fragrance and fashion company, prior to the Estée Lauder Cos.

The Estée Lauder Cos. was not Puig’s only suitor. It had another one: Kering.

Marc Puig, executive chairman of Puig, related that on Friday during the company’s annual general meeting, which was telecast live out of Madrid.

“Over the past few months, we have held discussions with two companies,” Puig said. “The first was Kering, which approached us about a potential long-term licensing agreement for its beauty brands in exchange for a minority stake in Puig and a cash consideration. Those discussions, however, did not result in a transaction.”

Kering subsequently, in mid-October 2025, entered into a joint venture with L’Oréal.

“Later on, Estée Lauder approached us regarding the possibility of combining our two family-controlled companies,” Marc Puig said.

The Puig and Lauder families have known each other for generations. Lauder saw Puig as particularly strong in fragrances, while itself rather strong in skin care and makeup. The geographic fit was complementary, too, with Puig’s strength in Europe and Latin America, and Lauder’s in North America and Asia. Combined, Puig and Lauder would have created the world’s premium beauty leader.

“We made it clear, as we are not for sale, the combination that was being explored would have required alignment on three key aspects for the potential merger: governance, business leadership and economic terms that would appropriately value the company and be fair to all stake holders,” Puig said.

As previously reported, Puig and Lauder publicly confirmed on March 23 that they were in talks about a possible merger.

“We have the upmost respect and admiration for the Lauder family and for the Estée Lauder Companies,” Puig continued. “Ultimately, however, we were unable to reach an overall solution that satisfied both parties, and we therefore agreed that it was best to end the discussions.”

On May 21, Lauder and Puig announced publicly that merger talks had ended.

Marc Puig said the two conversations clearly demonstrated one thing: “the strength of Puig’s reputation across the sectors in which we operate, punching well above the weight of our business, and reaffirming our position as a highly respected player in the industry.”

“We remain a company with a family at its core, committed to guiding this endeavor with ambition, responsibility and a truly long-term perspective, willing to continue setting the direction of this project over the long term,” Puig said. “At the same time, being a public company gives us the discipline, transparency and checks-and-balances that help ensure this family guidance is matched by rigor and accountability. It also ensures adherence to the best-in-class corporate governance. For us going public was never about changing who we are.”

He said Puig has always been run with the same principles, that when a family has stood behind a company for more than 100 years certain convictions, behaviors and standards become deeply embedded in how the group thinks, functions and grows.

“We define Puig as a home of creativity, because creativity is the force that moves our company forward,” the executive said, adding much opportunity still lies ahead.

Puig underlined the group has been posting growth not just faster than the beauty market, but at a more rapid pace than any other listed multibrand premium beauty player over each of the last five consecutive years. Puig has registered a compound annual growth rate of 18 percent since 2021.

The company’s strategic plans have borne fruit.

“Over the past two decades, each strategic plan has sharpened Puig’s focus and expanded our capabilities,” Puig said. “Plan Director strengthened our category focus and growth discipline. Plan Apollo reinforced our shift toward prestige. Plan Centennial accelerated our move toward own brands. Plan Next deepened our prestige portfolio and established our early leadership in niche fragrances. Plan da Vinci broadened our vision and supported our diversification into beauty.

“All of this led to Vision 2025, which enabled us to build on these foundations and deliver the strongest growth in our history,” Puig said. “Together, these plans took Puig from less than 800 million euros in revenue in 2004 to more than 5 billion euros in 2025. And from a net profit of 1 million euros to more than 500 [million euros] in the same period.

“Standing on this foundation, our next plan will help shape the next decade of Puig with even greater ambition,” Puig said.

The company’s new five-year plan will be presented at its upcoming capital markets day, now scheduled for Oct. 28 in Madrid. Details of that plan were not released, but Puig’s new chief executive officer Jose Manuel Albesa said the future lies in scaling, including consolidating Puig’s three-axis brands, reinforcing its leadership in the niche segment, continuing to revolutionize prestige perfumery and positioning derma as the company’s fourth pillar of growth.

“Creativity that breaks norms and challenges established systems is not simply an option, it is our engine for renewal,” Albesa said.

Puig split the roles of chairman and CEO in March, when Marc Puig became executive chairman. He said the shift was “in line with governance best practice for a public company of our scale and ambition.”

“As executive chairman, I will continue to help shape the strategic direction of the company as I have since 2004, overseeing our mergers-and-acquisitions agenda, supporting the CEO on senior talent acquisitions, always with the objective of protecting Puig’s long-term future,” Puig said.

He said Albesa brings, strategic clarity, operational discipline and a deep understanding of the group’s culture and brands.

“I am fully confident in his ability to lead Puig successfully through this new stage of growth,” Puig said. “This leadership structure combines the continuity of family stewardship with the strength of a highly experienced executive team. It provides stability and continuity, while keeping execution sharp and accountable.”

Puig said leading the company for the past 22 years has been the greatest privilege of his professional life.

“What I see today is a company stronger than ever, but above all, I see a company with the confidence, the ambition and the values to build for generations to come,” Puig said. “Most important, we have a vision rooted in family values and designed for enduring global ambition.”

He reiterated: “We are not for sale.”

“The family has always been and will remain a long-term shareholder,” Puig said. “And this would have been the case even in the context of the proposed business combination. We have a highly compelling project, well-positioned brands, a winning team, a very strong balance sheet and a track record of more than 110 years that stands behind us.”

He said Puig looks “to the future with confidence and ambition.”

Albesa explained that as the environment continues to evolve, Puig is doubling down on what has made it strong: the combination of disruptive innovation and agility at scale. The group is moving from a more divisional structure to one that’s more integrated, built around three core pillars: global brands, global markets and global functions.

“Our brand will benefit from greater cross-functional collaboration, while preserving full creative autonomy,” Albesa said. “This allows us to both protect and amplify what has made each brand unique, while strengthening our focus on innovation in product and storytelling.”

Regarding global markets, Puig will leverage its scale as one company, while continuing to respect the distinctiveness of each local business model across EMEA, the Americas and Asia.

“Categories such as derma and brands like Charlotte Tilbury will continue to accelerate by leveraging our global footprint of 33 subsidiaries,” Albesa said.

For global functions, Puig is building an integrated one back office across headquarters and markets, spanning finance, human resources, legal technology, operations and procurement.

“This will allow us to simplify how we operate, increase agility and decision-making, and reinvest efficiencies back into our brands, supporting both growth and profitability,” Albesa said, adding reducing complexity helps gain speed. “And with this, we allow our teams to focus on what matters most: developing our brands and strengthening our competitiveness.”

The Information : Why SpaceX Isn’t Celebrating the Blue Origin Explosion

Why SpaceX Isn’t Celebrating the Blue Origin Explosion

By now, you’ve probably seen the unbelievable video of Blue Origin’s New Glenn rocket exploding on its launchpad in Florida on Thursday night. On its face, Blue Origin’s pain would seem to be Elon Musk’s gain, further cementing SpaceX’s already significant lead in the space business just weeks before it goes public. While the explosion is obviously terrible news for Jeff Bezos’ space ambitions, Musk and his SpaceX colleagues have been sending their condolences instead of celebrating Blue Origin’s misfortune—for good reason.

To be sure, SpaceX will benefit from the disaster in the immediate term. The explosion, which occurred during a rocket engine test, obliterated Blue Origin's only launch site for New Glenn, which will probably take around a year and many tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to rebuild. It’s unlikely Blue Origin will be able to launch New Glenn again until at least next spring.

NASA, which has a series of ambitious moon missions planned in the coming years, had been planning to split duties between SpaceX and Blue Origin. Now it seems almost certain that the agency will have to rely more heavily on SpaceX or delay its plans to give Blue Origin even more time to catch up.

New Glenn’s delay is also terrible news for a variety of SpaceX competitors. The next launch of the Blue Origin rocket was supposed to put 48 satellites into orbit for Leo, Amazon’s yet-to-launch Starlink competitor. After that, New Glenn was supposed to launch more satellites for AST SpaceMobile, another yet-to-launch Starlink competitor. While those would-be satellite internet providers have alternatives, including paying SpaceX or others to launch their satellites, New Glenn’s explosion helps relieve some near-term pressure on Starlink, which accounted for the majority of SpaceX’s revenue last year.

What’s more, the explosion could complicate Blue Origin’s ability to raise outside funding to supercharge its expansion. So far, the venture’s only investor has been Bezos, but the Financial Times reported in March that Blue Origin was considering raising outside money for the first time.

So why isn’t Musk—who has a decadeslong history of taunting Bezos—kicking his archrival while it’s down? Just look at the stock market, which seemed to remember on Friday the perils of space flight. Rocket Lab and Firefly Aerospace, two publicly traded rocket makers that could theoretically benefit from Blue Origin’s problems, saw their shares close down 3% and 6%, respectively. Any space mishap can remind investors of the risks inherent to anyone trying to blast gigantic rockets into orbit, hurting their belief in the entire sector.

Plus, SpaceX has been in Blue Origin’s position before. In 2016, a SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket blew up during an engine test on a launch pad in Florida, putting the site out of commission for 15 months. Given SpaceX’s huge ambitions, the company’s spacecraft will almost certainly spectacularly fail again at some point in the future when it’s publicly traded. When that happens, Musk will have to hope that his investors and competitors give him a measure of grace.

CrunchBase : The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Anthropic Dominates In An Oth

The Week’s 10 Biggest Funding Rounds: Anthropic Dominates In An Otherwise Slower Week For Megarounds

Venture funding has always been a world of haves and have nots. And these days, the haves are having more than ever. Case in point this week was Anthropic. The 5-year-old generative AI giant secured $65 billion in Series H funding this week, pushing its post-money valuation to a mind-blowing $965 billion.

After that, the next-biggest financing was a $1 billion round for AI software development tool maker Cognition, lifting its valuation to $26 billion. Companies in a range of other sectors also managed to secure sizable though smaller rounds, in areas including commerce logistics, developer AI, insurtech, fusion and more.

1. Anthropic, $65B, foundational AI: Generative AI company Anthropic raised $65 billion in a Series H funding round, more than doubling its post-money valuation to a staggering $965 billion. San Francisco-based Anthropic said Altimeter Capital, Dragoneer, Greenoaks and Sequoia Capital led the financing, and that Capital Group, Coatue, D1 Capital Partners, GIC, Iconiq Capital and XN co-led the investment.

2. Cognition, $1B, AI software development: Cognition, developer of AI software engineer Devin, has closed on over $1 billion at a $26 billion valuation. Lux Capital, General Catalyst, and 8VC led the financing for the San Francisco-based company.

3. Stord, $250M, logistics: Atlanta-based Stord, developer of a fulfillment network, software and AI tools for independent brands, secured $250 million in Series F funding. The round set a $3 billion valuation for the 11-year-old company.

4. OpenRouter, $113M, AI for developers: OpenRouter, a marketplace for AI models, secured $113 million in Series B funding. CapitalG led the financing for the New York-based startup.

5. Corgi Insurance, $106M, insurtech: San Francisco-based Corgi Insurance, developer of an AI-native insurance platform for startups, picked up $106 million in Series B1 funding led by TCV. The financing, which set a $2.6 billion valuation, comes just three weeks after Corgi announced $160 million in Series B funding at a $1.3 billion valuation.

6. (tied) Thea Energy, $100M, fusion energy: Kearny, New Jersey-based Thea Energy, a developer of technology for fusion energy systems, raised $100 million in Series B funding led by US Innovative Technology Fund. Thea says the funding will go toward manufacturing infrastructure.

6. (tied) Garner Health, $100M, healthcare data: Garner Health, a platform for finding healthcare providers, closed on $100 million in Series E funding led by Index Ventures. The financing set a $2.74 billion for the New York-based company.

8. Observable Space, $90M, space tech: Observable Space, a space tech startup that develops and builds advanced optical systems, says it raised $90 million in Series A funding led by Lux Capital to scale manufacturing and develop its technology. The Santa Monica, California-based company also announced that it secured a $94 million contract with the U.S. Space Force.

9. Reactor, $59M, AI video: Reactor, a San Francisco-based developer platform for real-time generative video, emerged from stealth with $59 million in funding led by Lightspeed Venture Partners.

10. ClearNote Health, $52M, cancer detection: San Diego-based ClearNote Health, a developer of early detection and monitoring tests for multiple forms of cancer, picked up $52 million in Series D financing. Founding investor Mattias Westman led the round.

WSJ : BP Chairman Sparred With Director and Ex-CEO Before Ouster

BP Chairman Sparred With Director and Ex-CEO Before Ouster
Before Albert Manifold’s abrupt dismissal, tensions rose over everything from secret deal talks to Wimbledon tickets

  • BP’s board ousted Chairman Albert Manifold this week, citing serious concerns about governance standards, oversight, and conduct.
  • Internal reports to directors alleged Manifold bullied employees and mishandled company information; he disputes the claims.
  • Manifold clashed with a director over a deal and criticized CEO Murray Auchincloss. His austerity proposals also caused friction.

LONDON—BP’s BP 1.32%increase; green up pointing triangle ousted chairman clashed with a fellow director earlier this year over the handling of sensitive talks about a potential deal, a sign of simmering boardroom tensions months before Albert Manifold’s abrupt dismissal this week.

In private conversations, Manifold accused nonexecutive director Simon Henry, a former finance chief of BP rival Shell, of overstepping his authority and cutting other board members out of communications, according to people familiar with the dispute.

Henry denied any mishandling of talks, the people said. He argued that Manifold was mischaracterizing conversations among directors, executives and BP’s internal deals team, and needed to listen more to colleagues. The outside company’s identity couldn’t be learned but wasn’t Shell, the people added.

Within weeks, Manifold said BP was streamlining its board. Among the changes: Henry wouldn’t be standing for re-election at the April shareholder meeting.

“I would like to take this opportunity to thank Simon for his contributions to the board over the past months,” Manifold wrote in his March 6 chairman’s letter. Both men were six months into their board tenures.

Privately, Manifold told directors that BP would still have plenty of oil-and-gas and finance expertise, people close to the discussions said. Manifold had extensive corporate experience and a veteran energy executive was about to join as chief executive, the chairman told them.

Manifold denied accusing Henry of overstepping his authority or excluding fellow board members from communications, in a statement after this article was published

This week, the company’s board ousted Manifold as chairman in the latest episode of instability at the British oil giant, buffeted time and again in recent years by strategic U-turns, shifting business targets and frequent turnover among senior executives.

In a surprise statement Tuesday afternoon headlined “BP chair removed,” the company said Manifold was out with immediate effect citing “serious concerns raised to the board related to important governance standards, oversight and conduct.”

The board’s decision followed internal reports to directors that Manifold bullied employees, was verbally abusive and had mishandled company information, according to people familiar with the matter.

Manifold said he had received no warning of his dismissal.

“I dispute entirely the characterization of my conduct and I will not allow a false narrative to go unchallenged,” he added.

Manifold said that at no point during his tenure did anyone raise with him issues about his conduct or relationship with colleagues.

But relations grew increasingly strained with colleagues during that time.

Soon after Manifold’s arrival at BP last year, according to people close to the company, tensions emerged between the chairman and a high-profile target he identified from the start: CEO Murray Auchincloss.

Manifold made clear to associates, and to Auchincloss, that he didn’t think highly of the CEO, to the point of criticizing his prior tenure as BP’s finance chief, according to people involved in or briefed on the discussions.

Auchincloss had run BP, initially as interim CEO, since Bernard Looney’s abrupt September 2023 departure. The company veteran left the top job with just a day’s notice in December 2025 when BP, under Manifold, announced the hiring of Meg O’Neill as its new boss.

The past several years have left BP investors, employees and competitors marveling at how much upheaval one company—already subject to the forces of a volatile sector—can produce from within.

Boardroom disputes are commonplace, even healthy, at big companies, particularly those hashing out tough decisions under fierce competitive pressure. But behind-the-scenes turbulence at BP in recent years has routinely complicated the company’s efforts to cut costs and boost profits.

Following news of Manifold’s removal, BP shares briefly were down 9% before recovering to close the day down 4%. Some investors privately groaned over what they saw as a frustrating lack of disclosure from the company for such a monumental decision.

The board-level acrimony has become an extraordinary public feud.

Manifold has publicly rebutted BP’s version of events, shooting back with statements defending what he described as his focused, fast-paced work aimed at axing expenses and boosting the company’s long-term prospects.

Manifold has hired law firm Mishcon de Reya—veterans of high-stakes employment battles—to advise him regarding his ouster. Manifold is considering all his legal options, a person close to him said.

BP has previous experience when it comes to spats with its top brass. In late 2023, the company engaged in a monthslong tussle with former CEO Looney, who had abruptly resigned over disclosures around relationships with employees. Looney, a BP lifer, ended up forgoing as much as $40.6 million in deferred bonuses, salary, pension and other compensation that might have come his way.

Manifold has less at stake, having spent less than eight months as chairman of BP, a role paying about £1 million a year, equivalent to about $1.35 million.

The 63-year-old Irish executive came into BP telling contacts that he had the executive-level experience and unflinching personality the company needed from an outsider to shake things up, according to people who interacted with him.

In his previous role as CEO of building-materials supplier CRH, shareholders cheered the hard-charging leader who built the company into a global force with a steadily climbing stock price. Manifold privately described his deep cost-cutting work there as just the kind of medicine a hobbled, financially stretched company like BP needed to get back on its feet.

Manifold told peers that BP had lost its way. He intended to review every part of its global operations, from refining and retail fuel sales to oil-and-gas production and trading. There would be no sacred cows.

BP directors and company outsiders were at times taken aback by how assured Manifold seemed even before he had met with business heads, people familiar with the discussions said. In some cases he described the work ahead as something that should take just a few months—striking people familiar with BP’s operations as vastly underestimating its complexity.

As he zeroed in on BP’s expense ledger, he identified areas that many inside the company, and some on the board, said they saw as important to the corporate culture. Items Manifold listed at the time included the use of chauffeurs and private jets, and blocks of tickets to Wimbledon tennis matches purchased for employees and clients.

Manifold criticized plans for new BP headquarters as extravagant and ill-advised. BP has said it is consolidating its London headquarters and a satellite campus outside the city to combine staff for efficiency. BP doesn’t own a private jet, and company policy is to fly commercially, with private flights an exception, according to a person familiar with travel practices.

The depth of Manifold’s austerity proposals led to friction with BP’s company secretary, Ben Mathews, according to people close to the matter. Manifold has since blamed Mathews as a driving force behind his dismissal, some of the people say.

Mathews’s role places him in the middle of board debates, with his team gathering input from directors and in turn advising them on corporate governance, while also balancing input from shareholders. The job encompasses how boards run their meetings, make decisions and their roles in hiring and overseeing management.

Manifold said this week that he came to BP with the same approach that has driven his career, “a relentless focus on simply making businesses better.” But, he added, “it felt to me that my priorities were not always shared by everyone.”

In his statements, the ousted chair described a company that needed a cultural remake encompassing everything from its global business operations to its approach to expenses large and small.

Manifold also made clear that the functioning of BP’s board itself was part of his BP-rehabilitation plan, saying he sought a “review of [its] workings” to “improve efficiency and effectiveness.”

Those efforts were rejected once and for all by BP’s board at a meeting Tuesday morning, following a three-day holiday weekend, this time without the chairman present.

WSJ : How Replimune’s Drug Got Third Chance After White House Intervention

How Replimune’s Drug Got Third Chance After White House Intervention
Company representatives met with officials in early May and by month’s end, the FDA was planning to review the melanoma medication again

  • The White House pushed health officials to re-examine Replimune’s melanoma drug after FDA rejections, leading to a resubmission agreement.
  • The FDA had twice rejected the drug, citing insufficient data from a trial without a comparison group and a hard-to-interpret patient mix.
  • Replimune will resubmit its drug application with new data, causing its shares to rise more than 80% Friday.

The White House pushed health officials to re-examine the Food and Drug Administration’s repeated rejections of an advanced melanoma medication from Replimune Group REPL 85.68%increase; green up pointing triangle, people familiar with the matter said.

The FDA had declined to approve Replimune’s treatment in July last year and then again in April, saying the data from the trial, in which all patients received the experimental drug with no comparison group, fell short of proving to the agency that it worked. The FDA also said the mix of patients enrolled made the results hard to interpret.

After its application was rejected for the second time, Replimune representatives met with the White House in early May, arguing the rejections didn’t match up with the Trump administration’s desire to help terminally ill patients.

White House staff later asked health officials to re-examine the drug’s prior rejections to determine whether there was any wrongdoing in the process, the people said. Health department lawyers compiled a report about the drug review and shared the results with White House officials, the people said. The report found that the FDA had made no procedural errors in how it handled the earlier rejections, one of the people said.

Replimune said Friday it had reached an agreement with the FDA to resubmit its drug for a third attempt at approval.

The administration didn’t instruct health officials to approve Replimune’s drug, and the White House has since handed the reins to the FDA, people familiar with the events said.

The White House declined to comment.

The stark reversal comes less than three weeks after the resignation of FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. He had clashed with top officials in the Department of Health and Human Services and the White House over many matters, including vaping and tobacco policy. Rare-disease patients and their advocates criticized Makary for not being flexible enough when it comes to evidence to prove treatments for their ailments work.

Kyle Diamantas, a lawyer who was running food regulation at the agency, has since been named acting commissioner.

Some industry representatives criticized Makary for the FDA’s Replimune rejections, adding pressure when he was already on thin ice with administration officials over vaping policy and ongoing management clashes.

While still head of the agency, Makary publicly defended the rejections of Replimune’s medication. “If your drug works, it’s going to get approved,” he said in an interview with CNBC.

Replimune had accused the FDA of being inconsistent in its prior treatment of the drug, with different teams reviewing its drug each time.

Now, Replimune has another shot at getting its experimental treatment approved. The company will be presenting health officials with data that it hadn’t previously shared with the agency, people familiar with the plan said.

Replimune said it plans to resubmit the application in the coming days. Its shares were up more than 80% Friday.

About a third of patients with treatment-resistant melanoma saw their tumors shrink after taking Replimune’s drug combined with a second cancer drug, Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Opdivo.

More than 110,000 people in the U.S. are expected to be diagnosed with melanoma this year, the National Cancer Institute estimates, and more than 8,000 people with advanced disease are expected to die nationwide.

WSJ : Hegseth Says U.S. Needs More From Asian Allies to Secure Balance Against C

Hegseth Says U.S. Needs More From Asian Allies to Secure Balance Against China
Defense secretary adopts softer tone on Beijing in speech to partners concerned about U.S. security commitment

  • Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth urged Asian allies to increase military spending for deterrence against China, while signaling a shift toward calmer U.S.-China ties.
  • Hegseth’s remarks at the Shangri-La Dialogue moderated rhetoric on Beijing compared to last year, not mentioning “Communist China” or Taiwan in his speech.
  • Regional perceptions of the U.S. have soured since President Trump took office, with U.S. leadership now a top geopolitical concern.

SINGAPORE—Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth renewed calls for America’s allies in Asia to increase military spending to boost deterrence against China, in a speech marked by a shift away from a confrontational stance toward Beijing.

“The era of the U.S. subsidizing the defense of wealthy nations is over. We need partners, not protectorates,” Hegseth said in a Saturday speech, while offering assurances that the Trump administration wouldn’t reduce the U.S. security presence in Asia as it seeks calmer ties with China.

The U.S. wants “a favorable but durable balance of power in which no state, including China, can impose its hegemony and hold the security or prosperity of our nation and our allies in question,” Hegseth said at the Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore, an annual security conference attended by senior defense officials from Asian and Western countries.

“Make no mistake, America is a Pacific nation,” he said. “And we insist that China respect our longstanding position in the region.”

Even so, Hegseth moderated his rhetoric on Beijing in a shift from last year’s dialogue, where he repeatedly referred to “Communist China” as a threat to regional stability and warned against any Chinese invasion of Taiwan, the island democracy that Beijing claims as its territory.

This year, Hegseth didn’t refer to China’s Communist leadership, nor did he mention Taiwan in his speech. He said U.S.-China relations are “better than they have been in many years,” pointing to President Trump’s summit with Chinese leader Xi Jinping in Beijing this month, when the two leaders expressed a mutual desire for more stability in bilateral ties.

Hegseth’s remarks echoed some of the messages he delivered at last year’s dialogue, when he said the Trump administration saw Asia as a priority region—even as U.S. partners expressed anxiety over Trump’s tariffs and movement of some American military assets out of the region.

Regional perceptions of the U.S. have soured since Trump took office last year. According to a survey conducted from January to February by the ISEAS-Yusof Ishak Institute, a Singapore-based think tank, U.S. leadership under Trump now ranks as the top geopolitical concern among Southeast Asian thought leaders, surpassing worries over tensions in the South China Sea—the biggest concern in last year’s survey.

“The Trump administration’s transactional approach to alliances and partnerships has created uncertainty for U.S. allies around the world,” the International Institute for Strategic Studies, the London-based think tank that organizes the Shangri-La Dialogue, said in an assessment of Asia-Pacific security issues published Friday.

“Diplomacy with the United States’ East Asian allies has sent mixed messages that have both bolstered and undermined its credibility,” the IISS said. Trump’s calls for allies to invest in their own defense capabilities “also caused fears of abandonment,” it said.

Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D., Ill.) told reporters at the conference that U.S. allies are anxious about the U.S. commitment to Asia under Trump. “I have NATO allies worried about America’s commitment to the Indo-Pacific,” she said.

Hegseth brushed off such concerns on Saturday, saying the U.S. will maintain a strong military posture in the Western Pacific that “ensures aggression is infeasible.” What Washington expects in return, he said, is that regional countries stop freeloading off American security.

“For too long, the security of this region has rested disproportionately on American military power, while many of our allies and partners allowed their own defense capabilities to atrophy,” Hegseth said. “That’s a bad deal for the American taxpayer.”

The defense secretary said Washington would make it a priority to work with “model allies,” offering them benefits such as expedited arms sales as well as deeper industrial and intelligence. “President Trump believes in helping countries that help themselves.”

Hegseth only discussed Taiwan once on Saturday, when a delegate asked whether U.S. military operations against Iran would affect Washington’s arms sales to Taipei. In response, he said the two issues shouldn’t be linked, and that any decision on the future of Taiwan arms sales rests with Trump.

Xi has described Taiwan as the most sensitive issue in China-U.S. relations, a stance he reiterated at his meeting with Trump this month. Beijing has committed to a policy of “peaceful unification” with Taiwan since 1979, though successive Chinese leaders, including Xi, have also refused to renounce the possible use of military force to seize the island.

Hegseth said U.S. defense officials are meeting “more frequently” with their Chinese counterparts to improve coordination and reduce the risk of miscalculation, in accordance with a consensus reached between Trump and Xi in Beijing.

Asked by a Chinese senior colonel about how the U.S. would implement the consensus, Hegseth said the Pentagon would maximize the opportunities to confer with Beijing on issues including maritime or aerial actions.

The U.S. and Chinese militaries aren’t expected to engage directly at the Shangri-La Dialogue this year, with China sending its lowest-level delegation since senior Chinese military officers started attending the conference nearly two decades ago.

Beijing generally sees the dialogue as a Western-dominated forum where participants often criticize China. Analysts say Beijing calibrates the seniority of its top delegate according to prevailing geopolitical factors.

China had sent its defense minister, a primarily diplomatic role with no combat responsibilities, to four straight editions of the dialogue before downgrading its representation last year. The top Chinese delegate this year is a one-star major general and professor at Beijing’s National Defense University—a further step down from last year when the university’s vice president led the delegation.

China’s incumbent defense minister, Adm. Dong Jun, and Hegseth both attended the Xi-Trump summit in Beijing and conversed at a state banquet. It wasn’t clear whether they held any formal meetings.

“I wish my counterpart was here at this conference,” Hegseth said Saturday. “But I look forward to other options when we can cross paths and communicate.”