Jason Gerberry: Hey, guys, thanks for taking my question. So, just wanted to follow up on Glen’s question a little bit more. So, you talked about added strategic flexibility I think in the PR, pursuing strategic growth via the RemainCo. So, under the revised, I guess, distribution mechanism, would RemainCo carry less debt or have a more favorable leverage ratio. Just kind of curious, thinking about what that entity might look like on the other side and how much firepower the company might have, because we’ve long thought of like RemainCo as a company that was carrying like north of 6.5 turns of leverage and not a lot of leeway to deploy capital for M&A. Thanks.
Thomas Appio: Go ahead, Tom.
Tom Vadaketh: I’ll start, and maybe Tom will add some comments. Essentially there is no change in our plan, right? So, the company has put out that target of 6.5 to 6.7. that remains the case, and that we’ve put that out as a kind of threshold in order to complete the distribution. From my perspective as the CFO of the company, that’s too high, and we will continue to pay that down, pay the debt down, and reduce it as we go forward. This particular transaction that we are talking about or this change in structure that we are considering, has no connection with those debt targets or the liquidity that we need to be at or anything like that.
Thomas Appio: Yes. Jason, this is Tom. Let me just add to that. The objectives and the goals of the transaction haven’t changed. We just, when we looked at it, the key was to see how we could simplify it and then really create as much flexibility strategically as possible for both companies now and in the future.
John O’Connor: Operator, next question. Yes, go ahead, Jason.
Jason Gerberry: Well, I was just going to ask to follow-up on the Xifaxan federal circuit appeal. So, is the court reviewing all the patent rulings, or is the court reviewing whether the injunction should be in place still? Just kind of just wondering if we think about early 2024, what that outcome could look like and?
Thomas Appio: Yes, so as I said in my prepared remarks, we are appealing the patents on IBS-D and on the polymorphs, which Norwich is appealing the motion, the 60B motion. So, that’s where it stands. Of course, the appeals are now together and we’re expecting the court to rule in Q1 of 2024. We feel strongly on our position with our patents, and we’re going to vigorously defend it.
Jason Gerberry: Got it. Thanks, guys.
John O’Connor: Thanks. Next question.
Operator: Your next question is coming from Umer Raffat at Evercore ISI.
Umer Raffat: Hi guys. Thanks for taking my question. There’s construction behind me, so please bear with me. My question is, going into the Xifaxan district court ruling, this is a Norwich versus FDA. What are you expecting and how does that change whatever plan you have now or whatever the updated plan is on the spin? Thank you.
Thomas Appio: Thanks, Umer for the question. When we look at the case that Norwich filed against the FDA, again, we feel confident here. We have intervened as well. So, that’s going to progress. And again, we feel confident in where – the FDA’s position is they are upholding what the court ruled in Delaware. So, therefore we feel real confident that in that case, we’re in good shape. Timeline, again, is the fall of – if we just talk about a timeline, we’re thinking of fall of 2023 to hear the outcome of that.
John O’Connor: Operator, next question.
Operator: Your next question is coming from David Amsellem with Piper Sandler.
