Good morning, everyone. Welcome to DRI Healthcare Trust Transaction Announcement Conference. Listeners are reminded that certain statements made in this call presentation, including responses to questions, may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of the safe harbor provisions of Canadian provincial securities laws. Forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties, and undue reliance should not be placed on such statements. Certain material factors or assumptions are applied in making forward-looking statements, and actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements. For additional information about factors that may cause actual results to differ materially from expectations and about material factors or assumptions applied in making forward-looking statements, please consult the DRI website. DRI Healthcare Trust does not undertake to update any forward-looking statements. Such statements speak only as of the date made. All dollar amounts discussed today are in US currency unless otherwise specified. I'd like to remind everyone that this conference call is being recorded today, Monday, 3 October 2022. I would now like to introduce Mr. Behzad Khosrowshahi, Chief Executive Officer of DRI Healthcare Trust. Please go ahead, sir. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone. Thank you very much for taking the time to speak with our team today. With me this morning are Navin Jacob, our Executive Vice President and Head of Investments and Research, and Stewart Busbridge, our Chief Operating Officer. This has been a busy quarter where we closed on multiple deals, including a $125 million transaction for a royalty on Omidria, as announced this morning. We want to take this opportunity to reflect on the progress made on our strategy as outlined at the time of our IPO, and provide more details on our more recent transactions to date, as well as our portfolio. DRI is the pharmaceutical royalty industry pioneer with a strong track record of deal execution across a variety of counterparties in therapeutic areas. Since DRI's first fund was raised in 2006, through to our announcement this morning, we have completed 67 transactions on over 40 different drugs. Our deep institutional knowledge and market intelligence tools based on thousands of evaluated transactions have been key to our success. In addition, we have built a formidable proprietary database of over 6,500 royalties on over 2,000 different drugs. We have compiled this database over 17 years, and it would be tough, if not impossible, to replicate. Combined with the deep industry relationships we have formed over the years, it gives us a competitive advantage in a sector with high barriers to entry. Our people are also critical to our success. For a business like ours to succeed, you need a team that is experienced in analyzing and executing transactions involving specialized products and has a varied set of experiences across the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries. We benefit from a highly experienced, skilled team of investment professionals with science backgrounds and advanced academic degrees. Importantly, since we went public, we have made some key additions to our team. Stewart Busbridge, with whom many of you have spoken, is our Chief Operating Officer and is responsible for our capital markets activities. He joined us after a lengthy investment banking career with Canaccord Genuity and CIBC. Navin Jacob, who will be speaking with you later on this call, is responsible for our investing activities. He joined us after a lengthy career, both on the sell side, where he was a Senior Research Analyst with UBS, Deutsche Bank, and ISI, and on the buy side, where he held senior investment roles at HealthCor and Citadel. Emmanuel Coeytaux, who heads our strategy function. He joined us after a career that spans 10 years with BCG, Sanofi, and a number of successful startups. I'm very pleased to be working with them, as well as the rest of our dedicated team members who allow us to successfully identify, source, underwrite, and maintain royalty streams for our unit holders' benefits. We have focused our growth strategy in an attractive market niche which capitalizes on small to mid-size transactions. We believe this is an underserved and difficult to penetrate segment. Still, it is one in which we have seen a lot of success over the decades and are particularly well-positioned to continue to exploit. We look for medically necessary market-leading products with strong growth potential that benefit from strong and long-lasting intellectual property protection. These products are developed on or marketed by industry-leading, high-quality life sciences companies. Since our IPO in February 2021, we have delivered on this growth strategy. During our IPO, we stated our five-year deployment target of $650 million to $750 million. This quarter alone, we have completed 3 transactions deploying $184.5 million. In just 19 months, we are almost halfway to the high end of the target with $345 million deployed. All five transactions we have completed since our IPO fit our investment criteria, matching the right kinds of products with attractive financial return profiles. The duration of the portfolio currently stands at about nine years. The royalty acquisitions that we will be discussing on the balance of our presentation build on DRI's track record of successful deployment, which most recently began with our first private equity fund raised in 2006 that acquired $645 million in royalties over a three-year period. That was followed by our second fund raised in 2009 that acquired $730 million in royalties over a four-year period and was followed by our third fund that acquired $586 million dollar royalties during its life. Throughout this time, as well as since we have gone public, we have continually been focused on making smart acquisitions that will deliver outstanding results for our unitholders. Most recently, we completed two deals in 2021. First was a transaction with CTI BioPharma in August, where we issued a secured loan with a royalty component triggered upon the approval of Vonjo, which ultimately came in February 2022. In September, we completed the royalty transaction for Oracea. In the last two months, as you will hear, we have completed three more deals for Empaveli, Zejula, and Omidria. At the IPO, we said we were gonna deploy $650 million to $750 million per year over a five-year period, with $345 million already deployed, with the potential for these transactions to ultimately be as large as $401 million with the achievement of certain milestones. We are well ahead of our target pace. Notably, we have significantly advanced the primary objective of the trust, replacing over a third of the cash flows that are expected to expire over the next eight years or so. I will now turn over the call to Navin to discuss our most recent transactions in further detail. Thank you, Behzad, and good morning. Over the past year, the three transactions we've completed now resulted in a deployment of $184.5 million, with potential to go up to $215.5 million with options and milestone payments. Each transaction is unique in terms of the deal structure, counterparty, and therapeutic area. The transaction for Empaveli was structured to include the option at our discretion to increase our exposure. The Zejula deal includes a milestone payment for achieving further regulatory approval. The Omidria deal is a structured transaction that provides good visibility into cash flows that we can expect to receive through 2030. These transactions significantly advance our goal of replacing the cash flows from those assets that are expected to expire over the next eight years. With regard to Empaveli, this is a hematology product approved for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, otherwise known as PNH. PNH is a serious chronic rare genetic disorder characterized by the complement pathway-mediated destruction of red blood cells. Symptoms include severe anemia, blood clots, abdominal pain, difficulty swallowing, erectile dysfunction, and red or black urine known as hemoglobinuria. We leveraged our strong balance sheet and funded this purchase with cash on hand. We acquired a royalty of just under 1% of worldwide net sales of Empaveli for an amount of 24 and a half million dollars. The royalty entitlement is on sales of up to $500 million per year. DRI holds the option to increase this sales cap to 1.1 billion for a one-time payment of $21 million. Royalties are collected on a two-quarter lag and will expire in Q4 of 2031 in the US and Q2 of 2032 in the EU. Empaveli is in the pipeline and a product. It is also in development for other indications, most notably geographic atrophy, an ophthalmologic condition with a PDUFA date of November 28. Some of you may be familiar with that or may be aware of the AAO meeting that is ongoing this past weekend and through to Tuesday, during which Empaveli is a focus of discussion for geographic atrophy. Empaveli is also being studied for cold agglutinin disease, also known as CAD, an autoimmune disease, and C3 glomerulopathy, a renal disease. Empaveli is marketed by Apellis Pharmaceuticals and outside the US by Sobi, and is sold in the EU under the brand name Aspaveli. Our second transaction this summer was Zejula, an oncology drug currently approved for ovarian cancer with multiple other oncology pipeline indications in development. We purchased this royalty from AnaptysBio for $35 million. The transaction was funded from our credit facility and includes a $10 million milestone payment if Zejula is approved by the FDA for endometrial cancer by the end of 2025. The royalty rate is 0.5% on worldwide net sales. Royalties are collected on a one-quarter lag, and we expect the entitlements to continue for at least 10 years. Zejula is marketed by GSK worldwide, excluding certain Asian territories for all indications except for prostate cancer, which pending regulatory approvals will be marketed by J&J. Takeda markets Zejula in Japan for all indications, as well as Taiwan and South Korea for all ex-prostate cancer indications. Zai Lab markets Zejula in China. GSK collects a royalty from all these sub-licensees. We collect a royalty on all of the Zejula sales from GSK, including sublicense royalties that are collected by GSK. For the sublicense sales, we collect a royalty on their royalties. The announcement that we made this morning was for Omidria, which is an ophthalmologic product approved for intracameral use during cataract surgery or intraocular lens replacement. This transaction is a basic traditional royalty deal and is subject to certain annual caps. For a purchase price of $125 million we made to Omeros Corporation, we are entitled to royalties on Omidria that are capped at $1.67 million for the last four months of 2022, $13 million for full year 2023, $20 million in 2024, and $25 million every year after, between 2025 to 2028. For 2029, we have an annual cap of $26.25 million, and for 2030, an annual sales cap of $27.5 million, or royalty cap rather, with no entitlements after 2030. These caps are significantly below what Omeros has received from this royalty entitlements historically. The royalties will be paid monthly, with the annual cap divided equally over the 12 months. Omidria is marketed by Rayner Surgical, a private specialized marketer of cataract lenses in Europe and U.S. I will now ask Stewart to review the overall portfolio. Stewart? Thank you, Navin. Including the transactions that Navin just described in Q3, our portfolio now consists of 21 royalty assets on 17 products spanning 9 therapeutic areas. The new products that we have recently added are all marketed by companies that we have not previously been exposed to. Our portfolio duration currently sits at just over 9 years, which has increased with our various transactions despite the maturing of some royalties and the passage of time. Finally, a number of our products continue to be among the most successful in the world, with 5 of our drugs currently having over $1 billion in annual sales. In addition to highlighting the acquisitions that we have made recently, it is also worth reflecting on the performance of some of the other assets in our portfolio. As we disclosed this morning, we have concluded that the issues that resulted in the voluntary withdrawal of Natpara in 2019 in the United States are likely to persist for the foreseeable future. This will mean that while sales and royalties should continue in Europe and the rest of the world markets in the near term, we are not sure if or when the product will return to the US market. For background, DRI owns a royalty on Natpara, an endocrinology product that entitles DRI to a mid-single digit% of worldwide sales. The royalty is subject to an aggregate cap of $125 million in royalties. To date, including DRI's legacy funds prior to our IPO, we have collected $85.9 million out of that $125 million. We are currently evaluating the financial implications of our revised assumptions and alternatives that we may have to maximize the value of this asset over time. In contrast, some of the other assets that we own either have or are due to benefit from some important catalysts. Early in September, Regeneron disclosed top line data related to the safety and efficacy of long-acting EYLEA, a formulation that is delivered every four months rather than every two months. These data were quite compelling and may result in a positive impact on sales if and when the FDA approves an adjustment to EYLEA's current label. In addition, we continue to see Vonjo performing well in its launch, something that has been driven largely by the better than expected adoption of the drug in the community oncology setting. Until this morning's announcement, I'll remind you that Vonjo was the largest transaction that we have completed as a public company. We will provide you with a full update on our portfolio on our third quarter results call in early November. Looking forward, we remain focused on three key priorities. One, growing our asset base by adding high-quality assets to our portfolio in line with our investment criteria. We are successfully executing this strategy as evidenced by our deployment to date. Two, generating sustainable growing cash flows through accretive transactions with appropriate capital structures. Third, continuing to return cash to unitholders. As a result of the strong performance of our portfolio, we've been able to maintain a quarterly distribution that currently implies a current yield of over 4.5%, and we are committed to balancing our use of cash between unitholder returns and future growth. We are poised for that growth with a dynamic pipeline and various stages of execution in order to add high-quality assets to our portfolio. Our access to capital and rigorous due diligence processes keep us well positioned to capitalize on the right opportunities in the most attractive therapeutic areas. Thank you. With that, we will now take your questions. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, we will now begin the Q&A. Should you have a question, please press star followed by the 1 on your touch tone phone. You will hear a three-tone prompt acknowledging your request, and your questions will be polled in the order they are received. Should you wish to decline from the polling process, please press the star followed by the 2. If you are using a speakerphone, please lift the handset before pressing any keys. One moment please for your first question. The first question comes from Doug Miehm of RBC Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Thanks very much. I have three questions. The first one has to do with the intellectual property on this product and whether or not there's any Paragraph IV filed or any potential litigation that's gonna be ongoing with it. The second one has to do with the first half of 2018, according to IQVIA. It looked like sales dropped off significantly and based on how the contract is written, if that were to occur again, you couldn't recoup those. Finally, perhaps you could you know talk a little bit about the implied IRR of this, which appears to be sub 10%, again. I recognize that you know this looks like a very good drug from the perspective of offsetting some of the declines you're expecting to see. I just wanna see that within the context of a U.S. 10-year, which is almost at 4% right now. Doug, thanks very much for the questions. I appreciate it. We can certainly tackle the three questions that you raised. The intellectual property on this product is very strong. There's no challenges or Paragraph IV challenges or anything like that ongoing or to my knowledge have occurred. We don't foresee anything, at least before our royalty expires. We're happy with the strength of the intellectual property. The sales dropped off in 2018 because of a reimbursement issue that we don't anticipate repeating going forward. There was just a change in legislation and regulations and the reimbursement fell away and then came back. That was hopefully a one-time thing and we don't anticipate that reoccurring. I hear you on the IRR. I mean, Navin and his team have constructed this deal, as you said, in a way that sort of improves our cash flows and adds to our cash flows, pretty significantly, over the near term and then through to 2030 of course. The IRR based on our calculations is about 9.7%, so just approaching the 10% level. You know, we measure these deals on a multiple, on a variety of metrics, IRR, multiple cash flow accretion, and we were attracted to this on that basis. I think that, ultimately, at the end of the day, we hope to have a pool of assets that we've acquired over a few years' time that, you know, generate returns that are comparable with what we generated in the past. W e're constructing this pool of assets in much the same way that we have done in the past and acquiring attractive things that will ultimately be accretive and for investors and deliver attractive returns. I'll let Navin jump in here just to add anything that he has on his mind. Thanks, Behzad. Thanks, Doug. Good questions. Just on the IP. The patents have been tested by generic ANDA filers in the past. Competitors have been granted a launch date of April 2032, which is after our royalty entitlement ends. Even though the patents are potentially open to future validity challenges, based on the past settlements that have occurred, which are with very large generic manufacturers, including Sandoz, the potential for invalidity attacks, in our opinion, do not appear to significantly favor any potential challenges. We feel very strong about the IP protection here over the next 10 years. Excellent. Thanks very much. Thank you. The next question comes from Greg Fraser of Truist Securities. Please go ahead. Good morning, folks. Thanks for taking the questions. Quick one on just the royalty structure. I was wondering if you could kind of help with the way it works. It looks like you're acquiring part of the royalty that Omeros is entitled to. I'm just looking for some more color on the structure. Thanks for the question, Greg. I will turn it over to Navin to respond. Greg, thanks for the question. You're exactly right. It's effectively we're buying a portion of their royalties as you can see from their historical royalties. If you speak to Omeros, based on their projections of where their product is gonna go and Omidria is gonna go, or where their historical knowledge of that product will also give you some insight into where they think the product will go, as do we that we are only buying a portion of their sales and of the royalties, and it's capped by the annual amounts that are discussed in the press release, roughly $13 million for the year of 2023. That annual cap grows over the course of 2023 through to the end of 2030. Effectively giving us a growing royalty stream. Does that help? Sorry, go ahead. As long as Omeros gets royalties at or above the caps that you're entitled to, you'll get that full amount each year? Exactly. As you can see from historical sales as well as the growth, the continued growth of the product, those caps are well below what their historical amounts have been for sales that are required in order for us to hit the caps. Got it. Okay. Very good. They're entitled to a milestone payment that's related to Part D coverage. Can you talk about the importance of that Part B, the Part B decision to the growth outlook for the product, and would you be entitled to any part of that milestone payment? No. The first easy part of that is that we're not entitled to any of that milestone payment. It's a roughly $200 million milestone payment. It is incrementally important to the product's growth, but in our opinion, that was not part of what we were underwriting to. I mean, it's nice it's an extra additional layer of coverage and protection to the coverage. By itself is not required for us to achieve our annual royalty caps. Got it. Okay. Just bigger picture. Given the size of this deal and any amount deployed so far this year, should investors expect you to maybe take a breather before signing additional transactions? Thanks so much. Is that? We don't believe in breathers, Greg. I think, you know, as you know, Greg, that we're in a pretty unique and attractive market right now, particularly as biotechs struggle for financing. We're seeing a ton of high quality opportunities that are just sort of collateral damage, so to speak, as a result of the market conditions that we're sitting in. Our focus is to run as quickly as we can to provide the financing that these companies need as well as these individuals and institutions need. We're gonna be smart about it. We're not gonna just deploy the capital willy-nilly. But we'd like to continue to deploy on a good pace. Great. Thanks for taking the questions. Thank you. The next question comes from Rahul Sarugaser. Please go ahead. Good morning, gentlemen. Thank you so much for including us in the lineup this morning. Just a quick point of clarification, and I think it was a little bit answered in the previous question. I just wanna clarify a little bit further. Looking at the Omeros PR, where they indicate that no more than a third of the payments, you know, essentially they're paying out no more than a third. That sort of implies that their revenue would need to go on the order of $75 million in 2025. Could you give us a sense of your confidence that the revenue on the product should more than, you know, reach that and enable that? Rahul, to answer the question, you're asking about significance of the Omeros press release, that the third number? Sure. They said that no more than a third would be paid out. I mean, I think as Navin said, as he answered the previous question, you know, we're confident that total revenues that Omeros records will be greater than the amounts that they would owe us under the caps. I can't really comment about whether it's gonna equate to a third or some other fraction. That's really Omeros's commentary. Sure. Okay. That's helpful. Then maybe more of a general question and a little bit coming back to Doug's question at the beginning. You know, given that we are now in this sort of unique environment of rising rates, but of course also in an environment, I believe that you alluded to the fact that you are in an attractive market where there are lots of smaller biotechs that are, you know, seeking financing. Could you maybe speak to, you know, your strategy and the interplay between these two sort of, you know, opposing forces? Between the opposing forces of rising rates and a ton of demand for financing? Correct. Look, I think, you know, we take a bit of a 10-year view. We're building portfolios that will deliver, you know, returns over the long term. While we understand that short-term rates are going up and long-term rates are going up as well, we also understand that they will likely, before these royalties expire, come back down too. We're taking a bit of a long-term view. I think our business is to acquire royalties on attractive assets and build portfolios that ultimately generate returns that are consistent with what we've done historically. You know, that's what we're focused on. Sometimes you'll see us do deals at 10% returns, and sometimes you'll see us do deals that perform at much better levels, such as the Vonjo deal, for example. I think we're building a portfolio. I wouldn't take away too much with just rates of return on one particular deal. Okay. Perfect. That's really helpful for us today, and we'll get back in touch. Thank you. The next question comes from Paul Stewardson, iA Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Good morning, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Just calling in for Chelsea. I guess a two-part for us. Can you give a little bit of color on the CMS payments for non-opioid pain management, in terms of that exclusion? The second, in terms of how that affects, if that affects net sales and how that affects the product. I guess just more generally, can you talk a little bit about the competitive landscape of what else is out there, versus Omidria and you know, what they're going to be up against over the next 10 years? Absolutely. I will turn it over to Navin to tackle those. Sure. With regards to the CMS payments, I think what's most important is at the end of last year, there was a final ruling provided by CMS with regards to coverage of Omidria. That's what gave us a lot of confidence in the continued coverage. As you may have seen, there was also a re-upping of that coverage for 2023. What is different now versus what you would have historically seen was that final ruling, which changed the way in which CMS views the reimbursement of the product. Wherein now, what's required is basically just an annual check to determine whether it should maintain its reimbursement or not. Based on the criteria that was set, 2 to 3 years ago via different legislation, CMS is now broadly has to align with those those legislative requirements, that suggests in our mind that Omidria will continue having reimbursement for the next 10 years, hence this deal. With regards to competition, there's, you know, most of the competition really is generic and is found via compounded products. As you may be well aware, compounding products in the ophthalmology space leads to significant issues. There was a center in Texas that had significant issues, a compounding pharmacy center in Texas that led to significant inflammatory and issues with patients with cataract surgery. A product like Omidria, which provides significant convenience for the surgeons administering the product, prevents such situations. Obviously they're reimbursed for it, which is a positive for them and for the product. As such, we don't see much competition that's gonna affect demand over the next 10 years. Okay, great. Thanks so much for taking our question. Thank you. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, if you do have a question, please press star one at this time. The next question comes from Tania Armstrong-Whitworth, Canaccord Genuity. Please go ahead. Good morning, gentlemen. Just one more from me. On the way the payment is structured, going back to that, could you specify, are you going to be paid directly by Rayner or will your payment come from Omeros? Is there any lag on a month-by-month basis when you receive that payment? Go ahead, Navin. We will be paid by Rayner, not by Omeros. Sorry, that was the first part of the question. The second part? Will there be a lag? I guess if you're paid by Rayner, that cap that you're projecting, that'll occur in the month. That's a 1-month lag in the same way there was a 1-month lag between Rayner and Omeros. Perfect. Thank you. That's all. Thank you. The next question comes from Endri Leno of National Bank. Please go ahead. Hello, good morning. I'm calling on behalf of Endri Leno. My name is Eduardo Garcia, and I have a couple of questions. Thank you for taking them. The first one is building on the CMS question. I was wondering if there will be support for hospital-based outpatient department for Omidria as well. Thank you for the question. Navin, I'll leave that with you. Yes. I'm sorry. Could you repeat that question again? No, it's in terms of a reimbursement agreement for Omidria. Would there be support for hospital-based outpatient departments in addition to ASC? For HOPD, again, that's for the HOPD segment, that is not part of our calculus. If they get obviously the NOPAIN Act to pass, that'll help with HOPD. That is not part of our. It's not necessary for that to happen for us to collect our royalties. We still believe despite without HOPD, there's still plenty of revenues that Omidria will be recognizing and consequently royalties that'll be paid out by Rayner regardless of HOPD. HOPD is sort of an added benefit and adds to the cushion that's required for us to receive the royalties that we have projected. Okay, thank you. Can you provide some caller on the reimbursement from insurance and like non-Medicare perspective? Medicare is clearly the largest payer for Omidria. There is some small proportion, 20% to 25% that's non-Medicare. Clearly Medicare is the largest channel for Omidria. Okay. Can you talk about the adoption in the U.S. and if there are any barriers to the adoption or can you provide some color on there? w ith regards to adoption, I mean, the biggest driver is education, right? I mean, Omeros is obviously a small company relative to a company like other large ophthalmology companies like Novartis or Regeneron, right? So there's only so much touch points that they are able to make. Rayner coming on board and taking this product and certainly helps because they're making call points in the US for and will be for their intraocular lenses. The other thing that Rayner provides is now the potential for Omidria to be sold outside the US, which was never an option for Omeros. That's not something that we have necessarily. That's again upside to our estimates and again adds cushion and not necessary for us. But all of these are provide additional points of support that provide a stable base for our royalty receipts annual caps to be hit. Okay. Perfect. Thank you. That's great. Building on the international sales, have there been any discussions in terms of reimbursement with EU or that's still to be determined? That's to be determined. We don't anticipate that happening for the next year or so, but that's a better question for Rayner than for us. Once again, you know, ex-US sales are not required for us to achieve our annual caps. Okay. I have one more question, if I may. For sales of Omidria in the first half of the year, was there any excess ordering to smooth the transition from, like, Omidria to Rayner? For the first half of 2022? Correct. We didn't see a significant amount. That was not part of our assessment, no. Okay. Okay. Perfect. Thank you very much. You're asking about buy-in. Sorry. Just to understand what you're saying. You're asking about buy-in or inventory sales? Yes. Like, to avoid the disruption in the transition to Rayner. No, I'd have to get back to you on that specifically, but certainly the demand was not extraordinary in one way or the other. Which leads us to believe. Okay. Okay. Okay. That the sales were more in line with our expectations. More in line. Okay. Makes sense. Thank you for your answer. Thank you. The next question comes from Adam Buckham of Scotiabank. Please go ahead. Hey, good morning. Thanks for taking my question. Just have one. I'm just curious, in the acquisition of this asset, was it a competitive bidding process or was it non-competitive? Maybe, you know, while I'm on the line, on your past two deals, could you maybe speak to that as well in terms of the, you know, general competitive backdrop to, you know, acquiring royalties? Adam, thanks very much for the questions. Navin, do you wanna tackle those two as well? Sure. Adam, Omidria and Omeros is a purely proprietary transaction, that it wasn't competitive from that perspective. The others, there was some competition, but not something that would make us be overly concerned about the quote unquote competition increasing in the royalty transaction space. That's not how we viewed it. It is sort of part and parcel of our business. We're accustomed to dealing with it, which is why we try to come up with interesting solutions, try to think about the product from different angles. As for example, with Zejula, we weren't quite able to get to the upfront payment that another competitive party was making in the bid, but we were able to make that up via the milestone payment we had for endometrial cancer. You know, we're wary not to fall into the trap of competing against ourselves and we stuck with the number that we wanted for the upfront and instead transacted in a way that made sense for both the seller, in that case AnaptysBio, as well as for DRI. We haven't, just to be very clear, we haven't seen some significant increase in competition. Okay. Thanks for the color and congratulations on the deal. Thank you. There are no further questions at this time. Please continue. Thanks very much, everybody. We really appreciate you taking the time and look forward to our next call. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude the conference call for today. We ask that you please disconnect your lines and have a great day.