Welcome to the GENFIT Corporate Update conference call. At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Ms. Stefanie Magner. Please go ahead, ma'am. Thank you, and good afternoon, everyone, and thank you for joining us on this conference call. This call is organized to follow up on the two press releases we published this morning. The first press release announced the global long-term strategic partnership with Ipsen, beginning with PBC. The second one announced an in-licensing agreement with Genoscience Pharma for an early-stage compound that will be developed as part of our cholestatic disease franchise. These press releases can be accessed via our website at ir.genfit.com. During our call, we will be making forward-looking statements as defined under the US Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 with respect to GENFIT, including relating to timing of top-line results in the ELATIVE ® phase III study, the commercial potential of elafibranor, as well as our future business, financial prospects, strategy development plans and timelines. These forward-looking statements are based on our management's current assumptions and estimates, which although believed to be reasonable, are subject to numerous known and unknown risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed in or implied or projected by the forward-looking statements. For a further discussion of the material risks and other important factors that could affect our business operations and financial results, please refer to those contained in our most recent filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the French AMF. These forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this webcast. Other than is required by applicable law, the Company does not undertake any obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information or statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, or otherwise. Joining me on this call is Pascal Prigent, CEO. Following the prepared remarks, we'll open up the call for questions that will be addressed by GENFIT management. Please limit yourself to one initial question to allow time for other questions. I now turn the call over to our CEO, Pascal Prigent. Thank you, Stefanie. Hi, everyone, and thank you for joining today's call, during which I'm going to expand on the important announcements we made earlier today. I'm going to explain first how today's two press releases relate to each other and how they fit with GENFIT's strategic roadmap, which we shared with you a little over a year ago. I will discuss in more detail the long-term strategic collaboration we are embarking on with Ipsen. I will explain how it contributes to shaping and strengthening GENFIT's immediate future, but also why and how it opens up new opportunities for us and how instrumental it will be in the implementation of our strategy. I'll also talk about the significant financial implications it has for us in terms of our cash position and cash runway, and also for our equity and capital structure. I will then conclude with a discussion of the first step we have taken to strengthen our pipeline on the heels of this deal with Ipsen, with the in-licensing of a new and exciting asset that we will develop for patients suffering from cholangiocarcinoma. Okay, let's start by putting today's back-to-back announcement into perspective. For us, they are the logical next steps in the implementation of a strategy that we outlined to you about 18 months ago, and that we have been executing since then. Last year, following the RESOLVE-IT results, we reshaped our corporate strategy. In September, we presented this new strategy to you, and we outlined our roadmap for the following quarters. In subsequent corporate updates, we described the progress we were making and how we were delivering against our key objectives. In Q4 2020, we renegotiated our convertible debt, implemented a rigorous cost reduction plan, and restructured our workforce. Our new organization, combined with a reduced cash burn, which is now 50% lower than what it was pre-RESOLVE-IT results, along with the removal of a debt overhang, gave us the right platform from which to build and greater financial visibility. We also reoriented our R&D. As far as the R in R&D is concerned, the research part, we terminated several NASH-related programs to concentrate on two priority areas: ACLF and cholestatic diseases. As far as the D, the development is concerned, we decided to prioritize the development of elafibranor in PBC, as well as the commercial development of our NASH diagnostic program, NIS4. The first part of this year was then about focusing on executing this strategy, and today's announcements are a natural consequence of the progress we made in 2021. I guess it all begins with our lead program, the development of elafibranor in PBC. Despite the COVID pandemic and the challenging conditions it creates for clinical trials, our phase III in PBC is now well underway. We continue to anticipate high-level results around Q1 2023, but in the last nine months, we have been very busy doing in-depth commercial work. We shared with you during our PBC day earlier this year why we feel good about our probability of success and also the compelling market data that supports elafibranor's commercial potential. I won't review this analysis again today, but the key takeaway is that we felt elafibranor's potential was very significant given the product profile and competitive landscape, and that this potential was not being appropriately reflected in our share price. However, it was clear to us that in order to fully realize the great potential of a molecule and given the tight deadlines before a potential market launch, now is the time to move to the next level in terms of pre-marketing and launch preparedness. Seriously ramping up pre-marketing operations has significant financial repercussions. This meant it was time for us to define the right business model to take elafibranor to the commercial phase. Although we had always considered the possibility of building the necessary infrastructure to go to market alone, we determined that it was unlikely to be the highest value creating option for us today. It's obviously riskier than a partnership. It's quite expensive when you're starting from scratch, and ultimately, it's unlikely to be competitive compared with what a pharmaceutical company with an existing sales force and dedicated marketing teams can offer. That is why we decided to look for a partner. We wanted to collaborate with a pharma company with a strong track record of commercial success with licensed products, a global footprint with a strong focus on the key U.S. market, experience in rare diseases, and the critical mass needed to maximize the potential of our assets. We also felt it was important to ensure that we would have an appropriate balance between, on the one hand, size and infrastructure, but on the other hand, the degree of focus and relative importance of our partnership. You know, to put it bluntly, sometimes working with Big Pharma means that you are one of many programs and not necessarily a top priority. Finally, it was critical that our prospective partner also shared our vision for elafibranor's potential and probability of success, and would therefore be prepared to structure the economics of the deal in a way that would be consistent with our expectations. We engaged in several discussions, but Ipsen clearly stood out. First, they pretty much checked all the boxes in terms of the description of that ideal partner that I just made for you. But most importantly, we liked their decisiveness and commitment to success from day one. At the same time as we were embarking in the search for a partner to commercialize elafibranor, we started to implement our new research strategy. Let me preface this by saying that although the end results were ultimately disappointing, the legacy of GENFIT's decade of work in NASH is actually extremely valuable. Looking at this program only from the standpoint of the phase III results would be a bit simplistic. In fact, because of the NASH program, GENFIT has developed unique skills, proprietary models. We have considerable experience all the way from preclinical to very large, complex phase III trials. We have excellent working partnerships and a great network with academia, KOL, regulatory agencies. At the end, we don't have a NASH product, and I know that at this point nobody does, but we have learned a lot. The bottom line is that we think we can provide unique know-how for taking early stage assets targeting liver diseases all the way to the start of pre-commercialization. We think it is especially true in complex areas of high unmet medical need, where the regulatory and medical environment is more uncertain. We do not, however, see our value add in discovery, in creating new chemical entities. Likewise, at this stage, and irrespective of what we might choose to do in the future, we believe that the best way to approach the commercialization phase is not to go at it alone, so we wanted to partner with a larger commercial stage company. It is with this vision in mind that we restructured our organization and more specifically, our R&D department. Upstream, we will be working on assets that will either be repositioned or licensed in from other companies, and we intend to build a pipeline of promising assets focused on ACLF and cholestatic diseases. We will then develop those molecules from preclinical stage to the later stage of development, and then we'll decide on the best go-to-market approach to maximize the potential of those products if we can take them to the finish line. We are now ready to move into the clinic with NTZ, a molecule we are repositioning in ACLF. In cholestatic diseases, we are adding an additional, first asset with the acquisition of GNS561 right in cholangiocarcinoma. This is a perfect example of what we intend to do, bringing in an early-stage asset with strong scientific rationale in a market with high unmet medical need. Over time, as I said, we want to build a strong diversified pipeline with lots of optionality. Downstream, we are entering into this long-term agreement with Ipsen. We shared our vision with them, and there was a common perspective that a closer partnership could be mutually beneficial. In the future, we will consider them first if we decide to commercialize a product through partnership rather than on our own. We will also explore R&D collaboration possibilities with Ipsen. Ipsen has cemented this partnership by taking an ownership stake in GENFIT, and they've demonstrated their commitment and confidence by paying a substantial premium over current market value. As you can see, those two deals set us up nicely for the future. The global strategic partnership with Ipsen considerably strengthens our financial position, creates a solid foundation for the long term to accelerate our growth, and provides a natural path to commercialize our assets when we choose to market the partnership. The acquisition of Genoscience GNS561 enriches our pipeline with a promising early-stage asset with the potential to address a devastating disease in an area of interest for us. Now that we've spent some time discussing the strategic rationale for those two deals, let's now look at some of the specific deal characteristics, starting with the strategic agreement just signed with Ipsen and what it means for us and for our shareholders. Moving on to financial implications, there are a few elements I would like to highlight in this call. The first element that our shareholders will obviously appreciate is the significant size of the upfront that we've received. In fact, this amount alone is pretty close to our current market value. It is also a non-dilutive source of funding for R&D programs. EUR 120 million is the upfront. In addition to the upfront, we will also receive substantial milestone payments that can be up to EUR 360 million, and about half of those can actually be received before commercial launch, that is to say, roughly over the next three years. We will then receive double-digit royalties that will provide hopefully a regular revenue stream that will help finance our research into the future. Finally, in addition to global commercialization, Ipsen will be responsible for further clinical development, and this means that Ipsen will finance studies to develop elafibranor in other indications, as well as the long-term extension period of the trial that is required, as you know, by the FDA to grant full approval. This means that our projected cash consumption will go down given the inclusion of these elements, and this will free up additional cash to fund more research programs. Ipsen obviously gets full exclusive rights to elafibranor worldwide, with the exclusion of Greater China, as you might remember that we sold those rights to Terns Pharmaceuticals. We believe that the terms of this deal underscore GENFIT and Ipsen's shared vision about the long-term value of elafibranor. As previously mentioned, Ipsen and GENFIT will also engage in a long-term partnership, and Ipsen is taking an 8% ownership stake in GENFIT for EUR 28 million, which values GENFIT at EUR 350 million. This obviously sends a strong initial signal regarding the confidence and commitment of Ipsen. Ipsen will also receive rights of first negotiation for the assets we will seek partnerships for. It will therefore become our natural partner when we choose to go the commercial partnership route. The financial implication of this deal are profound for GENFIT. It not only provides a significant influx of cash immediately, EUR 148 million now between the upfront and the equity, but it also substantially impacts our cash burn for the years to come, not only due to milestone payments and royalties, but also, as I said, by eliminating a number of future expenses, both clinical and commercial. Beyond financial aspects, this deal establishes a long-term collaboration platform with Ipsen from R&D to commercialization, making GENFIT an even more attractive partner for other organizations looking to license out their assets or co-develop promising early-stage molecules. That brings me to a second announcement made today, the in-licensing of GNS561, which reinforces our position in cholestatic diseases. The acquisition of Genoscience asset rights in cholangiocarcinoma provides a blueprint for our approach to strengthening our pipeline. Our general focus is on rare liver diseases with two particular areas of interest, ACLF and cholestatic diseases. We are primarily interested in diseases with high unmet medical need, with very limited or no therapeutic options. Cholangiocarcinoma is strongly correlated with cholestasis, and unfortunately, the current prognosis for these patients is poor. GNS561 is eligible for orphan drug indication. We believe that its novel mechanism of action is promising, and the scientific rationale, together with preclinical and clinical evidence, supports further development of the asset. In addition, the path to approval has the potential to be somewhat shorter compared with that of many other indications. Indeed, given the current landscape, standard of care and lack of marketed options, KOL perceive there might be an opportunity, of course, if the results are supportive, to reduce the length of the path to market. Our goal is to start this program in the first half of 2022, and we'll give you more specifics in our next corporate update. In this agreement, we are financing the clinical development, but there's no upfront payment, and that's indicative of our preference to invest our cash in clinical development and minimize risk. Milestone payments will be linked to positive results along the development path. We have also taken a EUR 3 million stake in Genoscience, as a further investment in their potential for discovery of new assets. That concludes my preliminary remarks. I won't elaborate more about those two deals, we can find more specifics in the two press releases. The team and I are now happy to take a few questions. Operator? Thank you. If you would like to ask a question, please signal by pressing star one on your telephone keypad. If you're using a speakerphone, please make sure your mute function is turned off to allow your signal to reach our equipment. Again, press star one to ask a question. We'll pause for just a moment to allow everyone an opportunity to signal for questions. We'll take our first question from Thomas Smith from SVB Leerink. Please go ahead, sir. Your line is open. Hey, guys. Good morning. Thanks for taking the questions and congrats on both deals. I guess first on the Ipsen deal. I think the strategic rationale makes a lot of sense, but can you talk a little bit more about the process here? How competitive was the process? And then ultimately, you know, what drove the decision here to collaborate with Ipsen as an optimal partner? Hi, Tom. Good morning. Thanks for the question. Yes, the process was competitive in the sense that we had discussion with other companies, but as I said, the Ipsen team was very decisive. They were clearly willing to move the ball very, very fast, and we really appreciated that it was a very fast and smooth discussion. Also, we felt they pretty much ticked all the boxes for us, if you will. They have a good track record of being very commercially successful with assets that they've licensed in. They have a global footprint. Obviously, they're strong in Europe, but in the U.S., it's been an area of focus for them, and they've built quite an infrastructure. We felt they had the right balance of size and commitment. Sometimes, I mean, obviously the sort of logical choice for a partner could be big pharma. The problem with big pharma is sometimes they have multiple other programs, both with other external partners and internal program. The question in our mind was like, you know, are we a priority? If we are a priority, are we going to stay a priority? With Ipsen, it was very clear with the level of the folks that were involved in those discussions, that they considered this program a priority and that they were really going to put all the strength of their organization behind maximizing the potential of elafibranor, and that made us feel extremely comfortable about working with them. The other thing that we liked is that this agreement went way further than just a licensing out, if you will, of an asset. Yes, they are going to maximize the potential of elafibranor, but we also think that there are many additional synergies, both from an R&D standpoint, and for further potential commercialization once some of the early stage program that we have will be closer to market. We saw that partnership as not a one shot, but more, if you will, the first step in what could become a very fruitful long-term collaboration. We like that vision and we shared that vision with them. Which is why very quickly we considered Ipsen to be our primary choice for this partnership. Okay. Got it. You highlighted Ipsen's commercial organization and obviously they had a strong track record in rare diseases broadly. Can you talk about their current commercial footprint in liver diseases? Are they currently detailing to hepatologists and gastroenterologists, or is this something they'll have to build out and augment and expand into? I think they are going to have a call later today, so I'm sure they're going to expand on this. Our understanding is that they're going to build up the organization to have that liver focus. Okay. Just a question on the Genoscience asset and understood that it's phase II ready, and it sounds like you guys are working on some of the details of the phase II trial design that you're looking to start in the first half of 2022. Just wondering if you can give us a little bit of background on that asset and some of the, you know, clinical data that's been generated to date in, you know, I think they were in HCC patients, included some cholangiocarcinoma patients. But a little bit of background on the clinical data and then I guess ultimately what you saw in that clinical data that made you think that this is this is the right asset to expand your pipeline. Yes. Dean, can you- Yes. Can you take this? Hi, Tom. Thank you for the question. The molecule from our colleagues in Genoscience, as we had already said, it's an inhibitor of autophagy, and it works in particular by inhibition of the PPT1 enzyme. When you consider the different approaches which are being considered today to address cholangiocarcinoma, I mean, different things has been tried and so on, our thinking is that inhibiting autophagy it's a very compelling approach. As you probably know, Tom, a lot of literature has been coming out over the years, both to consider trying autophagy as a monotherapy, but also interestingly is also to combine something that inhibits autophagy with another treatment that targets other targets within cholangiocarcinoma. As you probably know, you know, there are different mutations, of course. Different mutations impact on the RAS pathway. You know, something like a inhibitor of MEK combined with an autophagy inhibitor does make a lot of sense. I won't get into the details, and we can come back to this later on, Tom. But coming back specifically to your question, I mean, what did we see in the clinical phase data? A phase I was conducted. There were quite a few cholangiocarcinoma patients who were in the trial. There were different doses which were tested. What was shown was that there are two patients where there is a signal where there was no progression in the tumor sites. That, of course, comes off of the rich data set that our colleagues at Genoscience have generated in the preclinical setting, both in vitro models as well as in vivo models. We know that this molecule inhibits autophagy quite efficiently. It is at least tenfold more potent than the reference standard of autophagy inhibitor, namely, hydroxychloroquine, which people are using to address those mechanisms. From that, it shows, they were able to show that this molecule inhibits different types of cancer cells in vitro. When they went into in vivo models, again, they were able to show good efficacy both in hepatocellular carcinoma models as well as in cholangiocarcinoma models. Okay, great. Yeah, thanks for the background on that, Dean. Then, maybe just lastly, if you could speak to, I guess, your expectations in terms of when we could see maybe some top-line data from this phase II trial that you're planning. Yeah. Like I mentioned before, Tom, so the team is working hard on the protocol. What we plan to do, of course, once that's done, is have our meeting with the FDA to get the protocol validated. I can't guide right now and get into any specifics, but like I just mentioned before, I think different approaches are on the table, both considering the molecule as monotherapy as well as considering the molecule in a combination therapy. Okay? These are things, well, we're pretty much decided right now, but we just have to finalize our meeting with the FDA. The thing about targeting CCA, and the way we're looking at it, is that there is a possibility to be able to conduct a small trial and a quick trial. Again, I'm not guiding here. I'm just providing some possibilities, where we can target a population size of about 50 patients, in a phase Ib/II trial and get results quite quickly, which then sets us potentially the possibility of breakthrough designation and then maybe an accelerated approval. Again, not guiding, but these are things that we are really thinking hard about and getting ready to meet with the FDA. Understood. All right, guys. Well, thanks for taking the questions, and congrats again on the deal. Thanks, Tom. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Jean-Jacques Le Fur from Bryan, Garnier. Please go ahead. Your line is open. Hey, gentlemen. Once again, congrats for this super deal. I have three very quick questions, sorry. The first two are mainly financial. What are the remaining costs for ELATIVE ®? First question. The second one is, what could be the cost for the phase II trial with GNS561? And finally, a follow-on on the timing for this new drug. Providing everything is going well in development, could we have an estimated year of approval or launch for such a drug? Thank you. Thanks, Jean-Jacques. First of all, we're typically not guiding about the cost of clinical trials. But I guess what we have guided is that we were looking at spending EUR 120 million total, I mean, the cash burn between 2021 and 2022. Obviously, that included the cost of ELATIVE ®, right? What remains on ELATIVE ® is relatively modest. As I mentioned, further clinical development and also the long-term confirmation study that the FDA required for full approval is now going to be financed by Ipsen. Same thing with the cost of the development for GNS561. Again, we don't specifically guide, but obviously, it's a short, smaller trial, so it's less expensive than what we're typically seeing in liver disease. In terms of timeline, and I will stress what Dean already said that we're not guiding at this point. We first need to have a discussion with the FDA, get their feedback before we can be a little bit more precise. Clearly when we were mentioning that there's a possibility to maybe have a path that's shorter than what we typically see, we were referring to the fact that in this disease state, because of a very high unmet medical need, if you have results, efficacy results that support it, you could go a little bit faster. Pascal, I don't know if you want to comment further on this. Yeah. Good afternoon, Jean-Jacques. Just to be a little bit with some facts on this, what could happen in terms of clinical development and specifically in the cholangiocarcinoma indication, several factors could facilitate a shorter time to approval. Of course, we have still a lot of questions that have to be managed. Nevertheless, for example, we do expect that a single-arm study will be requested by the FDA. In this case, single-arm study plus short patient follow-up duration limited by short survival in second-line and third-line cholangiocarcinoma patients could give us an opportunity for an accelerated approval. Why? Because the current FDA approval in this indication shows that an overall result around 25% could be enough to get this accelerated approval. Again, all the details have still to be discussed with the FDA, but nevertheless, we can see that the time to approval could be definitively shorter than what we have managed in the past in chronic disease. Okay, many thanks, and congrats again. Thank you, Jean-Jacques. Thank you. We will now take our next question from Mr. Ed Arce from H.C. Wainwright. Please go ahead, sir. Your line is open. Hello, everyone. This is Thomas Yip asking a couple of questions for Ed. Congratulations on both deals announced today. First question, regarding to ELATIVE®. In a scenario if additional data is needed, can you outline the financial and clinical responsibility split between GENFIT and Ipsen? Then, on this deal, any impact from your 2022 OpEx and the updated cash runway? Yeah. In terms of additional data, I assume you're referring to the long-term data that's required by the FDA to give the definitive approval on top of the Part A. This study will be funded by Ipsen. That's part of the agreement. For us, we are funding ELATIVE ® until the results, and that's it. Obviously in terms of cash, I mean, cash burn and cash runway, some of the expenses we had planned, we are no longer going to incur, so our cash burn is going to be reduced. Obviously we want to use that cash to finance other things like the development of GNS561. We will be going more precisely at the beginning of next year. Clearly in terms of cash runway, now it's way over three years and more. I mean, obviously we are going to receive EUR 148 million before the end of this year. Our related cash position we communicated, I believe was close to EUR 90 million. Our cash burn for the years coming up is going to be reduced. Cash runway is long. Let's put it this way. Got it. Perhaps one quick question about GNS561. Can you talk about what you find the PPT1 target attractive and the other potential indications? Yeah. I let Dean comment, but for us it was really high level. First of all, autophagy inhibitor, we think is an area that show promise. There was a landmark article in Nature in, I think, 2019, already sort of explaining why autophagy inhibitor in oncology could be extremely promising. As Dean mentioned, we saw in this asset some preclinical and clinical evidence that we felt warranted the pursuit of a development. We felt that cholangiocarcinoma was the area where the data was the stronger. Dean, I don't know if you want to elaborate on that. Yeah. The only thing I would add to that, Thomas, is that, you know, when you look at the pipeline in cholangiocarcinoma, there are different programs that are moving forward, and they're all looking at different mechanisms. However, having said that, you know, people are also looking at it with inhibitors of autophagy. And what's really compelling to us when we look at different programs is really this aspect of targeting autophagy and actually inhibiting autophagy. Because as you know, you know, this is something that in established tumors, you get an upregulation of autophagy, and the understanding is that that's related to keeping the cancer going in a nutrient poor situation environment and as well as in a high-stress environment like under hypoxia and so on. There you get an increase of autophagy, which keeps the cancers alive. That at a high level, you know, makes sense that you then go in there with something that inhibits autophagy. When you dig into the whole field of oncology and look at different approaches, not only in cholangiocarcinoma, but in different types of cancers. Of course, one that comes to mind, you know, a lot of news around checkpoint inhibitors right now, but, you know, not all cancers respond well to checkpoint inhibitors. What's interesting now is that if you consider, you know, immunity of cancer cells, checkpoint inhibitors, there is also argument as to the role of that autophagy can play in cancer. Just to give you an example, you know, again, you know, some recent publications. I think, you know, a lot of recent publications focusing on autophagy. I just wanna highlight one that is a paper that came out in JCI, where they show that if you're able to inhibit PPT1 leading to decreased autophagy, this can actually increase the potential to increase T-cell mediated cytotoxicity. Always speaking to cancer cell immunity. Another interesting finding was that autophagy actually promotes evasion by lysosomal degradation of MHC-1 molecules, which means that if you're able to block autophagy, this may somehow help checkpoint inhibitor treatments. That's on the cytotoxic T-cell checkpoint inhibitor side. I'm gonna come back for a minute on one mechanism which targets the RAS pathway. I mentioned before that one way to address that pathway, you know, different mutations lead to activation of the RAS/MAPK pathway, is to use MEK1 inhibitors. However, what has been shown is that when you inhibit MEK1, what happens is that you increase autophagy, and which is one potential reason why for some cancers, the MEK1 inhibition does not work. Now, there has been what I think really is sort of like a landmark paper, where they show that in both an in vitro as well as in an in vivo animal setting, you can show that inhibiting with MEK1 by itself does not give you the desirable outcome. However, if you combine a MEK1 inhibitor by combining with an inhibitor of autophagy, there you get a very beneficial effect, both in the in vitro setting as well as in vivo animal models. That, you know, we're still pre-clinical. However, in that same paper, they looked at the effect of such a treatment in a patient with pancreatic cancer. There that was a very compelling, very nice result where that combination actually led to a strong and compelling response on cancer size. Okay, all these different things taken together, and of course combined with the strength of the data that our colleagues at Genoscience has generated on 561, is really what drove us to have a hard look at this asset and which has ultimately led to us in-licensing it to provide a proof of concept with this molecule as we move forward. For those of you who are interested, you know, our colleagues at Genoscience Pharma have published some very nice comprehensive papers explaining the mechanism of action of this molecule in different models. Thank you for your questions. Now it's time to wrap up with closing remarks from CEO Pascal Prigent. Thank you. In conclusion, I would like to stress that today's announcements mark the beginning of a new era for GENFIT. 2021 was a transition year where we digested the consequences of the end of the NASH program and reinvented ourselves. First, from a financial standpoint, we are bookending the year with the defensive moves we made in January, renegotiating our debt and reducing our costs, and the offensive moves of December. The Ipsen deal provides greater financial visibility and optionality as well as better long-term stability. Second, from an R&D standpoint, we clearly position ourselves as an organization capable of taking molecules from pre-clinical stage to the end of phase III, creating value by leveraging our expertise in developing innovative therapeutic solutions for rare liver diseases where the unmet medical need is high. Our primary focus going forward is on ACLF and cholestatic diseases. Then third, from a strategic standpoint, we want to focus on bringing in-house assets that are either repositioned or licensed to strengthen our pipeline, and we have now built and will continue to build partnerships to that effect. In order to maximize the commercial value of the assets, that we will bring successfully to the end of phase III. We want to collaborate with companies with strong commercial organization, and Ipsen is our partner of choice in this area. Lastly, I want to highlight the fact that our journey in 2021 would not have been possible without the hard work and commitment of our teams and without the support of our shareholders. I want, therefore, to thank them all for their resilience, patience, commitment, and support. Today is a great first step for GENFIT. We are now well prepared for an even more promising future, but starting very early, as soon as 2022. Thank you very much. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect.