All right, thank you guys for being here. Richard, thank you for making time. Super excited to have you back. Always enjoy spending time. First of all, huge congratulations on Austedo price point. It was the lowest on the HHS list. How did you guys make that happen? It's strange that people have been congratulating me for a price decrease, which seems counterintuitive and sort of a bit. So the way we did it, firstly, great team who put together a great justification of why we think the price shouldn't be reduced that much. The medical information, the use of all the stakeholders involved. So we went in it to make sure we came out of it as favorably as possible. So it wasn't by chance. So I think that's how we did it. Am I happy with it? Yes, relative to what we forecast, because don't forget, back in 2023, we forecast that we're going to be in the IRA, and everybody said, "You won't be in the IRA because you're not going to sell enough Austedo to be on the list." So I said, "No, we will." And then we forecast it correctly. High-quality problem. Exactly, high-quality problem. So that's what we got to, but yeah. I realize you guys have put out $2.5 billion for 2027, $3 billion by 2030. There's a bit of a street perception. Is this drug off by early 2030s? Could you remind us the IP on the once daily side? Yeah, on the once daily, it's 2040, 2041, and the BID is 2033. So just to clarify, the transition from the BID to XR without us making any efforts is happening at a pretty good pace. And so I don't think we'll have any problem when it comes to 2033. And then I do remind people, because I have to remind them, because it's Teva, by 2033, we will have Uzedy and olanzapine in our schizophrenia. We have Emrusolmin in SMA. We'll have Duvakitug in UC and CD. And we may well have anti-IL-15 in either vitiligo or celiac disease in the early 2030s. So when it comes to 2033, although it seems like Teva is Austedo driven Uzedy now, in 2033, we'll be many different products. Makes sense. So is it fair to say, for internal modeling purposes, you guys see Austedo driving EBITDA through 2030 or through a meaningful part of 2030s beyond 2033? Yeah. At least for internal purposes? Okay, great. But we also see the contribution of Uzedy and olanzapine. Olanzapine gets launched Q3, Q4 next year. And we see that as being a big growth driver. Am I echoing? Oh, no, no. I'm making sure somebody has a mic over there. All right. So we see that, and that's going to be driving EBITDA. And then obviously, we'll have Duvakitug in 2029-ish. So I think that's also going to be something which we believe will be not only the best TL1A. We'll think it'd be one of the best in treating UC or CD. Makes sense. Excellent. I want to start to get into the grid for patients' journey on Austedo by dose. I guess my first question is, patients that are on twice daily, had any patients gotten to 48 mg yet? Or how is that journey going? Or is that harder? On BID? Yeah. No, patients go through on all the different doses. I can't give you a breakdown of exactly who's on how many on 48 mg for BID. Excellent. We're surrounding you. Yeah, exactly what's going on here. It sort of feels like... Should I call my security and then we can have a... They're looking at me. They're staring at me. His jacket looks heavy. But yeah, that's the answer. I can't give you the specifics on the 48 on BID. But obviously, what we see when patients start on XR, it's because the titration is easier and more simple, and it's easier to then continue that titration. Patients will generally seem to be ending up on a higher dose. Right. I guess what I'm really getting at is doses above 40 mg. It was only 2% of patients on them a year ago. It's still below 10% right now. Is that going up 50? Is that going to 30? Is that going to 80? So on that, I haven't sort of got into the specificity of the modeling of that, but we see our milligrams per patient going up continuously. And so because even if you look at now where our average dose is, it still has a long way to go to hit the average dose in the phase III studies. And that's where the physicians titrated to where they thought was relevant for the patient. So I think there's still significant opportunity for the milligrams per patient to increase. But we haven't sort of talked about what that could be, what that could look like. Okay, got it. So that was Austedo. I think I want to quickly transition then to olanzapine as well. But just ahead of that, could you remind us from a numbers perspective? I want to do Q4, and then I want to do 2026. From a Q4 perspective, is it reasonable to say that... Maybe just remind us the pushes and pulls from the Revlimid perspective first. Yeah, no, I think that's a good point. So for Q4, if you're thinking about how to think about it from modeling and revenue, and as we communicated on our Q3 earnings call, Revlimid came into Q3 versus what we normally saw in priors in Q4. That was just the timing the purchasing has shortened with regard to the wholesalers. And so we're not going to see that Revlimid revenue in Q4. So that's now. So that's worth taking into account. And the fact that we had a significant launch of Victoza, the GLP-1 last year, which that is another comparison where we don't actually have that significant revenue in Q4 this year. So that's the reason to make sure people are modeling that generics business with those differences in Q4. So Q4 will be down versus those two numbers. Got it. Okay, so Q4 will be down versus those numbers. And then as I think about 2026, so Q4, you mentioned the impact is obviously Revlimid and Victoza. As I think about 2026 perspective, Revlimid has a huge top line number in 2025, but on EBITDA and free cash flow levels, much smaller. So could you remind us what the year over year from that modeling perspective looks like? Yeah, so I mean, look, roughly we've got about $1 billion of Revlimid that disappears next year, generic Revlimid. And so what we committed to right at the start of last year and all throughout last year was we're going to grow EBITDA in 2026. EBITDA in 2026, we're going to be able to grow our cash in 2026. And that's sort of the thing to lock in on. And we're going to grow our operating margin in 2026. So those are the key points. The people asked me about revenue, and I said, our focus is on driving the EBITDA and the operating margin, and that'll be driven through our innovative products that are growing. Because don't forget, our innovative portfolio in Q3 grew at 33%, and it's now over $800 million a quarter. So that's going to be driving the innovative products. That's going to be driving the EBITDA, but from a top line point of view for the whole company, it's going to be flat to slightly down because we're losing. Revenue flat to slightly down, but EBITDA stable. EBITDA growing. EBITDA growing. And free cash flow? Free cash flow going as well. Okay, got it. JP, you want to touch up any financials before we move on? Financials? Yeah, no, no, it's on the savings program. You're going to hit like three quarters of it, if I'm not mistaken, by 2026, end of 2026? Not quite close. We're going to hit two third of it. So of the $700 million we said we're going to do in 2027, we're going to hit two third by end of 2026. I can tell you one track to hit our number in 2025. We know where we're starting in 2026. And by the way, a non-insignificant part of that is headcount. And the majority of that headcount has either been done or is actually planned to be done in the first half of next year. So we're very confident about that two thirds. Okay. Is that headcount affecting sales and marketing in any way, or how do you? No, I mean, what we've done is mainly focus on things around our corporate entities. So G&A headcount down significantly. And we were driving a whole modernization of Teva to improve efficiency and also reshape it for the biopharma company we're becoming. But sales and marketing, no, because that innovative engine is what's driving our growth, and it's driving our EBITDA, so we want to keep fueling that. And then obviously, our manufacturing network, we're consolidating that. So we're exiting sites and we're driving more efficiency in that. And so that's got some headcount implications as well. Okay. Okay, which then leads me to, in terms of key products from a pipeline perspective, perhaps first starting with long-acting olanzapine. I think this is a question I might have asked on the earnings call too. Is there a commissioning voucher possibility? If it is, does that ensure that you get the label you want? Can you just walk us through that? Yeah, no, I think just to be clear on that, I really want one. We don't have a commissioning voucher as of right now. So I mean, you're going to have to have one to use it. But on the assumption we did get one, I don't think olanzapine is the one we'd use it on. And that may surprise people. Let me explain why is. We want to make sure that we get the right label for olanzapine. It's a very important product. And using a voucher to launch it three or four months early, I think, is useful and nice. But when we're looking at a franchise, which is $1.5 billion-$2 billion, we want to make sure we have the right timelines, the right discussions with the FDA to make sure that the favorable profile that we see in the phase III studies, particularly with no PDSS, that we get a thoughtful review of that and the right label. So for me, just managing people's expectations, I don't see that as one getting the voucher. What is the right label for you? Is it avoiding the monitoring? Is that 99% of what you're focused on? Or are you thinking Black Box avoidance as well? So look, I think obviously we don't want the black box. We don't think we justify having the black box because of the safety data that we have and all the studies we've got where we've had no PDSS. And so we want to get the label that reflects the clinical studies. And I don't think that leads us to having a black box. But I don't want to sort of start maybe negotiating that too much publicly because obviously the FDA are going to see it. But I think our data holds up. And so I think we should have. No monitoring is perhaps the first. Yeah, I mean, no monitoring. I mean, I think that's key. When we talk to physicians, they say it's about monitoring. Obviously, the black box tends to lead to the monitoring, but it's about monitoring. And obviously, don't forget, we had quite a lot of sites in the U.S. who actually did the phase III for olanzapine. So they understand the product and then they're super excited about getting it. So for us, it'll be to have no monitoring. Got it. How excited was your commercial team on Austedo prospects when you first joined, when you put out the $2.5 billion, which they didn't believe? And how do you compare that versus their excitement for olanzapine? Okay, that's probably not the question to ask because I don't think they were anywhere near as excited as I was. They were probably just shocked when I said, this is what it can do. They became excited because I showed them and helped them understand $2.5 billion was possible because obviously I've spent a lot of time in the biopharma industry. That said, the excitement around olanzapine is huge because it should be. I mean, I think what the team have done with Uzedy is remarkable, which is I always remind people, Uzedy is a long-acting treatment for schizophrenia. They entered the market with huge brands that have been there a long time, generic long-acting products, as well as branded long-acting products. You can't pick a more competitive environment to launch a product into when everything's mature, and we've shown what we can do with that, and so olanzapine doesn't have any of those. There is no incumbent brand. There is no generic long-acting. There's nothing there. It's just an opportunity for need for long-acting. So the excitement is significant and palpable, but what I'd say is more, what does that lead to practically? We've spent. It'll be two years till we launch. That we've been doing pre-launch planning on this, and I remind everybody that that pre-launch planning is things you do at head office, but also we're out there. We know the payers, we know the physicians, we know the nurse practitioners, we know the formulary committees in the hospital. We know everybody that's involved in the decision-making because we see them every day or almost every day with Uzedy. So I think this takes me back to my days in MS where we were launching multiple products at that company I was at. And so our knowledge of the patient journey is significant. So my expectations for olanzapine are significant. What I would say is, in case anybody's modeling out there, we've said $1.5 billion-$2 billion, but this isn't about being fast out the gate necessarily from a revenue point of view. It's being fast out the gate from a usage point of view and having lots of scripts. But I don't want to compromise value and access by trying to get access super fast because we've shown with Uzedy, we don't have to do that. Physicians want this product. I believe they'll fight for it. So for me, it's about we want to have the right usage really quickly, but we want to get the right access long-term to create sustainable long-term value. Makes sense. And Rich, remind me from an indications perspective, what do you have to do to get additional indications beyond just schizophrenia? Because I think that always matters to these markets as well as the ranges of doses perhaps. Yeah, we sort of haven't communicated too much on that. I suppose the one example I'd say is with Uzedy, obviously, our risperidone long-acting, we got our bipolar indication this year. And we did that by, we didn't conduct a phase III study to get that. We got that by using a different methodology with the FDA. And that's something which I think we could consider with olanzapine. And then we'll look at all the other indications possible. But obviously, the big one is in treating schizophrenia. And I remind people, the opportunity in olanzapine is significant, not just because olanzapine is the number one molecule used to treat schizophrenia, but also the fact that because it's for severe schizophrenia patients, compliance is absolutely critical. And when we speak to physicians, they say, these are the patients we need to be compliant because if they have an episode, it can be a significant interruption in their lives, but also it affects the efficacy of the drug going forward. And then the final thing, even though you didn't ask it, what I like about it was Uzedy and olanzapine, we basically treat mild to severe. It's about 80%-85% of the patient population with our two products, which the physicians know the technology that's used for them. They're both sub-Q. So I think we have a really powerful offering. And so just in schizophrenia, I think the $1.5 billion-$2 billion is how people should think about it. As we start to explore other indications, maybe that will obviously help us push that number up. $1.5 billion-$2 billion is really meaningful for Teva. Makes sense. Makes a lot of sense. Absolutely. From an EBITDA aspiration perspective, where do you see this going? I think the folks that are really, really excited on Teva think five can go to six and that's about it. Have you ever thought about where's the company going broadly? They think that's about it. That's it. That's the number. Those are the people that are really excited. Those are the people that are really excited. Okay. Well, look, we look way beyond six. I mean, if I just go through, instead of breaching $3 billion, you've got Ajovy, which people are talking about maybe hitting $1 billion. You've got Uzedy and olanzapine hitting $1.5 billion-$2 billion. You've got Emrusolmin, which if that is successful, which maybe has a low probability of success, that's a $4 billion product. You have Duvakitug and UC and CD. I believe the very knowledgeable and experienced CEO Sanofi, yesterday said that's going to be a $5 billion product. So you put those together, then yes, we're going to breach $6 billion. And then if you think about what the cash flow is, Uma, this is a financially transformed company in a really short space of time with no LOE on the horizon of any significance. And then we have anti-IL-15. We're going to give some data on vitiligo, celiac disease. We'll have PD1- IL-2, some data in that at the end of next year. We'll have data on our ICS/SABA dual action rescue inhaler next year because we've completed our recruitment by the end of this year, so we're going to keep having new product launches on top of product launches, which are all on margin. So I'll definitely get our gross margin; when we started this journey was 48%. It's now around 54%. Every time we launch one of these, our gross margin goes up, so we're going to go into the 60s. We're going to go into the 70s. We're going to go into the 80s. And that's all going to, with a very disciplined approach to OpEx, we're going to be growing our EBITDA on EPS, so yes, it's going to go beyond $6 billion. Investment Grade, where are we with that in terms of timing? And is that realistic possibility? And where do you see sort of leverage going with time? Yeah, so investment grade, I think we've communicated, is going to be probably the second half of next year based on our. The good thing about our investment grade is it's not just because we're paying down debt diligently, which we are. We're growing EBITDA. So that's the. And we're going to keep growing EBITDA. EBITDA is going to start to accelerate. But we'll have that by the second half of next year. And then you said, where do we want to keep our leverage? I think we'll sort of decide that as we go forward. I think getting to investment grade is important for us. And as we keep growing EBITDA to $6 billion and beyond, we have a lot of financial horsepower to do what we want to do. So I think we can stay within that. Obviously, if there's opportunities in the future to significantly improve the value of the company, then we'd look at that. I think because the financial trajectory is on such a strong incline that we could probably stay there. Makes sense. My last question, I'll let JP ask the last question too. But my last one, Richard, we haven't seen the maintenance data for the TL1A yet. I think that's an important data point coming up. And I ask because dosing steps down. It's also the ability to differentiate versus competitors during induction is always a lot easier than during maintenance. So when should we expect the data and how would you set the expectations into that? So, we should. I think we've said the first half of next year, but I think it'll be more the earlier part of the first half of next year. That's not super specific because I think I'm just waiting to find that out. And I think the second part of your question, how important is that? Can you differentiate in maintenance because that's always a lot harder? Well, I think we'll have to. You're stepping down the dose. Yeah, look, I think I probably won't answer that because we'll let the data as it comes out talk for itself. I think we go back to what we said when we turned over the phase II data, which is we think we clearly have the best TL1A. So I'd like to think that every data that comes out would support that. Makes sense. JP, anything last minute? On the finance side, we still have some investors sometimes get confused with the securitization of vehicles, and when they plug these things in cash flow models, they get confused and sometimes they call us and they're not very happy with it, but then they understand. Can you please explain a little bit how they work and how long are you going to be using them? So we have one sort of. Firstly on the cash flow, there's a simple way to answer that question without getting to the specificity of the question. It is our cash flow is going to hit probably around $2.7 billion in 2027. It's going to be way over $3 billion in 2030. So it's almost an irrelevant question, which is, I don't mean that in an insulting way, but the securitization that was used, we're drawing down now anyway. So that's the important thing. But the most important thing about Teva to understand is our EBITDA is growing and our cash flow is growing. If we're talking about $6 billion EBITDA, we're talking about $3 billion-$3.5 billion cash flow. This isn't just a transformative financial change within the next few years. And I think that's the thing that should be. I think it's exciting investors and I think making us a real growth story. Excellent. Looking forward to seeing you in a bit, later today.