Greg Fraser: That’s very helpful. Thank you. Can you help with how to think about the growth for SG&A and R&D this year given the investments that you’re making on the commercial side and also on the clinical side with the CATALYST study?
Atabak Mokari: Sure. Greg, it’s Atabak. I’ll take that one. We have — as you know, we’ve historically been profitable and fund to remain profitable. Our R&D expenses will increase as we invest in our development programs and invest in programs to advance. And on the SG&A side, Sean discussed, continued investments we’re making on the commercial side there. So, you’ll see some increases on both sides there.
Greg Fraser: Got it. Okay. Last question, I just wanted to ask about the reason. You recently had the class action settlement. Curious about what do you think that might mean if anything for the other several cases that are pending and also for the DOJ investigation? Thank you.
Joseph Belanoff: Charlie?
Charlie Robb: Yes, sure. So, just the brief background for those who haven’t followed the story. We’ve been in this — defending the class action or purported class action lawsuit since 2018, so quite some time. And we — over time, as we prepared for trial some day in the distant future, we started off confident in our position and confident the way we were doing business and we really only got more so as things developed and as we got over and around and really reviewed all of the possible evidence, we just felt better and better, but had the opportunity recently to settle it. Because when I said that litigation is a distraction for more important matters, I really hope that everyone will really take that on board. And imagine you had a day where you could spend your time helping to move a drug — promising drug candidate through say the regulatory process or the development process or you can review a giant stack of emails from three years ago.
And that’s really the difference between settling and not settling. So, we chose to settle when we had an opportunity to do so on advantageous terms. Now what you’re referring to are there are a handful of sort of associated civil cases brought by plaintiff’s law firms sort of around the country. They think of these as sort of like the pilot fish that attack — attach themselves to sharks as they move through the ocean and try to survive off the food that escapes from the shark’s mouth, that’s what these lawsuits are like. And there are a handful of them. We will dispose of those, one way or the other, shortly following. This is my expectation, but you never — one never can tell. But one thing I can say for sure is that we’re very, very confident in our legal position with respect to them.
So that’s what Melucci securities class action portends for those ancillary cases. I think with respect to the Department of Justice, course, I have no idea what the attorneys at the Department of Justice are thinking. However, my understanding is that generally speaking, the Department of Justice does pay attention to what happens as you would imagine and sort of not loosely related, but sort of parallel civil case. There’s no actual legal connection between the Department of Justice action, our inquiry and the Melucci class action, but they probably have their eye on it. And I don’t know what they’re thinking because they don’t and wouldn’t tell me obviously. But I hope what they see is what we see, which is a settlement on very advantageous terms for the company, which reflects the sort of the confidence that we have in the way we do business.
So, I hope that’s the impression they take away from it and that colors their thinking, but of course, I cannot be sure. And that inquiry proceeds and we’ll just have to see how that plays out. We are very comfortable with respect to that inquiry also.
Greg Fraser: Great. Thanks for taking the questions.
