So — but no more additional color at this time on the JAK other than to say it is differentiated. We believe the FDA already has what they need and we’re tracking nicely for a first half — a path to a first half approval for ’24.
Chris Schott: Thank you.
Katy Grissom: Great. Thanks. We’ll take the next caller please.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Umer Raffat from Evercore ISI. Your line is open.
Umer Raffat: Hi, guys. Thanks for taking my questions. Maybe a couple, if I may. First, I saw you raised the overall guidance, but the low end of your net leverage expectation is now 5.5x versus 5.3x previously. And I was trying to understand why that would be. And I’m talking about the year-end net leverage expectation. Secondly, on the securitization facility, I noticed your collateral for that includes cash and investments and inventory, and it also proceeds to say all other personal fixture property or assets of the borrower. And I’m trying to understand, is that typical?
Todd Young: Yes, Umer, with respect to the leverage, we did increase, but as we called out, we’re expecting to pay down less gross net debt this year than we had previously had. But again, I feel confident that the management of the inventory that we’re getting into as well as the continued underlying growth in the business as we return to revenue growth in the second half will make that improve over time. And then, A/R facility is a very standard secured facility. This was really enabled by our ERP integration with having all of the receivables in one system, that allows us to execute this typical facility that’s got the lowest cost of variable rate financing for us at SOFR plus 125 basis points inside our credit revolver. So, something we’ve been looking at for years but just couldn’t execute until we had the implementation done, but very standard facility.
Umer Raffat: Thank you.
Katy Grissom: Thanks. We’ll take the next caller please.
Operator: Your next question comes from the line of Jon Block from Stifel. Your line is open.
Jon Block: Thanks, guys. Good morning. I’ll ask both at the front. Todd, the 1H to 2H ’23 EBITDA cadence seems largely in line with the ’22 cadence, but I believe the revenue seems a little bit more back-end weighted in ’23 relative to ’22. So, maybe if you could just explain the confidence in that slightly greater percent of sales for 2H ’23 relative to what you experienced last year? A quick sidebar question to that is the $21 million add back in EBITDA this quarter, do I have that right that, that aided EBITDA? It seems like $15 million of that might have been unwinding an accrual on Seresto. And that there was a natural segue there. The second part of the question would just be, Jeff, Seresto resolution is finally there. That’s great. Just would love you taking a step back and getting your thoughts about the long-term growth rate of that product going forward. Thanks, guys.
Todd Young: Thanks, John, for your question. No, I would say there’s nothing different on the revenue cadence other than second half of last year was not a strong second half for Elanco and that factors in. With respect to the Seresto settlement on the multi-district litigation we had, we’re in the process of finalizing that, but enough there to do the accrual. That is not in our adjusted EBITDA results, that’s in the OID part of the adjustments that you can see in the back of our press release as we walk from GAAP to our adjusted results. Jeff?
