Eli Kalif : Okay. Yes, Glen. So looking mostly on liquidity and free cash flow and the debt. So I will start by — if you look on the guidance we gave for the free cash flow, 1.7 to 2.1, that midpoint 1.9, if you compare it to where we end in ’22, call it, around 15% kind of a reduction, this is mostly related to the fact that we are considering coming back to the market to address our ’25 maturity debt take. And that means that we will — according to the current interest rate environment, we’ll need to step up in our fund expenses. So this element that I mentioned already in my prepared remarks, this is a third out of this, I would say, a decrease. Other elements according to the ongoing development with the time lines on the opioid settlement, we see ourselves paying the first payment, and that’s actually modeled in our free cash flow generation into Q3 ’23.
And this is around incremental additional $300 million versus what we paid in ’22. So this is kind of the dynamic on that midpoint. Now if you look on the lower end, it’s actually 1.7, part of the refinancing that we’re planning in ’23, actually planning to actually get a bit lower debt take for ’23, ’24 and ’25 to the level of 1.7, 1.8 in order to make sure that we have enough cushions to drive the business mostly because of those developments that I mentioned. And as I mentioned in my prepared remarks, we have ongoing actions going on our working capital. And that cash conversion improvement in the last three years mainly coming from those elements. So high level, in terms of liquidity, we see ourselves really strongly positioned in order to — the ability to start the debt as well to meet our commitments in terms of obligations, mostly with the coming of settlement.
Operator: We will now take our next question. This is from the line of Jason Gerberry from Bank of America.
Jason Gerberry : Just wanted to follow up on that free cash flow comment, I think that you used the term incremental for the $300 million of added opioid costs, but I think you had some payments for opioids in 2022. So should we think about that as like the $300 million plus what was kind of the run rate of payments in 2022? Or just the total of about $300 million of opioid-related payments? And then on the ’23 guidance element, I just wanted to ask the Humira question a little bit differently. So everybody is saying ’23 is going to be more of a modest year of biosimilar Humira uptake. But if you were able to get the interchangeability, mindful that you’re giving guidance on a risk-adjusted basis, but is there a big upside scenario? Or is it too early to say and you need to kind of get to July contracting before you can kind of comment on that.
Richard Francis : Okay. Thank you, Jason. Thanks for the question. I think I’ll hand you, obviously, the opioids and the cash to Eli and then Sven can talk about the opportunity with Humira and some of the variables in that. So Eli, first.
Eli Kalif : Yes. So Jason, thanks for the questions. I will clarify. As you recall, we had already before getting to that mature development on the nationwide, we already stated that we settled. And during 2022, we paid already around $130 million in our free cash flow. And that amount will have kind of carryover of around $150 million for next year. Now this is not including the $300 million nationwide that we will need to pay in — according to the current trajectory of the process in Q3 2023. So you can actually model around $430 million to $450 million that’s going to be paid for opioid this year. Is it clear?
Jason Gerberry : Yes, that’s clear. Thank you for clarifying that.
Eli Kalif : Yes, okay.
