PureTech Health plc Q2 FY2025 Earnings Call

Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining the PureTech Health 2025 Half Year Earnings Webcast. My name is Sami, and I'll be coordinating your call today. I would now like to hand over to your host, Allison Talbot, Senior Vice President of Communications, to begin. Please go ahead, Allison.

Thank you, everyone, for joining us for PureTech's 2025 Half Year Results Webcast. Our half year report was made available this morning and filed with the SEC. You can find the materials on the Investors page at puretechhealth.com. I'm joined today by members of our senior management team: Robert Lyne, Interim Chief Executive Officer; Eric Elenko, Co-Founder and President; Chip Sherwood, General Counsel; and Michael Inbar, Chief Accounting Officer. We're also pleased to welcome Dr. Sven Dethlefs and Luba Greenwood, who are leading our newest founded entities, Celea Therapeutics and Gallop Oncology. Before we begin, I would like to remind you that during today's call, we will be making certain forward-looking statements. These statements are subject to various risks, uncertainties and assumptions that could cause our actual results to differ materially, and we ask that you refer to our annual report and our SEC filings for a complete discussion of these items. We undertake no obligation to revise or update any forward-looking statements or information, except as required by law. I also want to remind you that we will be referring to certain non-IFRS measures in this presentation. The presentation of this non-IFRS financial information is not intended to be considered in isolation or as a substitute for financial information presented in accordance with IFRS. A reconciliation of the IFRS to non-IFRS measures that we will be referring to today can be found in this presentation and is also available on our Investor Relations website at investors.puretechhealth.com and in our SEC filings. With that, I'll turn the call over to Rob, our Interim Chief Executive Officer.

Thank you, Allison, and thank you everyone for being here today. We appreciate your time. For those new to PureTech, we are a Boston-based biotherapeutics company listed on the LSE, operating with a hub-and-spoke model to develop new medicines for patients. We started 2025 with strong momentum in our clinical advancements, which has continued into the first half of the year as we issue more data from our main program, deupirfenidone, LYT-100, which we will discuss later. This clinical progress showcases the strength of our portfolio and validates our business model. In this presentation, I will outline our priorities for the rest of the year, focusing on how we will deliver long-term value to patients and our shareholders. We have identified three key strategic pillars that we are prioritizing to advance the business. Central to our mission is developing new treatments for patients, which remains a core part of our operations. We are dedicated to progressing these programs with operational discipline and a patient-first urgency, particularly for diseases with significant unmet needs. Additionally, we aim to enhance our engagement with U.K. capital markets through a renewed emphasis on our LSE listing. We are thankful for our U.K. shareholders who have supported us since our IPO, and we will continue to work hard to deliver on their expectations. As part of this initiative, we are announcing the appointment of up to two new non-executive directors to our Board, focusing on individuals with expertise in U.K. capital markets to strengthen our governance. A key focus moving forward is disciplined capital allocation, which is a distinct advantage of our hub-and-spoke model. This model allows us to invest early in assets, test their potential with modest capital, and efficiently discontinue any that do not show promise. Conversely, we can direct significant resources toward areas with high potential for impactful new treatments, which can also provide financial returns for PureTech. A prime example is Karuna Therapeutics, which we advanced with only $18.5 million in capital. After spinning it out and listing it on NASDAQ, it raised substantial capital and successfully achieved approval for its asset, now marketed as Cobenfy for schizophrenia, marking a major success both for patients and financially for PureTech. We aim to replicate this disciplined approach with our recent founded entities: Seaport Therapeutics, Gallop Oncology, and Celea Therapeutics. On this slide, we present our current portfolio and the value it offers shareholders. As many may know, we have experienced some management transitions recently. I have taken on the role of Interim CEO, and we have appointed an interim Chair. This change has allowed Sharon Barber-Lui, our Interim Chair, and me to engage with several shareholders, gathering feedback on how we can better communicate the exciting programs and benefits within PureTech. To address feedback, we are presenting our core value components in a new format. We currently have three founded entities that we believe have significant financial upside for both PureTech and our shareholders, and that also promise innovative treatments for patients: Celea Therapeutics, Gallop Oncology, and Seaport Therapeutics. These entities originated from programs within PureTech, where we either developed or in-licensed the assets, advanced them through trials, and eventually deemed it appropriate to spin them out. Seaport Therapeutics, established last year, has often prompted questions regarding its post-money valuation. We still hold over 35% equity in Seaport and have tiered royalties on the drug products developed there. We have confirmed a valuation of $733 million post-money from the Series B financing led by leading venture capital investors. We also have Gallop Oncology and Celea Therapeutics, our newest founded entities, which are being developed into separate businesses that can attract external funding while still retaining significant ownership. Each of these entities is currently wholly owned by PureTech. By securing external funding, we can transfer the R&D costs off PureTech's balance sheet, enabling these entities to progress independently. We are pleased to have the leaders of these programs, Sven Dethlefs and Luba Greenwood, present later. There are also legacy assets that we'll not focus on today. While they hold promise, we believe they aren't materially contributing to our current business value, which is why we prefer to concentrate on the three entities we've highlighted. Aside from these core components of value, we also benefit from royalties and milestone income from Cobenfy. Our model allows us to maintain non-dilutive economic returns from this asset even after spinning it out and facilitating an equity return. We hold a 2% royalty on Cobenfy sales exceeding $2 billion annually, alongside eligibility for certain milestones. We have listened closely to shareholder feedback on Cobenfy economics and have been asked to provide indications of potential value based on third-party analyst forecasts. We will discuss this today and present some models projecting what those economics could look like according to consensus analyst forecasts, estimating a value of around $300 million over time. Additionally, we are fortunate to maintain a strong balance sheet with nearly $320 million in cash, having not needed to raise funds in several years. This self-funding status has allowed us to avoid diluting our shareholders and provides us with operational flexibility into 2028 and beyond as we spin out entities to reduce cash burn at PureTech. Next, we will review the potential forecast for Cobenfy's economics. As mentioned, we have been attentive to shareholder requests for transparency regarding the future value we see within PureTech. Although we are bound by commercial confidentiality on some payments, we will share current analyst forecasts for Cobenfy sales from independent banks covering Bristol Myers Squibb, which acquired Karuna. We have compiled a range of low to high forecasts and calculated a simple average, modeling the potential outcomes relating to our royalty and milestones. This approach is based on independent third-party forecasts, independent of our internal valuations. There is considerable potential for upside here, particularly given that these forecasts primarily consider existing approvals for schizophrenia, with a pivotal trial for Alzheimer's psychosis results expected at the end of the year. A positive outcome could significantly enhance sales projections. We trust shareholders will find this indicative projection beneficial for understanding the value within PureTech. We will now move on to discuss Seaport Therapeutics, the first of our core founded entities. This serves as a successful example of our disciplined innovation approach. Seaport is focused on advancing novel neuropsychiatric medicines and maintains a significant economic interest for us, with a 35.1% equity stake and rights to royalties and milestone payments for its drug advancements. Seaport was founded in April 2024 and has successfully raised over $325 million from top-tier life science investors, validating its potential. Additionally, Seaport boasts an experienced leadership team with a proven track record in neuropsychiatric drug development. Key figures include Daphne Zohar, the former CEO of PureTech, who now serves as Seaport's CEO, and Dr. Steve Paul, who co-founded Seaport and has extensive experience in developing successful neuropsychiatric medicines. Currently, Seaport is advancing three novel treatments, all of which have first-in-class potential. These programs are based on mechanisms with demonstrated clinical efficacy, but they were held back until now when Seaport is leveraging the proprietary Glyph platform to overcome previous limitations. This platform allows drugs to be cloaked as dietary fats, reducing side effects and making them more appealing for oral administration. This area is of significant interest in the pharmaceutical industry, especially as investors seek the next big therapeutic opportunity. We are enthusiastic about Seaport Therapeutics and look forward to sharing updates on their progress. Finally, we will discuss Celea Therapeutics, the second of the three founded entities, which recently launched under Sven Dethlefs' leadership. I'm pleased to introduce Sven, who will provide more insights on Celea.

Thank you, Rob, and hello, everyone. Many of you have probably seen from the website that I've actually been working with PureTech for over a year as entrepreneur-in-residence. I'm excited to lead Celea Therapeutics as I believe we have the potential to bring a truly groundbreaking therapy to patients suffering from IPF. So what is IPF? IPF is a progressive lung disease with a median survival of just 2 to 5 years after diagnosis. The current standard of care treatment offers only modest efficacy in slowing lung function decline. In addition, the side effects of standard of care treatments prevent patients from reaching higher, more effective doses. And unfortunately, as a result, treatment uptake is low. Only 1 in 4 patients with IPF in the USA has ever been treated. And even for those who start therapy, more than 40% eventually discontinue due to side effects and the lack of efficacy. Yet despite these limitations, the combined peak sales of the 2 medications approved have reached over $5 billion in annual sales. And that, of course, underscores the enormous opportunity that a new treatment for IPF would have. Deupirfenidone has the potential to be used across multiple patient segments. What we aim for is a therapy that can be used for patients who currently are not on treatment or those who have discontinued treatment, but also those who have actually already started treatment with one of the other 2 medications because we believe this drug has a very nice profile between efficacy and tolerability, which will be attractive for all patients that are suffering from IPF. We believe in the potential of deupirfenidone because of the unprecedented efficacy that we have seen with deupirfenidone 825 milligrams TID in our ELEVATE study. ELEVATE was the Phase IIb study that we just completed last year in December. And there are 3 elements that I would like to highlight. One is the potential for lung function stabilization. What we've seen with deupirfenidone 825 milligrams, so our high dose, was that the efficacy approached the natural lung function decline expected in healthy or older adults. That was unexpected. The efficacy will beat standard of care when you compare it to an active comparator that we used in the trial, pirfenidone, where we've seen a 50% greater treatment effect with our 825 milligram TID. And what we can also say is that we not only had an active comparator, but we also had the comparison, of course, to placebo. And since we've seen that both placebo and pirfenidone behaved as expected as shown in other trials before, we know that we have run a high-quality trial and that this treatment effect is having real potential for these patients and especially since we can support the observations with pharmacokinetic data that has shown that deupirfenidone 825 milligrams has 50% greater exposure versus pirfenidone, which may have driven the greater efficacy observed. So we have here a nice correlation between the pharmacokinetic data and the efficacy in the trial. And I think the whole package of efficacy and tolerability data points to the enormous potential this drug has. I would also like to share the data from our open-label extension data of the Phase IIb trial of ELEVATE. That is the continuation after the blinded phase for another 26 weeks. So we have overall 52-week data. What you would expect over 52 weeks in IPF patients is a decline of around about 200 to 350 ml without treatment. So that's based on historical data. And what we've shown with our patients that have been on 825 milligrams over 52 weeks is that they have only a decline of measured here 32.8 ml, and that is comparable to healthy older adults as we all lose lung function when we age. And that gives us confidence that what we have seen in the first phase of the trial – So the first 26 weeks in the blinded phase is actually confirmed also in the open-label extension trial. So that's, of course, a dataset that we will take to the FDA and it reinforces the completeness of the package that we have for our Phase III trial design. So we have here also a nice additional data set. We believe if this can be replicated in Phase III, it would constitute a substantial improvement over current IPF treatments. And for that reason, we believe deupirfenidone can be the new standard of care for patients suffering from IPF. Let me also spend a moment on why we believe this program is differentiated versus other IPF programs in the industry. The nature of the disease is idiopathic; for that reason, new mechanisms of action for this disease have an inherent risk linked to it. Our program is based on pirfenidone, a medication that has been established for over 10 years. It's well studied. And since we have a deuterated version, the molecule itself is already having a different risk profile than the other programs that you would see in IPF. We have that complemented with a robust and broad Phase II trial over 26 weeks with a 52-week open-label extension data that I just took you through. And then, of course, we also had a statistically significant outcome on the high dose versus placebo, although the trial was not powered for that effect. We also saw a very good study quality itself due to low variability in our trial. It was a high-quality trial. And as I mentioned before, the availability of an active and non-active comparator with pirfenidone and placebo gives us, of course, confidence that we have a very good dataset in our hand. So now going forward, what does it mean for Phase III? The Phase III design will recapitulate key aspects of the ELEVATE trial, focusing on the high dose, and that is something that provides us with a complete package to develop a drug that will not only be potentially successful but also a new standard of care. In closing, we believe the deuterated pirfenidone program is positioned to become the next standard of care. We have a complete data package, as I've shown you here, we will share more of the data at the upcoming European Respiratory Society Congress in Amsterdam that's happening in September, where we show more of the Phase IIb data and especially the open-label extension phase. Our end of Phase II meeting is expected at the end of the third quarter of '25. And of course, pending alignment with the FDA, we anticipate the Phase III initiation in the first half of 2026. Thank you very much.

Thanks very much for that, Sven. We are really proud of the launch of Celea. We see this as a great example of the PureTech model in action, and we're really looking forward to the enormous impact, which we think deupirfenidone is going to have on patients worldwide and the potential value that this can generate for PureTech. We are not actually looking to fund Celea's further development entirely from our own balance sheet. This is us using the hub-and-spoke model to ensure that we leverage external capital to take this program forward, and that is a key area of focus for us and Sven at this time as we secure the Phase III trial design. So next up, I'm delighted that we're now being joined by Luba Greenwood, who is the CEO of Gallop Oncology. Gallop houses PureTech's oncology assets, which we have spun out into this separate entity. We see this as another clear example of our model in action and the repeatability of that model, as you've seen with Celea, but also with Seaport, which has already raised external funding and historically with Karuna, which was successfully acquired. I'm delighted to hand over to Luba to talk us through this company.

Thank you, Rob. I'm excited to be here today to walk through the latest developments at Gallop Oncology. At Gallop Oncology, our mission is to move boldly and decisively to bring forward novel treatments for patients facing some of the most challenging cancers. Our lead program, LYT-200, is a monoclonal antibody targeting galectin-9, which is an oncogenic driver and a potent immunosuppressor in cancer. By activating the immune system and driving direct tumor cell killing in acute myeloid leukemia or AML and other leukemias, LYT-200 takes a differentiated 2-gear approach. This dual mechanism is critical in oncology because past efforts relying on a single mechanism often fall short. That's why we're extremely pleased about the progress we're making with LYT-200. We have received multiple FDA designations, including Fast Track and Orphan Drug designation for AML and Fast Track for recurrent and metastatic head and neck cancer in combination with anti-PD-1. These designations not only highlight the urgent need in these indications, but also reflect the quality of the efficacy and safety data that we have generated so far. We're very encouraged by the clinical data we have generated to date across our LYT-200 trials. As of this month, we have completed enrollment in Phase Ib AML and high-risk myelodysplastic syndromes or MDS trial, which is evaluating LYT-200 as a monotherapy and in combination with venetoclax and hypomethylating agents. The trial is in patients with relapsed/refractory disease, where the overall survival is approximately 2 months, and there are no established standard of care options to date. As monotherapy, LYT-200 has demonstrated a clear clinical benefit. In combination with venetoclax and hypomethylating agents, we are seeing responses that suggest LYT-200 may meaningfully enhance current therapies with patients achieving complete responses, hematological improvements, and even transfusion independence. We last shared data in April for nearly 60 patients across both arms. Since then, we enrolled nearly 30 additional patients and continue to see meaningful and sustained clinical benefit, resulting in longer treatment durations and extended follow-up. This has allowed for the collection of more mature data sets. And I am pleased to share that we have selected a dose that we intend to propose to regulators for advancement into Phase II. With the strength of the responses observed to date and the longer treatment durations achieved, top line efficacy results are now expected in the fourth quarter of 2025 with additional efficacy and overall survival data anticipated in the first half of 2026. These milestones will provide a more robust foundation for regulatory discussions and will help further derisk the design of Phase II studies and inform the broader development strategy. I'm also pleased to share that we have completed our Phase Ib trial of LYT-200 in solid tumors, where outcomes for relapsed/refractory patients remain poor. The trial evaluated LYT-200 both as a monotherapy and in combination with anti-PD-1 antibody tislelizumab and confirmed a favorable safety profile across all cohorts with particularly promising efficacy signals in head and neck cancer, where we observed a complete response lasting more than 2 years as well as partial responses and stable disease. Taken together, the growing body of data across hematologic malignancies and solid tumors reinforces LYT-200's potential as a differentiated therapy with very broad applicability. With key data readouts expected beginning later this year, we look forward to building on this momentum and unlocking the full value of this program for patients.

Thank you very much, Luba. Gallop remains completely owned by PureTech as of now. We identify significant value creation opportunities within those programs, in line with our business model. We are prepared to secure external funding to advance these programs while retaining financial benefits. When we evaluate these catalysts related to our core programs, they typically manifest as data and regulatory interactions. The schedule of these milestones is a direct result of our hub-and-spoke model, which we take great pride in. Now, moving on to the financial highlights. I am pleased to report that we concluded the half-year with a strong cash position, attributed to our sustainable business model. We have not needed to seek external capital for many years. As of the half-year, our cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments were just shy of $320 million, compared to just over $366 million at the end of 2024. On a consolidated basis, our cash assets stood at just under $320 million at the half-year, versus $367 million at the end of 2024. Regarding our cash burn, in the first half of this year, we have focused on strategies to enhance operational efficiency concerning both our R&D spend and our G&A expenses. We experienced a decline year-on-year, a reflection of costs migrating from the PureTech hub to Seaport following its spin-out in 2024. This shift affected our R&D and G&A expenses. On a consolidated basis, our operating expenses were nearly $50 million during the first half of 2025, compared to $66.7 million for the same period last year, showcasing the reduction as Seaport has spun out. Looking ahead, we anticipate a continued decrease in R&D and G&A expenses as we further the spinouts of Gallop and Celea. Thank you for your attention. I hope this presentation has been helpful. We would like to express our gratitude to all stakeholders who contribute to making PureTech what it is, including clinical trial participants, their caregivers, advocates, clinicians, and partners who are vital to our operations and to our supportive shareholders who have allowed us to reach our achievements. I would also like to personally thank the PureTech team and Board for their efforts to ensure we positively impact both patients and shareholders. We will now open the call for questions.

Our first question comes from Miles Dixon from Peel Hunt.

Thank you for the presentation. It was really helpful, especially being able to focus on the core programs. I have a few questions, but I'll start with this one. The operating costs in the first half of '25 are $49 million. We've noticed a decline half-on-half over three reporting periods now. Can you provide an estimate of what portion of that $49 million is allocated to operating and R&D expenses for Celea and Gallop? Just a rough idea, if possible.

Certainly, Miles. So the majority of the R&D spend, obviously, is attributed to Celea and to Gallop. So as we've indicated, I think, obviously, priority at the moment is looking to get those 2 assets funded with external capital. As they formally spin out, that will remove the majority of that spend from our balance sheet and from the sort of PureTech level P&L. So from that perspective, we would expect that as we go forward to have a further reduction on our R&D overhead as we move into 2026.

And I presume then that particularly the guidance around cash runway that any catalysts around financing or partnering would have a positive impact then on your cash runway. Am I reading into that correctly?

That's absolutely right, Miles. And also the other element in terms of cash runway, we've got 2 components really to it that are influenced by the Celea and Gallop funding. So one is positive impact on our cash runway extending it further as the R&D spend moves off the PureTech books and goes into these independent entities. We, at the moment, also will be making capital contributions we expect to into those 2 financings. Because those are live financings that we are currently putting together, we're not in a position to guide publicly as to what those contributions would be. But obviously, once those fundings have been completed, that will give us both greater clarity, and we will be sharing that with shareholders around what our future cash burn would look like, but it will also then enable us to give much greater clarity around where we see our cash pile post those 2 financings. And that would also be a natural opportunity for us to consider how that cash may be used to help generate returns for shareholders.

Great. I would like to ask about Celea, since it's the newest entity in the portfolio. You have a busy period ahead with the upcoming FDA meeting in the third quarter, trial design discussions in the fourth quarter, and a potential beginning in the first half of 2026. Do you think the trial design is something that potential partners should review, or are you confident in moving forward with it regardless of partner interest? I'm trying to understand the timeline for potential partnerships.

It's a great question, Miles. And look, what's important for us around deupirfenidone is that there is such exciting great data that we got at the end of last year, and crucially that's been confirmed by the 52-week open-label extension study, which came out earlier this year. So for us, we think the fundamental attractiveness and potential of deupirfenidone is there, and we know that, that is something that we are getting positive responses from. As you say, naturally, when one is structuring the financing, it ties very closely to what the trial design will look like. We are very confident around the trial design. But obviously, we do need to have those engagements with the FDA at the end of this month. There is a process that follows there to make sure that we get agreement as to what that trial looks like. And that is a natural data point which certain funders would be looking for before actually committing any funds. But obviously, that doesn't stop the active work that is going on at this stage to look at putting that financing package together.

Great. I have my own forecast for KarXT, Cobenfy, and what the future economics might mean for PureTech. However, I was particularly intrigued by the early years, which seem to have some fluctuations. Could you provide a high-level overview of what drives the variations in the economics that affect PureTech?

Certainly, Miles. Exactly. It's in the milestone. So there's the 2% royalty, which is obviously fairly easy to calculate and one can sort of separate that out from the numbers that have been put out today. But also then beneath that are these various milestone arrangements that we have. Those arrangements are with multiple parties and are commercially confidential. So we aren't able, I'm afraid, to provide the sort of full breakdown, but they are obviously influenced in part by the sales projections that we see. And so we thought it would be helpful to set that out. But it's worth noting, as you say, Miles, everybody has their own view on this. I think it's fair to say we internally are more bullish than the consensus. And it's always worth remembering that BMS paid nearly $15 billion for Karuna. And so those guys obviously have their own view as to what they think this drug can do in terms of sales, and they wouldn't have paid nearly $15 billion in cash if they weren't very confident that there are very significant sales for this drug going forward.

Our next question comes from Faisal Khurshid from Leerink Partners.

This is Heidi Jacobson on for Faisal Khurshid. What are the key variables you need to discuss with the FDA regarding Phase III trial design for LYT-100? And then we have a quick follow-up.

Sure. Well, I'll pass that over to Sven Dethlefs, who's joining us, and he can speak to the Phase III interaction trial design that we're having. So Sven, would you mind taking that?

Thank you, Rob. The briefing book for the Phase III trial design has been submitted to the FDA. As mentioned, we expect to have a meeting with the FDA at the end of September. What we submitted includes questions regarding the trial design, pending FDA approval. These inquiries are standard for a Phase III trial that leads to approval. Although I can't share further details at this moment, we will provide complete information on the intended trial design once we receive confirmation from the FDA. Based on my experience with Phase III trial designs, the discussions we are having regarding our approach with 505(b)(2) are quite typical and straightforward. Thank you.

Got it. And just a follow-up. When should investors expect disclosure of pipeline activities beyond LYT-100 and LYT-200? And is BD still possible to expand the pipeline?

So certainly, I mean, we are continually looking at new opportunities for innovation. We have a number of assets that are currently under review internally. Our approach historically, which we've always found to be most successful is to try and sort of perform these clear experiments very early on these assets. So we do a lot of both sort of modeling and thinking around potential drug assets and development pathways and also commercial attractiveness. But then also there's work that we can do to really understand if we think there is a potential for a drug there. So that work does continue as and when there are assets that we feel are promising enough and that we really feel that this is something we could be taking forward and putting material capital behind. That's then when we would be pulling the covers off, if I may, and showing them a little bit more. So there are assets like that, that we are working on at the minute. We haven't got anything that's at a stage that we think is right to share yet. But when we do, that is something that we will bring forward and can explain more about what we're working on.

We now have another question from Miles Dixon from Peel Hunt.

If I could just follow up on a question I should have asked on Celea. Could I just ask if there is any preference for the format of partnering it? I mean, is it potentially syndication partnering, royalty, all of the above, still considering them? Just give me if there's anything more you can give me.

Sure, Miles. Well, look, I mean, I'd say the most sort of honest answer is we look at where the best cost of capital comes from. And so that's really where the judgment gets made. We would expect that normally, and we've seen this with our other founded entities that equity contributions from external parties are the most natural way of funding assets such as this. So I think if one were to think of that as perhaps the default, that probably makes a lot of sense. But obviously, we do look opportunistically at other forms of capital that we can either augment or replace with depending on the relative cost of that capital and the terms that are being offered. So I would think around the standard spinout with equity contributions from external funders as the default, but then as I say, we do think creatively and opportunistically about other structures that we can use as well.

Great. And one for Luba regarding Gallop. There is some intriguing data coming in from both solid and liquid, particularly the stable disease results between monotherapy and combination therapy. However, the response is significantly improving with the combination. I was wondering if the partnership discussions are primarily focused on liquid, or is there an equal interest in both liquid and solid?

Sure. Do you want to go ahead with that, Luba?

Sure, absolutely. So we are right now focusing on the liquid and AML. So that's where the focus is in our partnering discussions. But certainly, we're open to all discussions with potential partners and having those ongoing at this time.

We now move on to any questions from the webcast. And we start with, is UBS planning to research PureTech?

So many thanks. Conscious, this is a question that we have had raised by a number of shareholders since we appointed UBS as joint broker at the start of the year. As I'm sure many will be aware, obviously, initiation of research coverage is independent by analysts. That's an important aspect, obviously, the way the model of the system works, such that it ensures the independence of that analyst coverage. So we continue to engage with a number of analysts, including those at UBS. And obviously, we always welcome initiation and coverage, and it is good when that happens, but it is obviously because of the independent nature of that coverage, it isn't something that we can control.

Our next question reads, please, could you provide some rationale into sticking with London as the primary listing?

Certainly. I'm pleased to address this. Our view has been that there were fundamental reasons for PureTech to choose London as its listing venue about a decade ago instead of other exchanges. We have always believed that London is particularly appealing for companies like ours that have a portfolio approach. While the NASDAQ and U.S. markets are important for our engagement, and we have several significant U.S. shareholders, we observe that many U.S. and specialized investors may not be as naturally inclined towards our portfolio strategy. In contrast, this approach continues to resonate well with many U.K. investors. Additionally, we recognize that some of our U.K. shareholders can only invest in U.K.-listed shares, making it crucial for us to maintain a strong and dynamic London listing. Therefore, we do not see any need to shift our focus away from London, and we aim to keep honoring and rewarding our U.K. shareholders who have played a significant role in supporting the company and its success since our IPO.

Our third question is in 4 parts, and it reads, can shareholders in PureTech get access to the proposed financings of the individual spokes? And how do we get access to those opportunities and access to their structures so we can better understand that what we own by providing transparency into financing agreements? And if you do not allow current investors this opportunity to fund the spokes, are you diluting the value of PureTech investors? And do leaders of the spokes have a conflict of interest with PureTech stakeholders?

There are some interesting questions here, and I appreciate the opportunity to address them. It seems there’s a request regarding access to potential financing for the individual spokes. Currently, we are engaged in ongoing discussions with Celea and Gallop about financing arrangements. We typically adhere to a traditional venture capital model, which involves collaborating with reputable VCs capable of conducting due diligence and evaluating our programs. These investors can provide funding not only for our immediate financing needs but also for subsequent rounds to facilitate the ongoing development of the companies. Given the nature of these rounds, they are private and typically involve specialized biotech VC investors, sometimes alongside strategic partners. Therefore, it isn’t feasible for us to disclose the terms of these financings as we finalize them, nor can we broaden participation at this time. That said, I understand the desire for transparency regarding our structures. We do share our percentage interest on a fully diluted basis in our foundational entities. Recently, we've also included an external data point regarding the Series B valuation for Seaport, which we believe contributes to transparency. There was also a concern about whether not allowing direct funding for spokes might dilute the value for PureTech shareholders. It's important to note that this aligns with our risk management and portfolio strategy. While there may be some dilution, it also represents a risk-sharing opportunity. Drug development is inherently risky, but successful ventures can yield significant rewards. Our portfolio model allows shareholders to have balanced exposure across multiple assets, which can be viewed in different ways; some may see it as dilution while others may see it as mitigating risk. Lastly, regarding the potential conflict of interest between spokes' leaders and PureTech shareholders, we believe there is alignment since the success of the spokes directly benefits PureTech. Ensuring that this success translates into value for our shareholders is a critical responsibility for our management and Board, and it's a key focus as we move forward.

Can you share with investors the exact capital structure and economic interest in Seaport so that investors and analysts can model potential results?

So I think maybe there's a little bit of overlap perhaps here with obviously the question which we just answered in terms of there are restrictions when these companies spin out, although they are very much PureTech founded entities, and we're very proud to maintain the association with those businesses. They do become separate companies with confidentiality around their financing structures, which is confidential to that company, but also to the other private investors in there. So we are somewhat limited in what we can say. Again, I hope that a little bit of disclosure around the post-money valuation of Seaport might be a data point that some investors may find helpful as they are looking at modeling. I think there was also a question maybe around the economic interest in Seaport. So we have the equity position. We also have tiered royalties. We've put out publicly that that's a 3% to 5% range. The bit of guidance, if it's helpful, the higher percentage, those are really on very significant sales. So it really depends how successful Seaport is. We think that there are, as we're indicating, huge potential for those drugs. Unfortunately, these depressive disorders are very, very widespread. It's an enormous market opportunity, which unfortunately reflects the wide prevalence of those diseases. But obviously, we have potential there for very significant royalties if that asset is successful as it moves forward.

What key clinical milestones have been funded for Seaport?

I believe this is a consistent theme, and we are committed to being as transparent as possible. However, Seaport has not publicly shared guidance regarding the timeline for its various programs. What I can confirm is that it successfully raised over $325 million in its Series A and B funding last year. This clearly indicates the level of investment we were making in the Glyph programs before they transitioned to Seaport. They are progressing significantly, and that $325 million is a substantial amount of capital. Therefore, investors can be assured that they have the resources and runway to achieve meaningful advancements with the current funding.

Our sixth question says, can current shareholders have access to funding Gallop?

So again, there may be some overlap with the previous question. The nature of these rounds is significant.

It seems we have lost connection to Robert. Please bear with me while I attempt to reconnect him. Eric is going to take over for the time being while we establish reconnection with Robert. Eric, please go ahead.

Yes. Just to continue the answer that Rob was giving. Given the nature of the financings and that the financings for our founded entities are ones where institutional investors are the ones providing the capital, it doesn't provide the opportunity for all of the shareholders who are shareholders of PureTech to necessarily participate. However, shareholders of PureTech do get the benefit of ownership of those companies through their ownership in PureTech.

Our next question reads, what is a reasonable timeline for an appointment of a permanent CEO?

Yes. So right now, Rob is the interim CEO, and he is continuing as the interim CEO, and the Board is aware of the status of the CEO position. But for the moment, Rob is continuing on in that role.

Our next question reads, there has been some strategic interest in the company recently. Can you provide any color on where you stand and when these approaches happen?

Basically, as a public company, of course, anyone can approach us at any time. That's not something that's in our control. And if that happens, of course, the Board has a fiduciary obligation to consider any offer that might come its way.

Thank you very much. That is all we have time for today. We thank everyone for joining the call. You may now disconnect your lines.