Coiled Therapeutics (LSE:COIL) — Interim Results

0:00 Good morning, and welcome to the Rockford Therapeutics PLC Investor Presentation. Throughout this recorded presentation, investors will be in listen only mode. Questions are encouraged and can be submitted at any time via the Q and A tab situated on the right hand corner of your screen. Simply type in your questions and press send. The company may not be in a position to answer every question it receives during the meeting itself. However, the company can review all questions submitted today and publish a response where it's appropriate to do so. Before we begin, I'd like to submit the following poll. I'd now like to hand you over to Executive Chairman, Stephen West. Good morning, sir.

0:32 Great. Thanks, Lily, and good morning, everyone. My name is Steve West. I'm the Chairman of Rockford Therapeutics. I'm joined here today by Adjane Reginald, who is our CEO. And we're here to talk about our interim results, which we released this morning, and also to give you a brief company update as well. So without much further ado, I'll jump into the presentation.

0:57 Disclaimer. So just to remind everyone who we are. We are a listed biotech company. We're focused on developing first in class medicines in the high value and high growth oncology market prior to partnering or selling to big pharma. That really does explain what why we're here, what we're doing, and I hope you can see that we've achieved a lot in this space in the last six months of this year as well. So moving on to the interim results. So just a few highlights here. So cash at bank end of June was 1,380,000. We had a net loss for the six months of 742,000, which compared reasonably favorably with the previous six months of previous interims of 22.

1:46 Loss per share has come down dramatically. Our total assets have gone up, and that's as a result of mainly because we bought Oncogene in 2022, but also we bought a bit of plant and equipment for the laboratory that we use as well. Liabilities have come down significantly as well. So the balance sheet is looking very healthy. And our shares on issue have gone up, again, mainly because of the acquisition of Oncogene in 2022. So fairly, I hope, standard healthy set of interim results there.

2:25 So what I'll do now is I'll just hand over to Adjan who can add a bit of meat to the bone and go through the highlights on the first six months of this year. Thanks, Adjan. Thank you, and good morning to everybody. To give you a bit of context, last year for for Opt four was really about us setting up, setting the foundations for us to move forward with our portfolio to bring that portfolio through development. And what you'll see here is the highlights that demonstrate that we've been delivering against those milestones. So first of all, we signed an exclusive worldwide license agreement, excluding Japan with Randox Laboratories to use the mid kind antibodies. This is in the area of diagnostics. We as a company are focused on therapeutics. So while diagnostics is not our core, it's great for us to be able to do a deal in that area. And, the diagnostics will be critical to help us to identify the patients that have MIDKIN related cancers, which are the cancers that we're trying to treat.

3:24 We then also, formed a scientific advisory board led by professor Joe Martin, with professor Trevor Jones and Armin Keating. These are all experts in the field. They're people who have worked in clinical trials with big pharma and moved early stage products like ours into the clinic. So have very good relevant experience and are independent. So able to give us, you know, a very robust peer review process as we go through deciding which programs to go forward and how to take them forward. And now on to some specific milestones with our different programs. So ROCK a one and ROCK a two, which are our mid kind antibodies, successfully completed in vivo safety in preclinical development.

4:13 This means we were able to reach a significant milestone with these programs. We reached that milestone on budget and in time. So it's it's very good progress by our r and d team. When we took those programs into in vivo efficacy, so that's when we actually test to see whether the the two antibodies are able to kill cancer. We were able to demonstrate that in osteosarcoma. So osteosarcoma is is very important because it's an orphan drug, and we'll talk a little bit about the commercial significance of that, perhaps later on and also in our RNSs. What we're able to demonstrate was the ability to reduce osteosarcoma. So we're able to demonstrate cancer killing activity with our two antibodies, ROCK a one and ROCK a two.

5:04 So up until now, we've had four programs in our portfolio. And in this six month period, we're able to add an additional program. It's very exciting new technology, the mRNA technology. So this is a technology that we focused on MidKine and what we've been able to demonstrate with the mRNA cancer medicine is that we've been able to demonstrate in vitro efficacy. So in the laboratory, we've been able to demonstrate the cancer killing ability of the mRNA. As Steve mentioned, our business model is to take early programs to identify what we think is gonna be breakthrough science and ideally identify that before the market and before potential acquirers have have seen value in it. There have been a number of deals recently that have demonstrated that, particularly with one of our other programs, stat six.

5:51 And so we are in multiple discussions. The nature of those discussions is is and I think we'll address that in the questions as you go forward. But the company has had significant interest from multiple licensing partners. Come to the next slide. So now look at the specific programs in this sort of overview chart. So as I mentioned, we have five different types of programs. We have antibodies. We have the RNA oligonucleotides. We have mRNA, sRNA and the MK cells. The antibodies we've completed both in vivo safety and in vivo efficacy, both in metastatic lung and also in osteosarcoma.

6:41 With the RNA and oligonucleotide, we're on track to complete in vivo safety in the end of this year. And with the mRNA, the breast cancer and liver cancer, this is our newest program as I mentioned, is in in vitro development at the moment. With the sRNA, we already have completed in vivo safety and in vivo efficacy data, and that was that was well reported. And now what we're doing is moving forward to look at how we can combine that s r n a with nanoparticle delivery. For s r n a, this is very critical. So the ability to deliver the s r n a to the target site, so to the cancers that you want to deliver the s r n to is is is very important and a and a significant commercial milestone.

7:27 But the key part of all of this is you only want to deliver s r n a where you've demonstrated the s r n a can kill cancer. So, you know, in the grand scheme of things, we've got the important part. We've got the important part. We've been able to demonstrate that our antibodies and our sRNA can kill cancer in validated models. With the sRNA, we're now developing delivery systems that allow us to target that killing potential. Similarly, with the MK cells, we're continuing our in vivo safety, but those cells have demonstrated in vitro efficacy previously. So again, we've got another candidate where we've been able to demonstrate that the ability to kill cancer, and we're now progressing through in vivo safety so we can move these programs into licensing or, know, with selection into the clinic.

8:18 Talk a little bit about external market. So, you know, the beginning of our our discussion this morning, we've talked about how we're doing and and how we've been able to deliver against milestones that we promised. Obviously, the backdrop of that is the market as a whole. There's been some pretty significant changes in the market since we relisted in September last year. And particularly, what we're seeing is a large amount of deals in UK and Europe. So 46 deals totaling over $5,500,000,000 in q one of this year. And this is driven by a number of factors. Yeah. Big Pharma has a patent cliff. So Big Pharma has a requirement to fill its portfolio with programs from companies with innovative products.

9:05 And and that's really the key. The key is for Big Pharma to be able to find innovative products that are first in class. Now as we've shown in our previous slide, we're blessed with all of our programs being first in class and and potentially best in class programs. So they have the potential to fill the requirements that Big Pharma is looking for. When we look more broadly, we see that there's been over $80,000,000,000 of of deals in the first five months of twenty twenty three in biotech and particularly immuno oncology, which is the which is the niche that we work in, is up 6% versus the previous quarter and 42% versus q two of twenty twenty two. So what we're seeing at a macro level is this movement from post COVID, a very conservative regrouping the pharma into now a much more aggressive acquisition model as they look at this patent cliff, which is, you know, which is very important to them over 2027, 2829.

10:10 One of the key deals that's most pertinent for us is the stat six deal. So stat six, remember, is our s r n a program. A large pharmaceutical company based in France, Sanofi completed a $1,200,000,000 deal with a with a small biotech company called Reclidex. This deal included a $125,000,000 upfront, and this was for a preclinical stat six program. It's a program which is at the same stage of development as our program, and this is on the basis of stat six being a target, which is now validated and very important for both immunology and immuno oncology. So in summary, I think, we're well placed for moving our programs forward, which is what we can do to highlight the value that we're creating for for shareholders.

10:58 But against that, that has to be against this backdrop, which is m and a and deal making is now significantly increased. And particularly, some of the programs that we were able to select before they were hot, before this was an area that big pharma was interested in, like the step six program. We're seeing validation of those programs, and and

11:20 therefore, I would argue validation of our business model and our strategic approach to identify early innovation. So as we go forward, as promised, we're we're delivering r and d targets and preparing candidates for clinical readiness, and we'll be completing that towards the end of this year. The the near term opportunities for the company are licensing deals and the ability to take one or more of our programs into the clinic. The strategic goal of the company, I think, you know, aligns very well with the pharma paradigm. 90% of successful biotechs are acquired by big pharma because as we talked about, big pharma has a requirement to fill its

12:07 fill its portfolio with pat with programs that are already coming off patterns. So this pattern cliff is a big driver for acquisitions in big pharma, and we see that from the the large number of acquisitions in Europe and and more broadly worldwide. And we're very focused on delivering our r and d, but also equally focused on delivering licensing transactions. We have a number of those conversations ongoing. They're confidential, but, of course, we will announce data sorry. We will announce results as we near

12:39 the ability to be able to look at finding heads of terms or or a point where we feel the transaction's likely to go ahead. Very good. So, Steve, if I can come back to you, and then we can perhaps look at questions. Sure. Thanks, Ajay. So we have a number of pre submitted questions, and we also have some questions that people have lodged during our talk. Believe it's still open to questions if you still want to ask questions. We have quite a few here, which is great. It's good to see the interest in our story, and I'll work through them now.

13:28 So first one we have is how discussions in regard to licensing deals or sale of company or assets progressing? Do we have much interest and how how advanced are the talks? Kind of touched upon that just now, Ajam, but maybe sort of reiterate where we're at there. Absolutely. So we're in, you know, multiple confidential conversations. Know, big pharma discussions do do take months. They're not they're not done in weeks. As as I think many of you know, I have a a background in in as a deal maker for big pharma. We we're in confidential discussions. As those discussions become

14:10 solidified, then, of course, we'll we'll announce them. But for the moment, we can't say more. Thanks, Next question, which I was expecting is is the company planning on doing a fundraise? Quite a common question for a company that's releasing interim results. No. We're not. We're not planning on doing that. Our business plan is to progress our r and d to a level where we can enter into licensing discussions, which we're we're we're doing right now. And our plan is to complete at least one transaction in the near term, and that's going to deliver two main things for us. First thing is it's actually gonna crystallize some value and, I think, make it easier for people to understand how much these programs are potentially worth.

14:59 And secondly, it's gonna fund our business going forward as well.

15:03 So, no, we're not not not looking to do a fundraise. I think it's also worth mentioning as well. You can see our cash at bank number there. I mean, it's not not a huge number, but it's certainly enough for us to deliver on our plan, particularly when you take into account, we are we do most of our r and d work down in Australia.

15:20 And down in Australia, we get a 43 and a half percent cash rebate for r and d expenditure. So that certainly helps the the cash balance as well. Next question, would licensing deals make Rockport more appealing to potential buyers, or would they prefer to do their own deals? Over to you, Adjane, for that one.

15:49 I think it you know, we're we're in multifactorial conversations. You know, we're we're talking to companies that are interested in licensing one or more programs. Our market cap is so low that those conversations, you know, are typically the license the typical value of a license deal is typically, you know, much larger than than you would see in a small company like ours. So I think as we talk to strategics, to big pharma companies, they're looking at individual programs or they're looking at multiple programs. I think acquirers would typically be interested in multiple programs, or you'd end up in a in an auction situation where you have multiple parties interested up. You know, I've been on the on the other side of those.

16:40 And in those in those sort of discussions, then what starts the licensing program moves very quickly into m and a because the only way to get the asset is to buy the company. So these are, you know, standard paradigms that we see in big pharma. You know, many times licensing deals end up in in m and a if there's significant competition.

17:03 Great. Thanks, Adrian. Next question. In a recent interview, Adrian stated that Rockford had fifteen years of data. Rockford has only been accepted around four years.

17:15 It's actually three years, but that's fine. Where has Adjana obtained fifteen years of data from?

17:22 And can we trust that data? So over to you, Adjana, for that one. Yeah. No. Absolutely. So you're quite right. Rockfall's only been around for three years, but Rockfall has acquired two significant companies, Luramed and Oncogeny. The work done at Oncogeny, some of the patents were filed nearly twenty years ago in two thousand and and four and five. And then some of the cell work, the core technology was was invented in 2009, 2010, etcetera. Similarly with LyraMed, there's over a decade of work on the mid kind programs. So so that's where the work comes from. You know, the nature of Rockwall acquiring companies means that those companies had done significant rounds of work often costing, you know, millions of dollars, Australian dollars, particularly with Lyramid on r and d before it was acquired by Rockwell.

18:14 Yeah.

18:16 I mean, just to reiterate, so I think Liramed had actually spent tens of millions Oh, yes. Right. Yeah. Data and and patents, which we acquired in 2021. Thanks, So next question. You tell the market that you are in deal mode, but then directors buy on the open market. How can Rockford be in deal mode if you are not in a closed period?

18:41 Good question. However, there hasn't been any director deals since August 2, I think. So seven weeks ago. We're obviously very sensitive about not dealing in closed periods, so we certainly weren't trading within a closed period.

19:01 But all I can say is we are not transacting as a board at the moment. I think we're too engaged in licensing negotiations to be able to trade as directors. A good question. Next question is regarding some social media articles that have been posted online and and keep showing their face and quest questions around validity of patents and and tests. So rather than go through each allegation, maybe, Adrian, you can just give us a sort of

19:47 an overview of of a response for that for that question. Yeah. No. Absolutely. You know, I think, you know, social media, as we'll talk about perhaps later as well, is is is a free speech platform. People can have an opinion. But I think when you talk about patents, that there there is a a body, there is a regulator that decides whether a patent is valid or not. In our case, we have patents that have been granted by the US Patent Office, by the European Patent Office, by The U you know, UK Patent Office, multiple jurisdictions around the world. So, you know, I think those questions are either out of date or or, you know, show poor understanding. We have granted patents so that, you know, that has been adjudicated and the patents have been granted.

20:35 Thanks, Ajane. So, again, on the topic of social media. This is a this is a good question. How how does Adjane feel about Rockford having some prominent Twitterati supporters, probably ex r t r t's boys now Yes. Who own chunk chunks of Rockford that almost on a daily basis promote Rockford without Rockford delivering anything to underpin this promotion. Yeah. Over to you for an answer on that one again, AJ. Yes. I mean, I think the second part is maybe start with the second part. You know, I mentioned, we we were very clear, I think, in the prospectus and and in other meetings about what we were gonna deliver. What we can deliver is progress of our r and d programs, which, you know, we've been able to demonstrate.

21:25 I think that's that's the internal piece. You know, r and d team works very hard. They're very skilled. They're delivering, you know, a phenomenally large portfolio, which, you know, which many companies that have 10 times the value wouldn't have a a portfolio that is is as strong as this. So so I think we are delivering, and our team in particular, our r and d team is is delivering very well on time and in budget. I think as we talked about, Twitter x is a is a free speech probe, you know, free speech platform. You know, people have the the right to express their views. I think as long as that view is not abusive and it's not illegal, I think people can can can do that. And, you know, I'm very pleased that some of them are supportive. You know, you equally we we see some negative stuff on Twitter. That's the the nature of the world we live in and the nature of Twitter being a free breach platform.

22:15 Thanks, Sergio. I mean, I'd just like to add to that. I mean, Rockford has been in existence as a biotech company for a little under two years. And I say that time period that time period started when we acquired LyraMed in 2021. I think what we've achieved in less than two years is remarkable. And I'm very proud of what we've what we've achieved. So and I would urge people just to watch this space for the next six months or so and as we continue to deliver as we set out to deliver.

22:52 Next question. Rockford like to give presentations and conference papers, but when Rockford release clinical when will Rockford released clinical data to be peer reviewed? Shall I take that one, Steve? Yes, please. Yep. So we're a preclinical company. You know, as as we point out here, we're we're not at the point where we are in the clinic. You know, clinic typically talk about human trials. We would hope a very significant there would be a very significant inflection point in terms of valuation and progress of the company once we enter clinical trials.

23:30 Once we enter clinical trials, we will release data as as is customary through the to to the regulator and through conference presentations and peer review journals. But we're not in the position yet of having clinical data because we're a preclinical company.

23:49 Great. Thanks, AJ. Next question is, will so with the market refusing to value Rockford appropriately, are the board considering a straight sale of the company? No. We're not. But we do share the frustration on the market rec recognition for value. However, we see our job as delivering licensing transactions, and we're confident if we can do as we plan and deliver these licensing transactions, it'll be easy to subscribe a value to those transactions, and it'll be easy to see the how disjoined our market cap is to those transactions. So in summary, we plan to address this low valuation by just continuing to deliver, and, know, the market's gonna have to recognize the value at some stage.

24:44 So, no, a long way of saying long way of saying no. We're not looking at selling the company. Maybe if I could just add to the the the the valuation disconnect.

24:55 So, you know, the other thing to think about here is, you know, for for big pharma, you know, evaluation of of 10,000,000 or or 60,000,000 or a 100,000,000 or a 120,000,000 is all irrelevant. These are very, very, very small numbers for for a big pharma company. If you get a competitive process, if you have two or three big pharma interested in your program, your market cap is irrelevant to what the the licensing deal will end up being in my experience. And I've and I've I've done deals where,

25:25 you know, we've looked at companies that had very, very small valuations, and we ended up doing licensing deals with which are multiples of that valuation. So I think that's the other part of this. You know, we it is frustrating for us. It's frustrating, you particularly as as directors, but also as as investors that the that the share price doesn't seem to recognize the the great wealth of of medicines that we have in the portfolio. However, the the potential licensors, the potential acquirers of Rockford are are not interested in market cap. Thanks, Sanjay. Next question is, would you consider a large equity investor if there is a good offer on the table, or do you prefer a big pharma partner buyer?

26:13 I think the best way of answering that is we're not looking at doing a fundraise. So we wouldn't be looking at bringing an equity investor in as part of a fundraise at this stage. However, very equity investors are very welcome to buy on market to build up a position. We're very happy with that.

26:33 And in the meantime, we're gonna continue our business plan, which is to complete a licensing transaction to deliver some value and and funding for the company. Next question. Are you exploring grants, nondilutive funding, or do you no longer need it? Good question. So I mentioned earlier, we have a very good cash rebate system in Australia where we do most of our r and d work. So that's a very financially efficient way of doing it already. I think if when we move into any phase one clinical trials, then we'll certainly look at grants and other forms of non dilutive funding.

27:24 Next question is how can you get the story of Rock out and attract new investors?

27:30 That's the million dollar question there, I think. Very a very good question. So we we are quite active in terms of doing presentations, active on social media, and, you know, we think we are delivering as we've set out to the market that we intend to deliver. So we're just gonna keep doing what we're doing. We're gonna hopefully get more recognition when we do our first licensing deal therapeutic licensing deal. We've already done a diagnostic licensing deal. But once we get that deal done, we should get a lot more attention and get the story out to a larger audience. So watch this space for that.

28:19 Next question is, do you expect the diagnostic side of the business to expand? I think I know the answer to that, but I'll let you answer that, Ajay. Yes. The answer is no. As I mentioned, you know, diagnostics is very important. It helps us identify the patients that are affected by the cancers that we see here. So diagnostics is important. So for example, if it was the the the the mid kind osteosarcoma program, you need a you need a mid kind diagnostic to diagnose which patients have MIDKIND expressed by that cancer. We know, we're fortunate we've got a fantastic partner in Randox, probably The UK's leading diagnostic company who's developing diagnostics for us. So so that side of the business is is covered, and we focus on therapeutics.

29:11 You know, that as I said, diagnostics is important, but, unfortunately, the the returns for investors from diagnostics are are nowhere near as or can be nowhere near as exciting as as the the expected returns from a biotech company. So that's why we focused on bi on biotech. I think we're pretty good at identifying early technology before it's been validated and then taking it through a process as Steve talked about. Once we get into clinical trials, you would expect significant value increases. You don't get that same increase with diagnostics, unfortunately.

29:48 Thanks, Ajay. Next question. Please, can you provide more detail on how your program statistics program compares to rec I can't even pronounce it. Recla Duck Duck's yeah. There we go. Statistics program. Yeah. No. Absolutely. It's that follows on a little bit to just give you maybe thirty seconds of background. So Stat six is a is a great example, hopefully, an exemplar of of what we are trying to achieve here strategically and from a development perspective at Rockford Therapeutics. So stat six is an was an unvalidated target. What that means is that people didn't believe or didn't think that stat six was valuable in immunology or in in immuno oncology, so in in cancer.

30:36 Then in July, Sanofi, who have an enormous franchise. I think their franchise value is over 6,000,000,000, per year in revenue in immunology. Do a licensing deal with a very small, fairly new company called Reclodex for $1,200,000,000 for a single program. And that program is in preclinical development. So that program is at the same stage of development as our stat six that you can see here with with the green. And by doing that, they've done two things. One, they have validated stat six. They've they've sort of said to everyone, we as a big pharma company that has a great track record in this particular area, we believe that stat six is is a validated target. And secondly, they're willing to put a big deal. You know, a 125,000,000 upfront, 1,200,000,000 is a huge deal for a preclinical program.

31:34 Typically, you would expect a, you know, a fraction of that. A tenth of that would be still a great deal for a preclinical program. So long answer to your question, our program compares very, very favorably. You know, I haven't I haven't seen any unpublished data, but from the published data I've seen, I would say our program is is necked and, you know, head head to head with the Reconyx program.

31:58 Great. Thanks, Ajan. Next question. Do you plan to bring other programs on board?

32:06 I would say no, but I'll let you add some details, Ajan. Yes. No. I think the answer is no. And I think this is a an abundance of of of, you know, amazing that we have such a a fantastic portfolio. It's not a broad portfolio. It's a very focused portfolio, which is important, but it's a a big portfolio. You know, with the mRNA, that kinda came from internal resources developed within our existing budget. You know, I think Steve and the and the guys that brought in for such a a small amount after all the work was that was done on it in previous years in Australia allowed us to then build on that. And therefore, we've been able to move the mid kind programs forward very quickly. Similarly with the stat six and MK programs, there's a there's a moving at pace.

32:55 But I think for for us now that we continue to deliver, you know, we continue to deliver these r and d milestones. We then continue to deliver deals to demonstrate, hopefully, like stat six that, you know, that that we can we can pick the winners before they're validated, before they're appreciated by big pharma and by by market. And and that model, I think, then is sustainable. I think once we've out licensed a couple of programs, then we can we can look again and see what what's out there. But our, you know, our selection criteria is on is really based on, you know, the high value of the science and the very high unmet need. You know, we're looking at cancers here where these unfortunate patients, you know, that are do not have another option.

33:43 So that's where we're focused. We're focused on the cancers that are very difficult to treat, and we're bringing new medicines. So first in class, that's what we mean by that. This is a a completely new approach, which we hope will help these patients that otherwise have very little options. Great. Thanks, Next question. Would the company's low market capitalization impact the potential financial offer that big pharma companies would be willing to make to Rockford in a licensing or buyout deal? Again, I'm gonna say no and hand over to Ajam for detail. Yeah. I mean, if you look at the history of of pharma acquisitions, there are very, very few hostile acquisitions.

34:31 Very few. It's not it's not the style of big pharma to do hostile acquisitions. So and if you look at licensing deals, licensing deals are often completely unrelated to market cap. I think we've had a couple of examples this year of companies getting licensing up up fronts that are equal or or even a multiple of their market cap. So as I said, for big pharma, particularly big pharma at the moment, I mean, I think we we had the slide, didn't we, where we said we've seen $5,600,000,000 of deals across 46 deals in q one alone in Europe and The UK, 84,000,000,000 in the first five months of twenty twenty three. So, you know, with those numbers, you can imagine what the average licensing deal, what the averaging average acquisition is, and that's completely unrelated to the market cap. It will just depend on whether multiple pharmaceutical companies are interested in in Rockford.

35:28 So if multiple pharmaceutical companies are interested in multiple programs, then we'll end up with a with a with a different sort of offer. For licensing deals, you know, we're talking to multiple parties about each of the programs. So, you know, that seems like a pretty competitive landscape at the moment. Great. Now the next there's only a couple more questions to go. The next two questions are amalgamated into one question. Is the is the company happy with the level of interest shown in its pipelines? Does it align with the anticipated level of interest for pipelines at this stage? And are there multiple potential partners expressing interest in a single pipeline?

36:16 That's a very detailed question. Yes. Yes. Yeah. The answer in short is is yes. So, yes, we have multiple parties interested in in multiple pipeline products. And as as I mentioned, you know, pharma deals are are fairly transparent that, you know, as people know, I tend to celebrate my my friends and colleagues who are in in biotech who are doing deals by by posting. When they do a deal, I post it on on Twitter. So there are lots of deals going on at the moment, and and and those deals are public. And therefore, it's very easy to work out what a comparable is. Because of that dynamic, big pharma tend not to, you know, to be cheap. They tend to do competitive deals because there's normally two or three big pharma companies interested in each exciting product. And, you know, we're in the fortunate position where we feel and and I feel that we have an amazing portfolio that lots of people are interested in quite rightly.

37:15 Great. Now the final question. Could you provide an estimate of tax credits for this financial year, I assume, from Australia? This is definitely one for me. So what I can say is we this year, we have received about 250,000 Australian dollars in cash rebates from the Australian government. We're also in the process of applying for a 14 and a half percent cash rebate from UK government as well. So it's a for us, it's a material number. And I'd you know, if I was gonna estimate, and I I stress it's an estimation. For this current year, it's probably gonna be 300 to 350,000 Australian dollars in terms of the cash rebate.

38:08 So again, a a material number for us. And that is the last of the questions. So Steven, Ajan, thank you. And I think you've addressed all those questions you can from investors. And, of course, the the company can review all questions submitted today, and we'll publish those responses on the Investor Me company platform. Before redirecting investors to provide you with their feedback, which I know is particularly important to yourself and the company, Ajan, could I please just ask you for a few closing comments? Absolutely. As I mentioned, we you know, the early part of so the end of last year 2022 was really about setting the foundations to allow us to accelerate in both our internal r and d and in and our licensing deals. The licensing deals come from the data that we're generating from our programs.

38:55 The data we generate from our programs highlights both that our programs are progressing, but also the great value that these programs could potentially bring to patients that, have little other options. So, you know, our programs are all well positioned to be first in class medicines. First in class medicines are what's driving this huge boom that we see in, in deals in big pharma. So as a company, I think we're well positioned. We will continue to deliver those r and d results, and we'll continue to push these licensing deals. And I think as Steve said, watch the space. Thank you for your time today. Steven, Adjan, thanks for updating investors today. Can I please ask investors not to close this session as you'll now be automatically redirected to provide your feedback in order that the management team can better understand your views and expectations?

39:42 This may only take a few moments to complete, and I'm sure will be greatly valued by the company. On behalf of the management team of Rockford Therapeutics PLC, we'd like to thank you for attending today's presentation. Good morning to you all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everyone.