Thank you, Ryan. Good morning, everyone.

I welcome you all to our post-results earnings conference call to discuss our Q4 FY26 results. Our results materials have been uploaded on our website, and you may like to download and refer them during our discussion.

Today's discussion may include some forward-looking statements, and these must be viewed in conjunction with the risks that our business faces. On the call today, we have with us our Chairperson, Ms.

Nandini Piramal; CEO, Global Pharma, Mr. Peter DeYoung; and our CFO, Mr.

Vivek Valsaraj. With that, I would like to hand it over to Ms.

Nandini Piramal to share her thoughts.

Good day, everyone, and thank you for joining us for our post-results earnings call. FY26 was a transitional year for the company, marked by a combination of external headwinds and deliberate strategic actions that we believe will position us well for the next phase of growth.

During the year, we were impacted by macroeconomic uncertainties, subdued biopharma funding in the first half, inventory destocking in key on-patent commercial products, and intensified competition in inhalation anesthesia in the non-US markets. As a result, we reported a year-on-year decline in revenues and EBITDA.

However, when adjusted for the impact of destocking, our underlying performance was more resilient, with the business delivering modest growth in both revenues and EBITDA for the year. Despite these near-term challenges, we made significant progress that has put us on a stronger footing for FY27 and beyond.

These include a strong pickup in RFPs and order inflows for our CDMO business in the second half of FY26, especially for our overseas sites, which have a superior gross margin profile; expansion of our CDMO commercial team to engage with more clients in key regulated markets of the US and EU; strengthening our execution across our network sites to ensure customer delight; the completion of the Kenalog acquisition at the start of the year; steady ramping up of our sevoflurane supplies to ex-US markets from Digwal; and continued momentum in our consumer business, led by the power brands and the e-commerce channel. These factors put together give us the confidence that we're well positioned to return to healthy early-to-mid-teen revenue growth, with EBITDA and PAT growing faster in FY27.

On quality and regulatory compliance, we continue to demonstrate strong performance during FY26. We successfully completed 38 regulatory inspections, including three US FDA inspections, without any official action indicated observations, sustaining our best-in-class track record of zero OAIs.

In addition, we underwent 209 customer audits during the year, compared to 165 in the previous year. This marks the highest number of customer audits completed in a single year in our history, reflecting heightened customer engagement, deeper technical interactions, and the growing complexity of programs that we support.

Sustainability continues to remain a key focus for us. During the year, we made strong progress against our identified priorities: decarbonization, reducing fresh water intake, responsible waste management, diversity and inclusion and belonging, strengthening our supply chain practices, employee safety, and CSR initiatives.

This commitment was also reflected in our improved ESG ratings, with a score of 68.5 from SES ESG Research and 64 from NSE sustainability ratings. Moving on to business-specific highlights, starting with our CDMO business.

Our CDMO business reported revenues of ₹1,708 crore in the fourth quarter of FY26 and ₹4,915 crore for the full year. Adjusting for the impact of temporary destocking, the business delivered modest revenue growth during the year.

Growth was impacted by macroeconomic uncertainties and slower RFPs and order inflows in the first half, on the account of subdued biopharma funding. However, with biopharma funding rebounding significantly in the second half, we witnessed a clear acceleration in RFP activity and order flows.

This gives us confidence that we're poised for healthy revenue and EBITDA growth in FY27. Importantly, we're seeing a strong pipeline of RFPs at our overseas sites, which, converted to orders, should help scale revenues and unlock operating leverage.

During the year, we further strengthened our commercial teams and undertook restructuring to align with evolving demand patterns and changing market dynamics. These actions should help us deepen and sharpen our customer focus in key regulated markets of the US and EU, improve order prioritization, and enhance speed of response.

During the year, we also saw better RFP-to-order conversion rates, especially with new customers. If we maintain this momentum with the open RFPs, we should have a healthy order book for FY27 and beyond, which is an important determinant of our medium-term growth trajectory.

On the development pipeline, we're working with more than 155 molecules, with 25 currently in Phase 3. These Phase 3 programs represent a strong source of future on-patent commercial opportunities.

In terms of innovation, 47% of our FY26 CDMO revenues came from innovation-related work, with $96 million contributed by on-patent commercial manufacturing. While this represented a year-on-year decline on a reported basis due to the temporary destocking in one product, we saw strong growth across other on-patent commercial programs.

Demand for our differentiated capabilities remains high, especially for ADCs, HPAPI, onshore sterile fill finish, and onshore drug substance. To capitalize on this demand, we've been investing steadily.

Our $90 million investment to expand sterile injectables and payload linker capabilities at the Lexington and Riverview sites remains firmly on track. The Riverview expansion has already been completed and is supporting customer requirements, while the larger Lexington phase is progressing as planned and is targeting for completion by the end of calendar year 2027.

During the year, our execution improved meaningfully, with stronger performance across key operational KPIs, including OTIF, RFT, campaign readiness, and schedule adherence, driven by our Operational Excellence initiatives. As a result, we achieved a Net Promoter Score of 60, surpassing the industry average and reflecting high levels of customer satisfaction.

We remain confident in the long-term growth prospects of a global CDMO network and continue to support this conviction through timely investments in capacity and capability expansion. In an evolving geopolitical environment, our onshore manufacturing facilities have gained increasing relevance and are well positioned to benefit from customer preference for resilient and geographically diversified supply chains.

Moving on to our Complex Hospital business. In the inhalation anesthesia, we continue to strengthen our leadership profile in the mature US market, with market share increasing to 47%, compared to 45% in March 2024.

Performance in rest of the world markets, however, remained impacted by intensified competition. While sevoflurane supplies to these markets have commenced from our lower-cost Digwal facility, traction is expected to build progressively as regulatory approvals are secured.

In the intrathecal segment, we maintained our number one position in baclofen in the US, reaffirming our leadership in this high-entry-barrier category. Within injectable pain management, we're working with our supplier to resolve supply constraints.

New product launches will be an important driver of growth in the CHG business. In line with this, we've recently completed the acquisition of Kenalog from BMS, with revenue contribution expected to commence from Q2 of the financial year.

Successful integration of the product in our portfolio will be critical given its manufacturing complexity. Kenalog has limited competition and carries healthy EBITDA margins in line with the CHG business.

In terms of differentiated and specialty products, we continue to invest in 505(b)(2) programs, complex generics, differentiated generics, and select branded products. These are pursued through in-licensing arrangements and co-development partnerships to support long-term growth.

We have already entered into partnerships for a few products, which are expected to begin contributing over the medium term. These products are well aligned with our existing portfolio and distribution footprint, leveraging our strong hospital network and offering meaningful barriers to entry through product complexity, differentiation, or supply capabilities.

Moving to our Consumer Healthcare. We continue to deliver strong and consistent growth in our Consumer Healthcare business, recording 17% growth in Q4 FY26 as well as for the full year, driven by broad-based performance across the portfolio.

In our key representative markets, this has translated into a growth at approximately twice the market rate, reflecting continued gains in penetration and brand preference. Our power brands sustained their momentum, delivering approximately 26% growth in Q4 and 24% growth for the full year.

Key brands, including Littles, Lacto Calamine, CIR, and I-range, outperformed the market and continued to gain traction across channels and geographies. Several of our brands also crossed important milestones during the year, highlighting a strong consumer acceptance in a fast-growing segment.

During the year, we sharpened our focus on improving profitability and calibrated our strategy accordingly, anchored around two key pillars: first, we're driving product premiumization by launching increasingly high-value offerings aligned with evolving consumer preferences, enabling superior margins while addressing the upper segments of the consumption pyramid; second, we're shifting towards fewer but higher-impact launches, with a focus on quality and scale over volume and targeting categories with larger addressable market opportunities to ensure sustainable and profitable growth. Our e-commerce business has remained a key growth driver, recording 48% growth during the year and now accounting for nearly 30% of total ICH sales.

We maintained a calibrated and disciplined approach to media and trade promotion investments during the year, ensuring consistent and impactful brand engagement across the channels. Our marketing initiatives span television, social media, influencer campaigns, and regional activations, strengthening consumer connect across demographics and geographies.

In terms of our distribution network, while e-commerce is gaining a lot of traction, we're also simultaneously increasing our presence in the general trade, such as chemist and cosmetic stores, general trade small towns and cities, and hypermarkets and supermarkets. To summarize, FY26 was a year of recalibration, shaped by external disruptions and certain business-specific factors.

Despite these challenges, we exited the year on a stronger note, with distinct positive leading indicators, and expect FY27 to mark a return to growth. We're currently anticipating revenue growth in the early to mid-teens, with EBITDA expected to grow faster than revenue, supported by operating leverage.

This outlook excludes any revenue contribution from the previously destocked on-patent commercial product. While we remain mindful of the continued macroeconomic volatility, our underlying business is improving.

Consistent with historical patterns, revenues are expected to be H2-weighted, reflecting CDMO order delivery schedules and the ongoing Kenalog integration. Growth momentum is expected to build progressively from Q2 onwards, resulting in a meaningful improvement in full-year PAT and EBITDA.

As visibility improves over the course of the year depending how the macro environment evolves, we will reassess and update our guidance as appropriate. At this stage, the trajectory is positive, with increasing optionality to deliver improved outcomes as conditions become more supportive.

With this, I'd like to open the floor for Q&A. Thank you.

Good morning. Do we see any visibility in resumption of supply for our most important on-patent commercial product?

Second question is what specific steps we are taking to address the decline in CDMO revenue, and when we expect normalization?

As mentioned in Nandini's comments earlier is that at the moment we do not anticipate any orders in the near term from that customer. If and when that changes, you will see that in our forward-looking performance.

The second one is that, also as mentioned, excluding that product with that customer, even last year we were in a growth mode for the CDMO, and we expect healthy growth as we look ahead due to the factors that Nandini mentioned, which would be related to the improvement in biotech funding that happened in H2, which then led to a increase in RFPs, which then led to an increase in order booking, which was supported with a higher win rate than prior periods. As we expect and hope that that will sustain into the year as we go ahead, we should see that support a return to growth, absent corrections or one-offs, in the year FY27.

Thanks for taking my questions.

Hi, good morning. Thanks for taking my question.

If you can just articulate the impact of the Mideast crisis on business, and it could be multi-phased based on raw material shortages or even the raw material price increases, the freight increases, or the insurance increases. Just wanted to understand across various businesses how the contracts are structured, who is taking this pain, or is it being shared.

Just some color on that, please.

Hi Avnish. Across the broader operating environment, the initial assumption was the impact of this Middle East situation would possibly be contained.

As we see, it has prolonged longer than what was initially anticipated, and is becoming evident that some of this effects would remain prolonged and there would be implications on sourcing, utilities, logistics, working capital, a host of other areas as you alluded to. Yes, in the immediate term for us as Piramal, we expect the operations to remain manageable, but there would be some cost escalations.

We have to wait and see, because the situation is still very fluid. What we are parallely doing is to ensure that all the mitigation measures have been proactively activated, and this includes, but not limited to, also re-looking at passing on some of these cost pressures wherever our contractual structures permit to do that.

It's going to be a mix of multiple initiatives, Avnish, to try and mitigate, and we're taking a close look at the developments, and our actions will be aligned with how the situation emerges.

Thanks Vivek. Just to follow up on that, just if you have to rank your businesses in terms of ease of passing on these costs to your customers, what would be the business where it's hard, what would be the business where it's easy?

Just some qualitative color on that.

Obviously, the PCH business is to some extent going to be impacted to the extent the way the currency will impact the PCH business, and there we'll have to see what we do and how the market reacts as well. Coming to the other two larger businesses, it's completely going to be customer-based and our long-term relationships with each customer and what the contractual arrangements are, Avnish.

I wouldn't say that one business probably is more different than the other. It's going to be more case-by-case basis depending upon the product, the arrangements, etc.

Thanks Vivek. I will get back in the queue.

Good morning. Thank you for taking my question.

Just on your ADC slide, I think you've quantified ADC revenues are about $64 million. Just want to understand the outlook for this piece.

Say, what was this number in '25? Has it grown?

There's a lot of interest in this space, especially from both Big Pharma as well. Just want to understand or if you could illustrate some of the projects that we've been talking about, obviously without taking names, but just want to understand how should we look at the outlook for this and is it a meaningful growth driver when we look forward?

We thought you may notice this in the investor deck. Thank you for pointing it out.

We're very excited with what we have going on in ADCs, and we've added a number of new customers to our set of customers this fiscal year. With those additions, we would anticipate this number to be a meaningful driver of our growth in the short and medium term.

We would anticipate this number going up in FY27, '28, and beyond. Some of our recent Phase 3 additions would be including products for this offering.

We are excited with what we have going on here, and we look forward to sharing more in the future.

Peter, just one quick double-click on this. The slide talks about multiple services.

In your opinion, what do innovators value the most? Is it conjugation services, or is it payload?

Where is the large part of the TAM from a CDMO perspective trying to offer service for ADC, where does it lie, and how is somebody like Piramal positioned for it?

I'd say, at least in our experience, the most intense discussions happen around who is the best partner for the conjugation, which is where we get the largest share of our revenue. It's the area where you need to have, as a CDMO, a track record and capability to support the types of conjugations you want to do.

This is been our historical area of strength, and this is an area that we think is a key area differentiation when a potential client were to choose between, let's say, us and an alternative. While the mAb contribution may be larger in value, there seem to be many providers for mAb, and in that construct, the differentiation between mAb providers may be lesser.

Our experience has been the conjugation is the anchor, and then you can attach the other three services based on the preferences of the customer for single provider versus line-by-line procurement. We see both modes of interaction, but we do think that, again, to repeat, the conjugation is the primary focal point.

Thank you. My last question is to Vivek.

Just, Vivek, when you go to slide 18 just subsequently, you've listed out all your plants, right? I think one of the theses for Piramal was also around overseas facilities and how their profitability is flat, improving, declining, whatever.

When we look at '26 over '25, and maybe some outlook on '27 as well, how are these facilities doing, either in terms of utilization levels, maybe as an aggregate if you don't want to give site-specific numbers? What has been the improvement?

What has been the narrowing or reduction in losses, if any, right? Onshoring has been a theme I've noticed multiple times being mentioned, even in the opening speech as well as in the investor presentation.

Is there a durable trend towards getting this utilization at these sites higher? Those are my questions.

Thank you.

Shyam. Let me first talk about FY26.

FY26 has been a mixed year for our overseas facilities. In fact, several of our facilities both in the UK and in North America did demonstrate growth, and this came from an emanating interest in the specific niche capabilities that those sites had to offer.

When you eventually get to see the financials when they're uploaded for the year ended March '26, you will see that several sites did show a decent turnaround versus what it was. As you rightly alluded to, we are seeing interest, whether it's in our ADC space, or whether it's in our high-potent API space, or in our injectable space in Lexington, we are seeing a lot of interest, and we do expect the growth momentum to continue in FY27 as well.

I just want to add one bit to this, which is connecting some of the dots you would have heard in both Vivek's and Nandini's comments, is that our overseas sites typically have a higher gross margin. We are seeing significant RFP inflow, and also some recent order wins in the back end of last fiscal year.

This is driven by one thing that Vivek mentioned, which is the capabilities we have we think are intrinsically attractive, that's why we have the facilities. The second one is the general onshoring push is significant as a tailwind.

Put together, we're seeing even with what we ended in FY26, we would anticipate all of our overseas sites, but especially those in the US and UK, to benefit from this combination of factors. With that, again, higher gross margin and more differentiated offerings, we should see in FY27 subsequent improvement in these sites.

Lastly, just on data keeping. Just the intangible write-down that we have taken, ₹176 crore, can you qualitatively give some more details, please?

Thank you. All the best.

Shyam, aligned with our long-range plan, we have been prioritizing where exactly we spend our capital on. In respect of certain intangibles which were under development where the market and the macro conditions changed meaningfully versus what was originally envisaged, and where the potential financial outcomes did not meet our return ratios, we decided not to put in more capital in those spaces and take an impairment at one go.

Great, thank you.

hope I'm audible.

Yes, Abdul.

Yeah. The first question is with regards to your standalone financials.

If I look, in this quarter you have done 20%...

Sure, just a minute. Is this better now?

Yeah. My first question was with regards to your standalone financials and commentary on overseas plants.

Just trying to build up a bridge here. When I look at your standalone financials, I think this quarter you guys have done 20-odd percent, while on a consol basis the margins are a little lower.

Just wanted to get some sense on how things look at a consol level, and where exactly there is still some headroom to improve these margins.

Yeah. Abdul, first as you know that, and we've been talking about this narrative, that at scale, our operating margins shoot up, and that's precisely seen every year in quarter four.

In India, as you have rightly identified that because of a higher quantum of revenue, the standalone financials show better EBITDA margin. As far as overseas is concerned, as I responded to Shyam earlier, it's been mixed.

Some sites have seen a higher quantum of sales in quarter four, and some sites have not, which is why it's a mixed performance. That's why the margins have remained slightly lower as far as our overseas facilities are concerned.

It's just a question of scale. As we start building more from some of these overseas facilities, you will see improvement in the margins going forward.

Understood. My second question is with regards to your on-patent commercial manufacturing.

Firstly, if you can provide some color on how many products you're supplying currently. Second is with regards to even after adjusting for that one-time inventory destocking-related issues, I think there has been some growth.

If you could highlight what's driving that, and for next year, how are we looking at in terms of revenues from this segment, any launches into the pipeline, if you could provide any color on that front?

If you adjust for the one-time situation described, we would have nearly 50% growth in revenue from on-patent commercial products from last year to this year that just completed. The number of products is, I think, between 15 and 16 in the two years.

We think that that demonstrates that it's a more broad-based set of commercial products this year, and we would anticipate that to continue to become broader and continue to grow as we look ahead. We would expect, as you look into FY27 and beyond, that you would see less of a single product concentration, and we would see multiple drivers here.

Fair enough. Just last one, if I may.

If I look at your FY26 financials balance sheet and cash flows, there has been a sizable improvement in working capital. Going ahead, how should we look at the working capital days?

Is there still some scope for you guys to realign your overall working capital, and in terms of cash flows and debt repayment, how should we look at from a two-year perspective?

Abdul, first, you're right that there has been a very conscious effort to manage the overall balance sheet. Whether it's collection of receivables, or negotiating better payment terms with vendors, or optimizing our inventory on all of those fronts, as well as other allied factors like the GST credit refunds because we are net exporters, we've tried to ensure that all of them flow in, and that's kind of helped improve the situation.

The intent is obviously to continue this momentum, but I'm saying this with a lot of caution, because we are in a volatile environment, and currently, depending upon how the overall West Asia situation evolves, there may be a need to carry some extra inventory or there may be some kind of working capital block that might happen. We'll have to try and see how we monitor the situation.

Our net debt to EBITDA, as we closed this particular financial year, we were at 3.6, and we do expect to be remaining in this range basis the full-year number for next year as well. Though, of course, the long-term intent is to bring this down to close to one, but because we have this ongoing capex which we have announced, we will see a slightly elevated levels currently in the immediate term.

Understood, sir. Thank you, and wish you all the best.

Apologies for missing your opening remarks. Just wanted to confirm, did we guide for sort of mid-teens kind of revenue growth for FY27?

Did I hear that correct?

Naveen, we've guided for an early-to-mid-teens kind of growth, with EBITDA growing faster and PAT growing meaningfully for FY27. Got it.

Got it. Thank you so much.

Hi, good morning. A follow-up question on the guidance.

This early-to-mid-teen growth, is that in INR terms or constant currency?

That's in INR terms, Bino.

INR if it stays at current levels, 6-7% growth should come from just that, the constant currency would be that much less from the guidance. Can I assume so?

Correct. The only thing to note is that obviously when we did our estimates and budgets for next year, the overall currency INR was at a certain level lower than what it is today.

We already have some kind of a natural buffer that's got built in, because the rupee depreciated further to the dollar.

Understood. What would be the capex number for FY27?

For FY26, the year that closed by, we had guided for between $100 to $125 million, and we closed at about $94, there's some spillover that will happen from the current year to the next. At this stage, we are expecting a capex of about $120 to $135 million for FY27.

Largely, a part of it will be towards the Lexington expansion, which is currently ongoing. This does not include what we have spent on the Kenalog acquisition, or in case we manage to do similar kind of deals, that's not included in this.

Understood. One last question on tax rate.

At the consol level for the quarter, it has kind of normalized to about 25%. Has it normalized at the consolidated level, or will it be fluctuating like last few quarters?

Bino, that just builds the narrative that we've always been saying that at scale we will have peak and competitive operating margins which are in the high teens plus. Similarly, tax rates would be in the 24% to 25% range.

Now, this, as you can see, historically we've had revenues and EBITDAs more skewed towards H2, and more specifically quarter four, which is why you see this. It's not fully normalized.

In the interim period, you will see elevated ETRs on a full-year basis, but as we gain scale across, especially our overseas facilities, it will move in the range of being 24%

to 25%. For FY27, if I have to take a rough estimate, would you be able to provide that for the full year?

I would just say that it will remain at an elevated level, because for us, the tax actually depends upon the geographical mix. We are present in multiple jurisdictions where our effective tax rates are different, and in some cases we are profitable, some cases we are not, it depends upon that mix.

I'll just say that it will remain at elevated levels.

Got it. Thank you very much.

Hello, am I audible?

Yes, Yasser, go ahead.

Hi, thanks the team for allowing me to ask questions. Basically, what percentage of our say Phase 3 projects, I think we've got 25-odd projects, do we expect to commercialize over say the next couple of years, and if you could throw some light on would this be commercialization based out of India or our overseas facilities?

I would, as a rule of thumb, assume that if it's in the Phase 3 window in any given year, there would be a decision on the launch within a three-year window, some shorter, some longer. From a geographic mix perspective, we are reasonably nicely distributed between our different sites and different geographies, and so there's no single large concentration.

The only other point I'd make is that the overseas sites, particularly the ones in the US, well, I guess overseas sites in general, are much more a percentage of on-patent work, but we do have contribution from India as well for this. Sorry, I can't say it's only one place, it's actually reasonably broad-based.

Could you also probably give us some color on our peptide and the peptide opportunities that we have after we acquired Hemmo and our strategic deal in Yapan? How do you evaluate the success of these capabilities, and what would be say our long-term targets at Piramal to see and get these acquisitions to some sort of our internal metrics of success?

Could you probably give us some color on that?

We don't break out individual offerings separately, especially after they're fully integrated into our standalone financials, such as our peptides. However, if we look at it since acquisition, that offering has grown substantially, and the profitability is meaningful, and we've had great addition in overall revenue and incremental EBITDA and EBITDA margin expansion.

Historically, when it was acquired, it was largely a generics offering, and that continues to be the single largest contributor to revenue and a big driver of growth. However, we have been working hard to bring this site up to the expectations for CDMO customers, and we're now actually also selling that offering for them.

Given the size of the facility and the capabilities, we would anticipate it would be more suited towards the biotech customer than the large pharma. However, we do expect it to continue to grow in the medium term.

With respect to Yapan, we find that having this offering is an important element to offer in the bouquet for someone wanting bioconjugation or ADCs, and so we continue to remain interested and excited about being able to offer that. From a capability perspective, it is somewhat scale-limited, and so it's more for kind of that early first phase 1 post-IND offering, and that's the sweet spot for what we can do at that site with that investment, and we continue to expect to offer that and grow with them together.

Just building on that, Peter, fact that we've had such a legacy of being in the ADC space, since this space in biotech is seeing a lot of interest from innovators and investors, any thoughts of probably maybe scaling Yapan up so that we could probably do instead of just being a Phase 1 provider, maybe eventually if you do have any commercial outcomes, would that possibility exist with us, or would that molecule eventually go to someone who has those large-scale facilities, especially in the mAb space?

We will continue to evaluate the customer demand for the offering in this geography, and also this is being done in partnership with the current entrepreneurs that we are investment partners with, and we would evaluate that choice as we believe it presents. As I mentioned earlier in the remarks, there are substantial mAb providers that are providing very large-scale capabilities, and so we need to find the right niche for this offering, and we would continue to look at that to see if and where it's appropriate.

Sure. Just lastly on our CHG business, what has been say the pricing versus say volume growth across anesthesia and the non-anesthesia bit of our portfolio?

As a team, also what are your thoughts on growing the non-inhalation portfolio, right? Because predominantly almost about 2/3 of our business are from the anesthesia business.

How do we sort of increase the non-anesthesia piece of our business, and what are we doing to sort of do that, if you could give us some insights on that?

If you break our business in two, sorry, in two segments, and I think we have in our investor presentation some broad segmentation. You're not asking about inhalation, you're talking about other,

for other... Right, the other.

For other, there is injectable pain. This is a meaningful franchise for us where we've had primarily been supply-limited due to our CDMO partners that make these products for us, and so we're working very hard with those partners to try and address their issues with making the product for us and our customers.

We anticipate as our CDMOs address those issues that we should be able to not be supply-constrained, and there should be some growth potential in that product offering either this year or next year. It is a mature product, it's been around for a long time, and so we would see that to be modest growth.

The second one would be our ITT franchise, which is primarily the specialty offering we have in the US for intrathecal baclofen and morphine. In that case, we're reasonably high market share, and so we'd anticipate that to be more about maintaining revenue, which then leads to the third area for growth, which would be our pipeline of new offerings.

I think as we discussed in our investor day and subsequent communications, we've embarked on a plan, and Nandini also mentioned in her comments, to add new products to the portfolio, and those would be more specialty differentiated 505(b)(2) type category products. The investment and return horizon on that would be more in the later years in our FY30 plan.

In the near term from a new product offering perspective, that's why we're particularly excited with the Kenalog acquisition, because it brings current year FY27 revenues from an already on-market product. It's going to be a combination of selective, opportunistic additions to the on-market portfolio, like what we did with Kenalog, if other ones present at a reasonable value, along with the portfolio additions through co-development and licensing of products that would be more differentiated in the back end of the window, and then maximizing our potential from the injectable pain through the partnership with CMOs that are helping us there.

It's a bit of a multi-part answer, and it depends on the year, but we anticipate to have significant growth in our non-IA business over the five-year FY30 horizon that we described, and it's going to be not single offering there, but it's going to be the combination that will drive the growth in the non-IA portfolio.

Yeah. Lastly, Peter, if you could just shed some light on our one, I think the migraine drug where we had some destocking issues.

Do you expect maybe over the next couple of years to be at the levels before the destocking situation occurred, and have we lost any share in supplies as a manufacturing partner to the other supplier? If you could share some commentary on that.

I think we continue to be told by that customer that they prefer what we do for them when they have a need, but obviously any customer in that segment would have multiple suppliers. You all can view the IQVIA data.

Our anticipation is that if you do an outside-in look at the IQVIA data and the underlying demand, that there's probably still excess stock in the system. We anticipate when the stock gets to normalized levels that we would get orders again, but we would have to wait for those orders to appear, and then we can prosecute them.

Sure. Sure.

Thanks a lot, Peter. Thanks a lot.

Good morning. Thanks for the opportunity.

On the new Amsterdam partnership, the supply of obicetrapib and ezetimibe, the combination product. For this opportunity, what are the timelines that we're looking at, and then the capex that we're incurring specifically for this?

Also, if you could comment a bit on the commercial side of things for this combination product specifically, in terms of peak sales potential.

In this particular case, you have the benefit of the customer being announced as being our customer, and also them being a public company. Then further, them being covered by very well-reputed analysts.

My strong suggestion would be is that you look at analyst reports for that end customer looking up the combination you mentioned, and seeing where they predict that. They'll be much more informed and educated in what they can communicate than us, because we're obviously bound by our confidentiality agreements on details like what you mentioned.

In terms of capex, it was largely customer-funded, and that's complete. The suite that was needed to be made for them is up and running, and that's the announcement that let you know that we have this arrangement.

There's no new significant capex spending planned to support this, and we're looking forward to them continuing to generate good data to allow them to get the regulatory actions that we are excited about along with them, we can start serving patients with them.

Thanks for that. On the $90 million expansion at Lexington and Riverview, any updates on those projects?

What's the timelines that we're looking at in terms of commissioning? Beyond these two projects, how does our capex pipeline look?

Should we expect a period of consolidation beyond these two capex projects?

I think the Riverview one is largely complete and is sort of serving clients as we speak. The Lexington will be CY27, the latter half of CY27 before completion.

After that, I think there will continue to be both obviously depreciation and maintenance capex, but also growth capex as we go forward.

Last one, beyond the on-patent commercial manufacturing segment within the CDMO business, can you comment a bit on the other verticals like the discovery services, development services, and the generic API segment, where we've seen some pricing pressure in recent quarters? How is that looking currently?

The the biggest driver of growth of the ones you listed will remain our development services, which will be the on-patent work for clients that are not yet commercially approved, and that's also linked to our differentiated offerings, and so that remains a an area of focus and and meaningful growth. We do anticipate growth in our API generics business also, although it'll be more modest, and but we do we do have reasons to believe that our current prior seeding efforts, where we put, smaller quantities with companies that are looking to add sources or add geographies or add products, should show us get us benefit of growth in the current fiscal year.

We have new API generics that we're developing that have market demand for, and so we anticipate growth continuing in the API generic business, albeit at a at a modest level. Then finally, for discovery, it's not a material contributor to our revenue, and while we do see benefit and follow the molecule and it's a profitable offering for us, we it's just compared to some maybe some other players, it's more modest.

We're we're more historically later phase in the in the clinic in terms of what we offer.

Thank you. That's all from my side.

Thanks for the opportunity. Just on the CDMO side, while the RFPs have improved considerably, there has been significant capability as well as capacity increases by the competition as well.

How do you see that factor playing out in our case, maybe in terms of pricing or in terms of the size of contract, if you can elaborate? That's my first question.

The line was a bit fuzzy, and so what was the comment you made about the competitors before I answer? I want to make sure I heard what you were trying to reference there.

Hello? Hello?

Hello, am I audible? Am I audible now?

Can you try again, and just repeat the part about the...

Sure. What I was trying to ask is that while the RFPs have increased considerably over say last six months, what we see is that there has been reasonably increase in the capacity, capability by the competition as well.

Is that having an impact in terms of, let's say, the pricing of the contract, as well as maybe the volume let's say per vendor/supplier? If you can throw some light on that.

I would say that, after the biotech funding crashed post the COVID boom, there was a general increase in competitive intensity that we experienced across the set of offerings we have. We really did a lot of looking as to how we need to up our game so that we can get our win rates to go up.

I think what you may not have captured from Nandini's comments is that we actually saw our win rate increase last year versus the prior year. We think that's because of a couple of factors.

The first is we think we have the right combination of assets in the right locations. The second is that we've done a lot of work on strengthening our business development organization to be, we think, more aligned with our FY30 growth goals.

We did substantial enhancements to the number of people, but also how it's organized and how we go to market. The third one is that, while price is obviously an important factor, it's rarely number one, two, or three in a buying decision.

Clients that really are good at buying would look at the full set of factors. That's where, again, Nandini's comment about our Promoter score of 60, that's kind of a lagging indicator of a lot of work that goes into how you interact with clients and how you deliver for clients such that at the end they really are promoters for your services, and they would be willing to recommend you to others.

It's very frankly easy to buy a bunch of kit and put it in a factory. It's very hard to organize how you operate that kit with a high-performing team such that customers are delighted and you don't have any regulatory actions or OAIs.

We think that's the combination of reasons that we've seen our win rate actually go up despite competitive intensity increasing, and we are not going to rest on our laurels. We will not take anything for granted, and we're going to be very aggressive about the expectation for increased competition, but we think that we know what we have to do to win, and we're going to execute on that.

Got it, sir. Just on this, the innovation-related on-patent business for us is largely to which geographies now in say FY26?

The innovation-related business is broad-based across our network. Most of our sites, and especially the sites that we're investing in, are innovation-oriented, and that's part of our multi-year pivot from life cycle management to innovation support.

Most of our sites are innovation-oriented, and they all generally are contributing to the pivot.

Right. Just lastly with increase in this working capital requirement to address maybe the global turmoil as well as the amount that would be required to pay for Kenalog, what kind of net debt we would see for FY27?

Currently we are at 3.6. Based on the guidance that Nandini shared, we expect to remain range-bound in that level at about 3.6 through FY27.

There may be ups and downs intermittently, depending upon how our overall profitability pans out and how we spend our capex, but on a full-year basis, that's the range that we are targeting.

On absolute basis, if you could just, considering this ratio...

Let me put it that way that that's the range that we're looking for, 3.6 times net debt to EBITDA.

Sir. All right.

That's all. Thank you.

Hi, good morning, everyone. First question, which are the ROW markets towards which supplies have started from Digwal, and how's the pricing environment in these markets?

India would be our largest ROW market. We've already supported from, I'm just looking at our list here, it's India, UAE, Cambodia, Kenya, Sri Lanka, Uganda.

These will all be price-competitive markets, but we believe that Digwal can achieve its target market margins with what we supply from there to those locations. We anticipate countries such as examples like Bangladesh, Brazil, Malaysia, Russia, South Africa being next in line.

These are typically markets where pricing is more intense, and we've set up our cost structure to compete with China in those markets.

Has there been any improvement, Peter, in the pricing environment at all, especially given the last two months, the disruption in supply, solvents, etc., or the situation remains stable as far as pricing is concerned?

As you may know, this particular product that we're describing has a very product-specific supply chain, and it's not really solvent-driven per se, and regardless, we have not at the moment seen pricing increase. Typically, prices stay where they're at or go down, but we've maybe seen perhaps an ability for us to start winning contracts in these markets, which we'll just have to see how it plays out.

It's too early, honestly, to ascertain pricing movements only a month or two after a conflict like this in a product with a very product-specific value chain. As our Dahej facility makes the key input for this, and then we're reasonably backward integrated.

Got it. Second question is how are you assessing the impact of tariffs on the on-patent CDMO segment?

I think tariffs should be a net positive. Obviously, the US facilities will be exempt from tariffs, and you will see there's a general onshoring trend.

The UK facilities also see a nil rate tariff under the UK-US trade agreement, and we should see I think, again, increased demand there. For India, generic products are excluded, but innovation-related work is at reasonable levels, and it'll depend on the outcome of negotiations between the customers and the US government, and there's a 120-180-day window for the customers to reach agreements.

For CHG and PCH, there's no impact.

The only other two points to add is that there's also an opportunity if India were to be interested to discuss the FTA with the US, which is what other countries did, and that could be a second way out. Then a third way out is that many of our customers would be buying what we make in one of the countries that is already got an FTA, and they may do further valuation steps before it goes to the US end market.

The MFN way out, the FTA way out, and then the intermediate country way out. Some combination of those, we believe, should conclude, we hope, before the end of the period.

Got it. Just one final follow-up here.

Assuming the FTA is not signed and those agreements with the US by the remaining companies are not signed, for the India sites, how do you assess the ability to pass on the incremental hikes to the clients? Are clients more receptive in your initial discussions, or this is too early to comment on at this point of time?

I think it's too early. There's too many unknowns at this stage.

We would need to kind of see how the different factors that are, I would say, above our company-level situation play out, and I think it'll become more clear as we get closer to the September date. I wish I could tell you more, but this is one of those things where we just have to let the cards play.

Fair enough. That's it from my side.

Thank you.

Hi. Am I audible?

Yes, Devang.

Yeah. The question is are we going to see any stable quarters coming upwards, because in one quarter we are posting profits, in one quarter we are posting loss.

We are not coping up with that after the demerger. I'm not understanding.

Are we into the business of all these types, or we are in a business of a CDMO where consistency should be there? Look,

Devang, while that's the intent that we should be having more stable quarters, unfortunately, the nature of the business is such that we have been seeing volatility. Now, if you go to the other two smaller businesses, which is our Critical Care and our Consumer Products business, they are relatively stable with a more equal phasing across the quarters.

It's our CDMO business, which is 60% of what we do, where you see a significant skew. This has not just been after the demerger, it has also been before the demerger.

It's just that now when we are separate, you have better visibility to how it plays out. Yes, you do see lumpy quarters.

Unfortunately, even in FY27, this trend will be there where CDMO will be more H2-weighted, with a larger chunk in quarter four. That situation doesn't change.

All our efforts are in the direction to have a more even quarter, but it largely depends upon when the customers buy from us. That's what determines how the phasing pans out, and that's what determines how the profitability comes out.

Is there any plan to reduce the debt? The thing comes that promoter holding is not increasing.

Sorry, if you could please repeat the last statement?

Promoter holding is not increasing. The promoters' skin in the game is just 30 or 35%.

It's not beyond that, right? The thing comes that the debt is very much high.

If I'm not wrong, it's 3.5% or something like that. 3.5x.

Yeah. You're right, Devang, that 3.5 is the level at which we are operating, but it's largely driven by some of the investments which have been ongoing, and these are the planned, targeted investments to expand capacity, scale, and capability at sites which we believe will be part of the long-range plan growth drivers.

The investments are in that direction, and we've said that on a long-term basis, we will have net debt to EBITDA come down to one, and we'd also mentioned that in the interim period, it will remain elevated, and that's what you're seeing play out as at this stage.

That's fine. That's all from my side.

All the best for the future.

Thank you.

Good morning, madam. I refer to the Q4 numbers, which are muted.

Are the annual financial year 25-26 numbers. The turnover remains skewed in favor of the last quarter of the years, a harmful phenomenon highlighted over the several quarters and years by me.

In this context, I ask two questions. Would 26-27 be any different?

You have just said that CDMO may remain the similar, but I want to clarify whether the overall business in terms of the turnover, would it be spread over the quarters in any different manner? Secondly, the exceptional charge of ₹175 crore in Q4 was neither hinted earlier nor has been explained in detail.

Please convey what caused this exceptional intangible R&D asset write-off, and how you would avoid this in the future.

Okay. I think one is overall, I think we have said that for next year we expect an early-to-mid-teens growth across each of the businesses.

This is full year. The CDMO is unfortunately still will be back-weighted to H2, as Vivek said, that is driven by the timing of when the clients and customers want delivery.

That's when we can recognize the revenue. That's part of the nature of the business.

The other two businesses will see, I think, consistent growth across. I think your second question was on the intangibles.

Yes.

I'll leave that to Vivek. Yeah.

On the intangibles, I had just clarified on the call that there were certain intangible assets which were under development where the overall macro and market situation did change versus what was originally envisaged. Since we are prioritizing capex as a part of our long-range plans, we are ensuring that they are going in the areas which give the returns as anticipated.

Therefore, to prevent any further impact, we decided to cut further investments on these products and, therefore, impair it as a result of these realities.

You would avoid such ventures in the future?

That's the endeavor always, but there are certain factors. If market conditions do change, then there will be some things, but in general, that's the larger principle.

Very well. Thank you.

Thank you, Ryan. Thank you very much.

We hope that we were able to answer most of your questions. In case you have any follow-up questions or any clarification that you need, please feel free to reach out to us.

Thank you, and have a good day.