Greetings and welcome to the Aurinia Pharmaceuticals Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2017 Financial Results Conference Call. At this time, all participants are in a listen only mode. A question-and-answer session will follow the formal presentation. [Operator Instructions] As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to your host, Ms. Celia Economides. Thank you, Ms. Economides, you may begin.

Thank you, operator. Good afternoon everyone and welcome to Aurinia's full year and Q4 2017 financial results and general business update. With me on the call today from Aurinia are Richard Glickman, Chief Executive Officer and Dennis Bourgeault, our Chief Financial Officer. Joining us for the Q&A will be Michael Martin, our Chief Operating Officer; Dr. Neil Solomons, our Chief Medical Officer and Robert Huizinga, our EVP of Corporate Development. This afternoon we issued a press release detailing our fourth quarter and full year 2017 financial results and corporate update. The press release and financial statement package is available on our website at auriniapharma.com and a 40-F was filed with the SEC as well. I'd like to remind you that today's call is being webcast live on Aurinia's Investor Relations website. We can also access -- which is also being recorded. A replay will be available on our website following today's call. The content of today's call is Aurinia's property. It cannot be reproduced or transcribed without our prior written consent. During the course of this call we may make forward-looking statements based on our current expectations. These forward-looking statements are subject to a number of significant risks and uncertainties and our actual results may differ materially. For a discussion of factors that could affect our future financial results and business, please refer to the disclosure in today's press release, our most recent filings with Canadian securities authorities and then reports that we file on Form 6-K with the US Securities and Exchange Commission. All of our statements are made as of today March 15, 2018 based on information currently available to us. Except as required by law we assume no obligation to update any such statements. With that, let me turn the call over to Richard. Richard?

Thank you, Celia. And thank you to everyone for joining us today as we review our 2017 full year results and provide a general business update. First off, I'd like to commend our entire team for the tremendous progress that we made over the course of the year. It was a pivotal year for the company as we announced positive 48-week results from our Phase IIb oral LV study in lupus nephritis. And we were able to fully fund our company and operations into 2020. If you'll recall, this study achieved the highest complete remission rates of any clinical trial in active lupus nephritis, with our voclosporin layered on top of or [indiscernible] nearly doubled the remission rates as compared to control group, which is just [indiscernible]. This is an achievement we’re extremely proud of, and we believe that we if can obtain approval for this drug voclosporin in lupus nephritis, it can provide a meaningful benefit to patient suffering from this debilitating disease. Our Phase II data from AURA has garnered the attention of experts in lupus nephritis around the world and it has been featured in several key medical and scientific conferences over the last year. Our priority is now the successful execution of our AURORA Phase III trial in lupus nephritis. The trial is now in full swing and continues enrolling at sites round the world, and we remain on track to complete enrollment in 18 months from our first patient in, which brings us to Q4 of this year. Then as this is a 52-week study, we expect to see results towards the end of 2019. This is a global study and as of today, we have over 200 sites activated and able to enroll patients throughout the world, with 26 of 29 countries now initiated.…

Thank you, Richard. On the financial front, the audited financial statements of Aurinia have been prepared in accordance with IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board. The consolidated financial statements are presented in U.S. dollars, which is the company's functional and presentation currency. All amounts mentioned are in U.S. dollars, unless otherwise specified. In 2017, we raised gross proceeds of $162.3 million from the March 20, 2017 public offering, and we also received $12.8 million from the exercise of warrants and options. Net cash used in operating activities in 2017 was $41.2 million compared to $18.7 million for the year ended 2016. As a result, at December 31, 2017, we had cash, cash equivalents, and short-term investments of $173.5 million and working capital of $167.1 million compared to $39.6 million of cash and $33.5 million of working capital at December 31, 2016. We believe, based on our current plans, that we have sufficient financial resources to fund our existing LN program, which includes the completion of the AURORA trial and our NDA submission to the FDA, conduct the planned Phase II trials for FSG, FSGS and dry eye and fund supporting operations into 2020. Over the next eight quarters, based on our current plans, we estimate an average burn rate of approximately $16 million per quarter. We reported a consolidated net loss of $3.3 million or $0.04 per common share for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2017, as compared to a consolidated net loss of $8.3 million or $0.21 per common share for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2016. The loss for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2017, reflected a $9 million reduction in the estimated fair value of derivative warrant liabilities compared to a reduction of $658,000 in the estimated fair value of derivative…

Yes. Thank you, Dennis. Well, once again, I’d like to thank the team for the tremendous progress that was made last year. 2017 was an extraordinarily pivotal year for the company. We are now a late stage biotech company that's diversifying its portfolio and building out its core competencies. We are nimble and dedicated team that continues to successfully execute upon our pre-stated milestones. I'd like to end the formal part of this call by sharing a few thoughts that where we are today and how I feel about Aurinia's business in the near future. I believe that Aurinia represents an extraordinary opportunity for patients and for investors. As a company, we have a drug candidate that is successful in Phase III has the potential to be the first approved therapy for the treatment of lupus nephritis. The efficacy and safety data supporting this drug is substantial. We have a clear regulatory path forward to approval and a solid intellectual property base behind this drug, and we believe the market opportunity of this drug to be substantial. It is with great confidence that we continue the advancement of voclosporin in its final stage of development. Furthermore, with our indication expansion initiative, we are focusing on ways to extract maximum value out of voclosporin, while putting forth a minimal investment, which can benefit both patients and our shareholders. With that, I’d like to turn the call back to the operator to open the line for the Q&A. Operator?

Thank you. [Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from the line of Joseph Schwartz of Leerink Partners. Please proceed with your question.

Great, thanks and congrats on all the progress. I was wondering, first of all, on the Phase III lupus nephritis program, have you been able to balance such expedient enrollment with quality control measures to make sure that the sites are likely to here to a rigorous protocol and can you talk a little bit about the monitoring and things like that, that you've implemented in order to ensure robust results?

Okay, so and I think, I'll answer a little bit and then I'll open up to maybe Neil, to say some additional words as well. I think, we learnt a lot in the Phase II trial and we learnt a lot particularly with our experience in Bangladesh and some of those territories, which we are not using in this trial. And so, we learned a very important thing actually, which is when you're doing the collisions, they need to understand and be really sensitive to when that patient's actually too sick to be treated. And so we've done in this study is a very, very comprehensive monitoring program. So when the patient enters into our trial, if anything, any parameter seems out of normal for that patient, they go through a very, very sophisticated medical review process before they're allowed into our trial. Furthermore, we have greater participation in countries like Europe and other countries where there are sort of more sophisticated and better medical systems to support the trials themselves. So, we do extensive reach out to our various sites, we do extensive education to those sites. And I think, while a fully blinded trial, the efforts have actually been paying off. I think that we are very selective on who comes into this trial. And even though we want to actually create as quickly as you can, we don't want to do that at the risk of not having quality patients. We are far more focused on making sure, there are right patients wound up in our study. Neil, do you have anything to add?

No, I think you said most of it Richard. What I would say is that, we have to tread that balance between getting the right patients in and getting appropriate patients in and also getting the right number of patients in. We learnt a lot of from our Phase II study, and we're kind of parlaying a lot of the learnings from that study through the medical monitors, which we've increased about fivefold, the amount of medical monitoring support that we're implementing into the AURORA trial. And we're in constant contact with the site. We believe that's working. And I would say we're very confident moving forward that we're getting the balance right.

Excellent, thanks. And then as a follow-up, there's some literature that suggests that LN patients with different -- of different ethnicities might respond differently to a standard of care and other -- I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on what the patient disposition is likely to be in the Phase III, how that might compare to the Phase II?

Neil, do you want to answer that?

Yes, sure. I mean Joe, there is definitely is literature that suggests there maybe some racial differences. In my opinion, some of those differences are probably secondary to local standards of care, because I've also published a paper, which says pretty much the opposite, there's very little difference in outcomes according to different racial groups. We are stratifying by region so that we will see any differences in outcome according to regions of patients that come into study. And in addition, the balance of the patients coming to this study is, as Richard said before, more awaited for the European and the U.S. patients. So, we believe that certainly standard of care factors won't be an issue in the outcomes in this trial.

That’s very helpful. Thanks for taking the questions.

Thank you, Joe.

Our next question comes from the line of David Martin of Bloom Burton. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, this is Antonio on the line for Dave. My first question is related to the FSGS program, what kind of readouts can we expect in the second half of the year? And then also what you would like to see there? And then my second question is related to the dry eye program, have you had a meeting with the FDA? And if so what has been the outcome of that? Thank you.

Okay. So I think, for the first part of your question with to FSGS, I did point out that this is a new disease area for us and of course will be working with Kellogg they give their best estimates that how many patients are going to have, how quickly they’re going to come at you, and they’re usually wrong. So it’s a stretch goal for us to have the data before the end of the year. And I’ve mentioned that before as well. That said, there will be interim looks. And possibly, Rob, did you want to elaborate further on that?

Sure, I can do that. I think one of the interim looks we’re most interested in, is the directionality of the proteinuria and there was, are we seeing a complete or partial remission in these patient remembering that if you look at Dan Cattran’s paper from 2005, that even a partial remission in FSGS is really important to launch on renal survival. So, the interim looks we’re going to be having, we’ll be looking at changes in proteinuria along with stability of renal functions.

And to your second question, related to dry eye, we have had a meeting with the FDA, that meeting went extraordinarily well. We have a clear path going forward right now. And so we're actually pretty exciting for getting that one of the ground. As we mentioned that one we likely start this next quarter, it's really based on how quickly our drug supply will be ready, and that's ongoing as we speak. But that program is actually being initiated. So, we expect that program well will be initiated this year. But for us to be able to report out result of the study by the end of the year.

Thank you.

Our next question comes from the line of [indiscernible] of RBC Capital Markets. Please proceed with your question.

Hi, thank you. So, my question is just on the enrollment of the AURORA trials. The first question just has to do with the biopsies of the patients that you guys have enrolled thus far. Are you able to provide a split in terms of how many had a biopsy within 6 months, or between 6 and 12, or beyond 12 months? And then also just a follow-up to that question, if you could talk about the recruitment differences between some of the U.S. sites and some of the international sites?

So, you know that Neil you did you talk a little bit about the differentiator how many entrants to biopsies. I can tell you just straight off the bat, that there are -- the vast majority of our patients are actually in that 6 month range. But I'll let Neil elaborate that.

Yes. I think that's right, Richard. There are very, very few outside of the 6 month range, we have a very, very strict caveats and criteria around those slightly little above and the message to the sites has always been that we prefer biopsies in fact within weeks of intense study we’re getting most that’s the vast majority of those. So, all I can say is that without getting the number there is a very few outside of the 6 months. In terms of the other things and the balance, I can't quite remember the question, was it about the balance between patients in the U.S. and outside the U.S. Can you repeat that?

Yes. Perhaps just a comment on how recruitment is progressing at some of the U.S. sites versus some of the international sites, are you ahead of schedule, et cetera?

Well in terms of our general recruitment, as Richard said earlier, that we’re on track to complete recruitment by the last quarter this year. That’s going as we expect, recruitment is going well, recruitment is going well in the U.S., it’s going well in other parts of the world. And the balance for the study as we said before is more towards U.S. and European sites that is actually happening, that was the intention of that’s occurring.

I think what’s important with U.S. sites and balancing everything out is just making sure you have the right ethnicity range in your studies and the right distribution. And so, we’ve taken an four square we have an extensive number of sites in the U.S., and we’ve actually have that considerably more patients in this study already in the U.S. than we had in our previous studies. I think that distribution is important. But the other thing we’re doing as well is saying, if you’re looking for representation of what U.S. population looks like particularly when you’re going in front of the FDA being able to go to the countries like the Dominican and being able to have genetically similar populations, or to Latin America. So, we’re doing things -- we’re doing several levels to make sure that when we’ve actually go in front of the regulators, we have a very full robust, I guess, a spread between various ethnic populations.

Great. Thank you.

[Operator Instructions] Our next question comes from the line of Vernon Bernardino of Seaport Global. Please proceed with your question.

Hi guys and good afternoon. Thanks for taking the question. Just a few, regarding the AURORA Phase III clinical trial, you had mentioned it's on track and you have fast track designation and you intend to utilize the rolling NDA process. Just wondering if you could go again, I think they had mentioned the timing of the modules and one question related to that is, what do you anticipate submitting as far as the first module, which you mentioned would be submitted in the second half?

Yes. I think, let me answer that this way, in this process with fast track designation, the polite way of doing it is you actually present to the regulators, your submission plan. So, we're in the process of doing that, because they have a flow as well. But our goal is to be ready to submit the first part of that before the end of the year, which was the preclinical section of the documents. And then early next year, sort of the first half of next year to be, sort of, more precise or less precise, we have the CMC section. And so while we will be ready to that, this also assumes that the regulator body is actually ready to receive everything in a timely manner. But the whole goal of this process is to actually have those reviewed prior to actually submitting your clinical component. And that’s where the speed of the obviously speed of the entire process, the entire review process. Does that answer your question?

Yes. And regarding that, will many of these people at the FDA be in same ones who saw the AURA-LV study? And, that’s my question.

Neil, maybe you can take that one, Neil.

Yes. I mean, I think there are changes in the division obviously depends on the different modules that you’re talking about, certainly from the clinical section and we expect many -- some of the same reviewers to be the same as so the Phase II. So, we certainly have a relationship with the individuals out at the FDA.

Helps with familiarity. Second question, if I may, with the Phase II proof-of-concept study in FSGS, that will be the same dose that you’re using in the Phase III AURORA study?

Rob, did you want to -- that's your program.

Yes. I will, actually. So yes, Vernon, thanks for the question. Yes, the low dose that the successful dose in the AURA-LV, that’s the dose we are taking forward in FSGS.

Okay, great. Because as you mentioned, there’s no need for different types of dosing, that’s one advantage of the drug. Thanks for taking the question.

Thank you, Vernon.

There are no further questions over the audio portion of the conference. I would now like to turn the conference back over to Mr. Richard Glickman for closing remarks.

Okay, well thank you for all taking time out here this afternoon to listen to our fourth quarter and our year-end results. So, we look forward to the next quarter and the updates. I think we have a very, very exciting year ahead of us, and things really are going well for this organization right now. So it's an exciting time for us. And so thank you, again, for taking the time this afternoon.

This concludes today's conference. Thank you for your participation. You may disconnect your lines at this time. Have a wonderful rest of your day.