Greetings and welcome to the Tenax Therapeutics business review and update in conjunction with filing of the fiscal year 2016 first quarter financial report conference call. At this time, all participants are in a listen-only mode. [Operator Instructions]. As a reminder, this conference is being recorded. It is now my pleasure to introduce your host, Ms. Nancy Hecox, General Counsel. Thank you. You may begin.

Good morning, everyone and welcome to the earnings conference call for Tenax Therapeutics' first quarter fiscal year 2016, which ended July 31, 2015. The news release with our financial results and corporate update became available at 6:00 a.m. today and can be found on the Investors section of our website at www.tenaxthera.com. You can also listen to a live webcast and replay of today's call on the Investors section of the website. Before we begin, let me remind you that statements made on today's call regarding matters that are not historical facts are forward-looking statements within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Examples of these forward-looking statements include statements concerning the expected timing for the company's clinical trials, statements concerning the potential results of planned clinical trials and future development milestones for the company's product candidates. Because such statements are subject to risks and uncertainties, actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Risks are described more fully in Tenax's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. All forward-looking statements made on today's call speak only as of the date on which they were made. Tenax Therapeutics undertakes no obligation to update such statements to reflect events that occur or circumstances that exist after the date on which they were made. Joining me on the call today is John Kelley, Chief Executive Officer of Tenax Therapeutics, who will discuss recent company highlights. Following John, Michael Jebsen, Tenax's Chief Financial Officer, will review the company's financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2016, after which we will open the call for Q&A. Now, let me turn the call over to John.

Thanks, Nancy. Good morning everyone and thank you for joining us today. Throughout this calendar year, we have continued to execute on our clinical plan for levosimendan in multiple indications. Our first priority continues to be to increase the enrollment pace of the ongoing Phase 3 LEVO-CTS trial in Low Cardiac Output Syndrome. As of this morning, we currently have 180 patients enrolled in the trial with 62 hospitals activated. That number includes five hospitals in Canada. We have also signed contracts with an addition of four sites and are in negotiations with another 11 sites. We still expect our total number of participating hospitals in the trial to reach 70 and we continue to be encouraged by our progress as we now have 47 hospitals that have enrolled at least one patient. Our top enrolling site just enrolled their 20th patients in 12 months. Speeding up this enrollment pace is our top concern and we have made significant efforts throughout this summer to address different areas that we believe will help increased the rate this fall to enable our planned topline data readout in calendar year 2016. These include identifying additional sites for the trial including expanding to Canada, increased communication with our current clinical sites. We have just hired two field based associates who will be in direct contact with the sites. Research with our investigators into how hospital sites can identify qualified patients and make it easier for them to enroll in the trial, active engagement with clinical sites by members of our trial steering committee including those with experience using the drug in the EU where it is currently marketed as Simdax and we have just submitted a protocol amendment to the FDA to adjust inclusion criteria to increase the possible number of patients that will…

Thank you, John. I will begin today by summarizing our financial results for the three-month periods ending July 31, 2015 and 2014, followed by a brief discussion of our cash position and burn rate. Total operating expenses for the three months ended July 31, 2015 were $3.1 million compared to $2.4 million in the prior year. General and administrative costs decreased approximately $80,000 and research and development costs increased approximately $775,000 as compared to the same period in the prior year. This is due to increases in consulting and personnel costs and the costs associated with conducting the Phase 3 clinical trial for levosimendan. General and administrative expenses for the three months ended July 31, 2015 and 2014 were approximately $1.4 million. In the current period, we realized reductions in costs associated with our external investor relations firms partially offset by increased costs in payroll and consulting fees. We do not anticipate any significant additional charges to our G&A cost moving forward and we anticipate overall G&A costs of approximately $6.5 million for the year. Research and development expenses for the three months ended July 31, 2015 were approximately $1.7 million compared to $1 million in the prior year. The increase in R&D expenses as compared to the same period in the prior year was due primarily to the costs incurred for conducting the Phase 3 LEVO-CTS study, partially offset by eliminating all of the costs incurred for the clinical and preclinical safety studies for Oxycyte during the same period in the prior year. For the three months ended July 31, 2015, we reported a net loss of $3 million or $0.11 per share compared to a net loss of $2.2 million or $0.08 per share in the same period in the prior year. As of July 31, 2015, we…

[Operator Instructions]. Our first question is coming line of Jeffrey Cohen with Ladenburg Thalmann. Please proceed with your question.

Hi. Good morning, John and Michael. Can you year me okay?

Just fine, Jeff.

Good morning. So John, could you talk a little bit about the inclusion criteria and what was submitted specifically as far as percentages and what you expect to hear in what time frame? And how that may affect the enrollment process?

Sure. Actually I think I said, we have just submitted the protocol amendment. We actually submitted it about a month and a half ago. So we should be hearing from the FDA sometime within the next week or so with regard to their agreement. Basically there is some things in the inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria that we needed to clean up, things like excluding patients with COPD that really wasn't necessary. It was causing some confusion. And then we also, based on where we currently stand, we have also looked at the changing the ejection fraction from 25% up to 35%. We think that that will significantly increase the number of patients eligible for enrollment. It might slightly increase the number of patients that we need to enroll in the trial because we expect to see slightly fewer events, but it's an event driven trial, so that is fine. So don't have feedback yet from the FDA. As soon as we get it, we will let everybody know.

Okay. And clarify the 25% to 35% ejection fraction which aren't increasing?

As you know, right now we are enrolling patients undergoing CABG with a 25% ejection fraction. If you are undergoing any type of valve procedure, it is 35%. This would just make it 35% across-the-board.

So potentially that speeds up the enrollment by?

Well, we think it increases the patient population by 200% to 300%. So it doubles or triples the number of patients available to be included in the trial.

Okay. And then second question, I guess Michael for you, on your commentary on R&D and overall burn. You talk about $14 million to $16 million for the year and with the G&A at, call it approximately, $6.5 million, then you are talking about approximately $9 million to $10 million for 2016 on the R&D line?

Correct. We are anticipating to start seeing the LEVO trial cost to hit $2 million and work its way to $2.5 million based on the type of growth in enrollment we have seen thus far.

Okay. And one more, if I may. How would you hypothesize that U.K. comes out with data on LeoPARDS ad could you comment just a little better on their expected time frame?

Well, right now it looks like they should probably, I mean they are at 428 patients that going to 516. They should probably conclude enrollment some time late October, early November. Their primary endpoint is out to 28 days. So say about a month later. So hopefully you would think that they would lock the database by the end of December. And then in terms of analysis, based on discussions that we have had with people at Imperial College of London, I would say two months to complete analysis of the data. I know that they would like to make a presentation of the data at some medical meetings that occur in the first half of the year.

Okay. Got it. Perfect. Thank you very much for taking the questions.

You are welcome.

[Operator Instructions]. Our next question is coming from the line of Brian Jeep with WallachBeth Capital. Please proceed with your question.

Good morning. Firs question. I just want to make sure that, are you expecting topline data out of LeoPARDS first? Or will we be waiting for the full data set?

Well, you know that's a good question, Brian. The people at Imperial College of London, they do remind us that they continue to view this as an academic trial. They want to make sure that they have the opportunity to be the ones that break the news to the medical community and to report it first. So we are still working through details with them to what we will get and when we will get it. They understand that it's something that's highly important to us and that we would like to have access to the data as soon as possible, but our agreement with them basically says that they have the ownership of the data and the reporting of the data. So I am guessing we could get topline data from them, but they have yet to commit to what they will give us when. We just know that they want to report the results sometime in the first half of the year.

Okay. First half, even if it's the full data set.

Yes.

Okay. All right. And because it's an academic pursuit in their minds, would you expect that they would be more likely to go the full data set and the peer review journal route? Or do you think that there are still some academic benefit in the topline press release?

I think that they will want to present whatever data they can as soon as they can, particularly assuming that you have positive results. So, you know, again this is just my anticipation that they will do what they can to get something submitted to a medical meeting so that they can make a presentation with publication to follow. I think once the data has been announced publicly, we will have access to it.

Okay. On the inclusion criteria adjustments, excluding things like COPD, was that something that was written into the protocol because it would be nice to just have patients that were free of that? But now trying to accelerate enrollment, maybe it doesn't matter that much but in an ideal world, you would include patients like that? Or do you think it just has no impact whatsoever?

I don't think it has any impact. I mean the feedback we are getting from sites was that they were potentially excluding some patients and their further feedback was, if we are going to operate on somebody, we are only going to do it if we feel like they are able to come off the ventilator. So it's not that we are that concerned about their lung function. We wouldn't operate on them otherwise. So it was in there, I guess we were being ultraconservative and the feedback was, it's not necessary. We are not going to operate on somebody that's having difficulty breathing anyway.

Okay. And moving on to ejection fractions with the CABG patients, it doesn't, I guess my concern is and this is, I don't remember that well what are some of the past ABG studies were done with everything at 35%. Is there any concern that that may have been one of the hurdles for them to show statistical efficacy?

Well, actually the ABG studies were done in patients with heart failure and I don't think they even measured the ejection fraction. If they did, I don't think it's reported. So it's not a concern. I mean these are patients going into cardiac surgery. Most of the studies that have been done in cardiac surgery, the ejection fractions were 35% or less. There are some studies that were done with even higher ejection fractions. If you look at the meta-analysis that we had DCRI do for us and that was reported at the American College of Cardiology two years ago, they looked at patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less and they showed significant reductions in death, perioperative MI and patients requiring dialysis which are our endpoints. So we have got data that support that the effect of the drug is well-established in patients with ejection fractions of 35% or less. Wouldn't have done it otherwise.

Okay. Terrific. Thank you very much.

You are welcome.

Thank you. It appears we have no further questions at this time. So I would like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Kelley for any additional concluding comments.

All right. Well, thank you everyone. We appreciate that you joined us again today for our results call and we will continue to focus on increasing enrollment in LEVO-CTS and we look forward to the next time we are on this call reporting that perhaps LeoPARDS trial has completed enrollment. Have a great day. Thanks.

Ladies and gentlemen, this does conclude today's teleconference. We thank you for your participation and you may disconnect your lines at this time.