Michael Partridge – Senior Director, Strategic Communications Matthew Emmens – Chairman, President and CEO Nancy Wysenski – EVP and Chief Commercial Officer Peter Mueller – EVP, Global R&D, and Chief Scientific Officer Ian Smith – EVP and CFO Bob Kauffman – SVP, Clinical Development and Chief Medical Officer

Rachel McMinn – Bank of America Securities/Merrill Lynch Geoffrey Porges – Bernstein Ed Tenthoff – Piper Jaffray Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank Ian [ph] – Credit Suisse Yaron Werber – Citi Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan Howard Liang – Leerink Swann Eric [ph] – JMP Securities Jason Kantor – RBC Capital Markets Terence Flynn – Lazard Capital Markets Brian Abrahams – Oppenheimer & Company Adam Cutler – Canaccord Davis Bu – Goldman Sachs Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lisa and I am your conference facilitator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Vertex Pharmaceuticals conference call. All lines have been placed on mute. After the Company s remarks there will be a question-and-answer session. (Operator instructions) At this time, I would like to turn the conference over to Michael Partridge. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you. This is Michael Partridge. Good evening, and welcome to Vertex's conference call. 2010 may be the most important year in Vertex’s history, which will be defined by the anticipated progress of Telaprevir for the treatment of hepatitis B as well as several other programs across our pipeline. First with Telaprevir, starting in the spring, we will begin to receive FBR data from our Phase 3 program. Dosing of all study drugs is now complete in all Telaprevir Phase 3 trial and in the second half of the year; we expect to submit the NDA for Telaprevir. Additionally, with the goal of further enhancing our leadership in hepatitis C we expect to begin the STAT-C Combination trial of Telaprevir and VX-222 in the first quarter. Right now, we are engaged in late-stage discussions with the FDA and global regulators on the design of this trial. We expect to conclude those discussions soon and provide you with specific information about the trial plan We continue to expect to initiate this trial in the first quarter and be able to have the first interim data in the third quarter of this year. Secondly, for cystic fibrosis, we have completed planned enrollment of two of the three trials in our Phase 3 registration program of VX-770, our potentiator compound and we are on track to have pivotal data and submit an NDA for this compound in the second half of 2011. Additionally, we announced yesterday results from a preliminary analysis of data from the Phase 2a study with VX-809, reflecting continued progress of this compound. On the basis of these data, we anticipate starting a combination study with VX-809 and VX-770 as a next step. Third and importantly, demonstrating the versatility and success of our research, we have positioned to receive data from other proof of concept studies in other therapeutic areas in the second half of 2010, with both a novel molecule for epilepsy and a novel molecule for rheumatoid arthritis. In today’s call these major events and what they mean for our business and financial strategy will be reviewed by Matt Emmens, Dr. Peter Mueller and Ian Smith. Tonight we also want to introduce to you the newest member of the Vertex’s management team, Nancy Wysenski, who joined us in December as our Executive Vice President and Chief Commercial Officer. Dr. Bob Kauffman is also here with us today, he will be joining for Q&A. Please note that information discussed on the conference call includes forward-looking statements which are subject to the risks and uncertainties discussed in detail, in our reports that we filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission including our 10-K. GAAP and non-GAAP financial measures will be discussed on this call. Information regarding our use of non-GAAP financial measures, and a reconciliation of those measures to GAAP is available in our year-end 2009 financial press release which is on our Web site. All of 2009 expenses and 2010 guidance, discussed in this call are inclusive of stock-based compensation, and executive transition expenses, restructuring expense, acquisition-related expenses, loss from exchange of convertible debt and other certain charges. Lastly, after our prepared remarks, we will accommodate as many questions as time permits. Once the call concludes our IR team, joined by Matt, Peter, Ian, Nancy and Bob, will be in the office to answer any additional questions. Thank you. I’ll now turn over the call to Matt.

Thanks, Michael. As Michael just said, we expect 2010 to be a defining year for Vertex. Our vision has to build a biopharmaceutical company that carries out truly innovative research. That focus is on tough medical problem. That vision is becoming a reality starting with the planned NDA submission of our first potential breakthrough compound, Telaprevir later in 2010, and the plan launch in 2011. The launch of this compound, if approved, could enable us to build a fully capable biopharmaceutical company that has the scale and future growth opportunities. Our current portfolio beyond Telaprevir is taking shape. It includes additional potential combinations for the treatment of HCV and the orphan disease cystic fibrosis as well as other proof of concept studies. It is very exciting and an important time for Vertex. (inaudible) pipeline is a research engine that continues to create compounds that we believe could potential transform serious diseases. With drug candidates we have in clinical development is approximately 12 preclinical candidates and 12 lead optimization programs we are making the transition to becoming a commercial company while also maintaining our commitment to that innovative research we talked about. This is what I mean when I talk about scale. I m sure you will hear more on these early stage programs as this year progresses. We believe that we are building towards the goal of transforming the treatment of major diseases and offering significant returns for our shareholders. Financially, we are committed to turning cash flow positive following the launch of Telaprevir and delivering high operating margins. Our intention is to build a company that provides access and delivers new and innovative medicines across multiple high-value specialty markets. If you take a look at our 2010 defined events, I ask you to imagine our potential shape and profile as we enter 2011, just one year from now. An NDA submitted for Telaprevir and organization poised for launch for product into a major disease category, HCV. Additionally, our registration program for VX-770 in cystic fibrosis will be nearing completion and based on the result, we could be preparing for a second NDA submission in another important disease, cystic fibrosis. Beyond HCV and CF we have product candidates in epilepsy and rheumatoid arthritis that would generate results in 2010 which could expand our opportunities in these important diseases. Overall, these events will provide important information as we advance towards our vision. A key part of the reality of our business is the launch of Telaprevir, and the architect of that launch is someone I would like to introduce you. Her name is Nancy Wysenski; she is our new Chief Commercial Officer. I have known Nancy for many years. I believe her extensive operational and sales experience can create commercial infrastructure that could position us to lead the HCV market. Nancy is a proven leader. She has the passion both to choose great new people and to manage the talented people we already have in the company. She is someone who will work side by side with them in building successful commercial organization. I’m excited to have her join our team; I’ll now pass the call over to her for a few remarks. Nancy?

Thanks, Matt. I m delighted to be here. This is an exciting time for the company, and I’m very happy to be working with this executive team to prepare for the launch of Telaprevir. I joined Vertex in December and since then I have had a chance to look under the hood. I'm pleased with a number of the things that are already in place. I believe we have some unique HCV market insights with which to build our commercial strategy. My principal focus right now is the implementation of internal systems and processes, building key elements to support our sales effort, and putting in place important patient-focused programs. The commercial growth prospects for Vertex are promising. What particularly excites me is that Vertex has multiple product and disease area opportunities. The company has the breadth to not only achieve the long-term leadership in HCV, but also go beyond HCV, and establish long-term leadership in additional disease areas. I’m also responsible for building the commercial infrastructure of scale that can support not only HCV, but our CF programs, if successful, and also for other future commercial efforts. That’s just a little bit about what I have observed and I look forward to meeting some of you during your next visit to Vertex or at an investor conference this year. Thank you. And I’ll turn the call over now to Peter.

Thank you, Nancy, and obviously my (inaudible) who are joining the Vertex team. First to Telaprevir. This is of course our No. 1 priority. We are on track to receive the first results from our program SVR data from ADVANCE for treatment-naive of patients in the second quarter. This will be followed by data from REALIZE for treatment failure patients over the summer. We have an experienced team in place, managing the NDA preparation and planned submission in the second half of the year. Today, we are producing commercial inventory already. We are manufacturing at metric ton scale. At this time everything is aligned with our commercial launch time line in 2011. Turning now to our STAT-C Combination plans. Our goal of furthering the treatment of HCV is high priority within our business. To demonstrate our commitment, we plan to initiate a trial in the first quarter that will evaluate FBR rights using multiple regimens of Telaprevir and VX 2-based therapy alone and in combination with pegylated interferon and ribavirin. We are in late stage discussions with the FDA and other global regulatory authorities on the design of this trial and we’ll provide more information to you soon. What’s important about the design is that it could potentially position us to quickly identify the most appropriate STAT-C regimen for late stage development. The concept of the trial design focused on 12-week combination regimens with safety and SVR rates being important study outcome. We expect to have the first interim data as early as the third quarter 2010 to inform the next steps for this program. Now let’s turn to cystic fibrosis. Our Phase 3 registration program for VX-770 is advancing rapidly. We enrolled ahead of schedule the primary Phase 3 trial called STRIVE. This trial enrolled approximately 170 patients, age 12 and older with the G551D mutation. We believe the over-enrollment reflects strong patient and physician interest in compounds that target the underlying defect of this disease. We have other completed planned enrollment, approximately 120 patients in the DISCOVER trial, which is primarily a safety study evaluating patients with the delta F 508 mutation. ENVISION trial which is enrolling younger patients with the G551D mutation, age 6 years to 11 years is ongoing and on track to complete enrollment in the first half of 2010. We expect that all patients in the STRIVE and DISCOVER trials will have received their first dose of 770 or placebo by the end of February. Patients in STRIVE are being dosed for 48 weeks with a primary efficacy and evaluating FEB1 [ph] for 24 weeks. At this time it is our expectation to conduct a study through 48 weeks, which puts us on a time line of submitting an NDA in the second half of 2011. Now, turning to VX-809, our second compound, targeting disorphaned disease. VX-809 is our corrector compound aimed at increasing the concentration of functional the FBR channels at the lung surface. We announced yesterday results from a preliminary analysis of a Phase 2A study which showed proof of concept data suggesting that VX-809 may increase the FBR activity. In the 28A study, VX-809 met its primary end point of safety and was well tolerated at all four dose levels. VX-809 also met a key biomarker end point with a statistically significant decline in sweat chloride at the two highest doses evaluated, which is 100 milligram to 200 milligram. The totality of the result, the statistically significant decline in sweat chloride and cyclio dose response provides confidence that VX-809 is helping to partially restore CFTR function. On the basis of this data, our goal now is to maximize the response and potential clinical effects of VX-809. In our next steps we may explore the option to evaluate higher doses of VX-809, we plan to initiate a combination trial of VX-809 and VX-770 in the second half of this year. It’s our belief that the combination of these two compounds could potentially broaden access for a greater number of patients living with cystic fibrosis. In closing, I would like to also highlight our two earlier stage proof of concept programs, VX-765, our novel Caspase inhibitor for the treatment of epilepsy, and VX-509, our selective inhibitor of JAK3 for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. These are two areas that demonstrate our progress in research and in 2010 we expect to have a better understanding of the efficacy and safety of these compounds in patients. First to VX-765. Initiating a trial in epilepsy highlights the innovative capacity of our research. Based on the emerging medical literature in the field and preclinical data we have gathered with the compound there is evidence to support the Phase 2 trial proof of concept trial which is now underway with several clinical sights open already for patient regroupment. In collaboration with the (inaudible) one of the most renowned epilepsy centers globally, we found in established (inaudible) epilepsy model that VX-765 may play a key role in inhibiting the inflammatory processes that lead to seizures and epilepsy development. As background, targeting inflammation and inflammatory processes is emerging as a new approach for epilepsy treatment and recognized as a major player of the inflammatory response in this case. As a (inaudible) Phase 1 inhibitor, VX-765 inhibits the production of (inaudible) and showed in preclinical model reduced frequency and duration of seizures, especially models that mimic chronic epilepsy status closely related to human pathology. It also showed a good safety profile in clinical studies today. We are really excited about the potential to show proof of concept data for this compound in 2010, and I will be very happy to take questions on this compound following our prepared remarks. In addition, we have initiated a proof of concept trial with our selective JAK3 inhibitor, VX-509 in moderate to severe patients with rheumatoid arthritis. The 200 patient trial is a 12-week (inaudible) randomized placebo-controlled trial. The key focus of the trial will be on safety, tolerability and clinical activity. We are evaluating four dose levels of VX-509 compared to placebo. The salable measure is in 20s, 50s, and 70s, and other disease activity measurements as indicators of clinical benefit. Before I close, I would like to take the opportunity to echo Matt’s comments (inaudible) research and product candidates’ creation effort. We continue to follow the signs and have a number of exciting preclinical programs that have the potential to take shape in the coming months and over the next year. We are very energized by the progress in research and development, and are very excited about the roads these advancements could play in building the company. Now I will turn over the call to Ian.

Thanks, Peter, and good evening to everyone. My comments tonight will focus mainly on financially supporting and balancing the breadth of our business, and with my capital structure through to be a cash flow policy and an EPS valued growth company. We entered 2010 in a strong cash position of approximately $1.3 billion, combined with a minimal amount of convertible debt and approximately 200 million common shares outstanding. This cash position, and more broadly, this capital structure, enables us to advance our priority HCV and CF programs, while continuing our investment in research product creation to support our long-term business objectives. This capital structure preserve our ability to finance further growth if necessary. This is a flexible position to be in as we enter the stage of our business, and hold the potential to drive significant shareholder value. Now to the 2010 financial guidance. Overall, full 2010 guidance is similar to our actual financial 2009 results. The only components that are significantly different to that of 2009 reflect our planning for the launch of Telaprevir. We are spending to put a commercial infrastructure in place and we are building more commercial drug supply. Our projected overall investments in R&D is consistent with that of 2009. Specifically, the research investment, which focuses on new product candidate creation is only slightly higher than 2009, in development, the mix of investment across clinical programs is somewhat different, but overall, the amounts of development investment is relatively similar to 2009. This leads us to our non-GAAP loss guidance of approximately $600 million for 2010, which is approximately $100 million greater than 2009. The increased loss represents increased investment in critical pre-launch activities for Telaprevir, including the building of commercial drug supply, the further expansion of our commercial infrastructure, and the hiring of key employees to support implementation of promotional function. From a GAAP perspective, we expect full-year 2010 GAAP loss of approximately $700 million, which is an increase to our 2009 GAAP loss of approximately $642 million. The 2010 GAAP loss includes approximately $100 million of stock-based compensation, restructuring expense, and revenues and expenses related to the September 2009 milestone financial transactions. The 2009 GAAP loss includes certain charges totaling approximately $135 million. The details of the guidance for 2010 revenues, R&D and SG&A can be found in our press release issued today. I will of course be happy to address any aspect of our guidance in Q&A later. In summary, we’ll continue to balance and manage our financial profile through the planned Telaprevir NDA submission and launch, and we are making key investments based on market opportunities. Our business priorities for 2010 are defining our future success and our financial strength provides support for these objectives and moves us closer to our ultimate goal of commercializing our first therapeutic products and building a fully capable biopharmaceutical company. Thank you. Michael, back to you.

Thank you. We will now open up the call to questions.

Thank you. (Operator instructions) We’ll take our first question from Rachel McMinn, BofA/Merrill Lynch Rachel McMinn – Bank of America Securities/Merrill Lynch: Just two questions for me, one, can you talk a little about Telaprevir twice a day, where you are in discussions with the FDA? And whether your guidance assumes any spend on a Phase 3 trial for that program? And then also what kind of data we can look forward to at Easel [ph] this year? Thanks.

This is Bob; I’ll answer those questions. In terms of twice a day dosing, we are in the process of submitting those data to the FDA and hope to be in discussions with them soon about the requirements that would be necessary to achieve twice a day dosing on our label. As you know, the results of the C208 study were very strong. And twice a day versus three times a day study and those will form the basis for this submission. That’s really all I can say at this point, and we’re really moving along as quickly as we can with our partner Cubitec [ph]. And Rachel, to you point of have we planned for the expense? The twice daily studies we’re in Phase 3. Given we’re R&D, I’m going to call it, pool, is these days, we plan for many, let’s say ins and outs that we may do and we might not do. So the way that we plan R&D these days is we do have specific activities that are planned for within this guidance. And we also plan for pool of activities that may occur. So that’s specifically what’s behind our R&D guidance we gave tonight. Rachel McMinn – Bank of America Securities/Merrill Lynch: Okay. And then on Easel?

On Easel, we expect to have data for the study 107, if you remember that’s the rollover study. There will be some additional analyses of our previous trials. And that really, I think is the primary focus or Easel. As you know there will be lots of more exciting data coming later in the year, but they will be coming later than Easel. So there won’t be a chance to present it to them. Rachel McMinn – Bank of America Securities/Merrill Lynch: Just to clarify are we going to get any 222 data.

Yes. We’ll be showing the initial viral kinetic data from the initial study of 222.

Rachel, I’ll just add that Bob refers to that data that’s specifically data that may be disclosed as part of the conference. As we approach it from an investor relations perspective as well, our approach is to further provide data supporting the drug in the treatment failure setting and then also provide a better understanding of why we have a belief in the STAT-C combination that Peter referred to in his remarks, that we probably get into a little more preclinical data to support the rationale for the study that I expect a little over downtick commenced by that point in time. Rachel McMinn – Bank of America Securities/Merrill Lynch: Okay, perfect. I’ll jump back in the queue. Thanks.

Up next is Geoffrey Porges, Bernstein. Geoffrey Porges – Bernstein: Thanks very much. Couple of questions. First on CF, Peter, it sounds as though there were some patients in VX-709 in the high dose group which got a more significant effect at least on the biochemical marker. Could you talk a little bit about that effect? And is there any clinical correlation with that? Have you had a chance to see whether there was any effect on HCV1 or symptoms? And then related to that, what are your thoughts right now on the duration of the combination study that you could do? You kind of had to do a lot of work, obviously, to get the FDA’s endorsement for the combination study in hep C. Would collateral via, so what 809, 770 study look like, 14 day, 28 day, or shorter? And lastly, I just want to ask, Ian, a follow-up question on the guidance and the outlook on the R&D spend. Thanks.

On behalf of Bob here, our clinical representative, so maybe he can start answering those things, and I will chip into if I have to.

Geoff, your first question, as you know, in all clinical trials there’s variability from subject to subject, and this trial was no exception. There were a range of responses in each of the dose groups. The data we reported are the average data. There were some subjects who responded actually better than others, and we’re in the process of analyzing those individual patients to try to understand why that might be. As you are probably aware, we haven’t really completed the PKPD analysis yet, and that may give us some further insights, so we’ll be able to say more about that when we’ve completed those analyses. In terms of the 770, 809 combination, I think all I can say at this point is now that we have the 809 data, we’re in the process of thinking about our options for the design of that study, including the duration, and it would probably be best not to speculate right now, but really come back to you in a couple of months when we have all of our data, including the drug interaction data between 809 and 770 that we need to design that study and be more forthcoming with the design. Geoffrey Porges – Bernstein: And quickly, could I just follow up on the guidance. I know it’s early to be talking about 2011 and 2012, but given that inventory build is a significant part of your R&D spend this year and last year, and we’ve got a lot of Phase 3s ongoing for both 770 and Telaprevir that should roll off next year, is it reasonable to assume that this is a ceiling for your R&D spend for the next few years, as we think ahead to the company generating cash flow?

Well, thank for that yes, Geoff. The question that you sell for many others than us number of times and this. Very difficult to look into the crystal ball and commit to an absolute shape of the R&D line over the next, let’s say three years to five years. One of the things that as a management team as we say, what does this business look like in the future financially? What was the P&L look like? One thing that we’re absolutely committed to is, as Matt mentioned in his remarks, is turning cash flow positive, being EPS-driven, and also to a high operating margin business. There’s a couple of companies that have gone and done this before us, very successfully in these high volume specialty markets. I don’t want to specifically name those on this call. But then they’re very close to you and others on the call. We look at that from a financial operating performance as a guide to what we hope we can do, given the markets that we’re in. So rather than size the R&D, I would like to think of us sizing our operating margins, which is kind of the key measure of the business and the return to the business. And we’re committed to high operating margins. How we carve up that investment that comes underneath, let’s say our revenues or gross margin between R&D and SG&A, we’ll see, based on the opportunities we have in the markets that we’re in, and maybe the research product creation, but one thing that we are committed to is returning, based on the markets that we’re in, to a high operating margin business. Geoffrey Porges – Bernstein: Thanks very much. That's very helpful.

Next up we’ll hear from Ed Tenthoff of Piper Jaffray. Ed Tenthoff – Piper Jaffray: Great, thanks very much for the question. And congrats on the exciting 809 data yesterday. Two quick questions, if I can on the CF side. In terms of combination how broadly do you think 770 could ultimately be used as a potentiator? And secondly, I think you said that the ENVISION study would be enrolling, is that both parts of the study, and can you walk us through that design again?

So I take the first part of the question. Bob will talk a little bit about the design. So my personal assumption and belief is 770 has a broader use than just C551D patients. And the reason for that is because we have preclinical data that show potentiation is possible for a lot of different mutated channels. And so far preclinical data translated very nicely into the clinical performance. Now we have to obviously do a couple more, either studies and bring different mutations into the clinical trials, but I think I m not assuming that we’re just limited to 551D patients. We’ll see what the future holds, but I think there’s a possibility given the clinical data.

And this is Bob. To your question on the ENVISION trial, yes, the design, if you remember, in this age 6 to 11 trial is a PK lead in to confirm the PK in younger children as opposed to the data we now have in adults and to make sure the dose that we had chosen was correct. The first part of the study is complete. We’re actually analyzing the PK data now, and deciding on what dose to go forward with, that is looking at the dose we had originally planned, and we expect to have that completed very soon and then start on the second part of the study. Based on the experience that we have in the other trials, we expect the trial to enroll very quickly. There’s a lot of patient interest out there, so we’re really not concerned about the enrollment at this point. Ed Tenthoff – Piper Jaffray: Great. Thank you so much.

Our next question today comes from Mark Schoenebaum, Deutsche Bank. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Hey, thanks a lot for taking the questions. First question just, Roche reported a Pegasus number on the quarter; it was shy of at least three expectations. I was wondering if you guys are seeing any changes in the behavior of physicians over the last couple quarters in terms of warehousing and preparation for the potential launches Telaprevir and some other agents? And I got couple real fast housekeeping follow-ups, if you permit?

I’m going to take this at this point. We’ve been tracking this closely as well. I, first of all want to define what you mean by warehousing. Because people talk about warehousing mean so many different things. I’ll tell you that from just inside our own company. So firstly, we’ll tell you how we think about warehousing, which is those people that actually look at future therapies and say I could be treated today, but I’m going to not take therapy, and therefore, I’m going to wait for the future therapy and they may say, sound obvious to many on the call, but I’ll tell you that also people might look at warehousing as those people that have currently failed and are just there in the system waiting for a drug, which is slightly different. So, using our definition of warehousing, which is how many people or how many parents are out there that are actively looking for therapy, but now are deferring it until maybe a Telaprevir comes along. We’re seeing a buildup in the system. I don’t want to comment on the numbers, because difficult to get true visibility on it. But we’re seeing a build-up in numbers. And that’s specifically in the treatment naive patient setting. And with this disease you always have to look at the two different, let’s say patient plows here, as if they are different indications. One being the treatment naive and the second being the treatment failure patient plow. We’re also seeing warehousing in the treatment failure, where patients would like to take on therapy, but they are being deterred away or deferred away, because they are hopeful that a drug has come along very shortly that significantly increases the viral cure rate potential. So we are seeing it. It’s very difficult to get the absolute numbers. It’s such a gray area. But, we are seeing a trend towards warehousing and build reputation. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Just to make sure I understand that. So you have seen a change in the naive warehousing behavior and that change has been more pronounced than in the failure population. Did I understand your response correctly?

No. No. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Okay, sorry.

You are putting too much inflexion in the buildup of patients. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Okay.

There’s a marginal change. But to say a big change -- I mean it's not huge. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Okay. Understood. And then just really quickly for Peter. Peter, what was the DLT of 809 in animal studies, and you established that in humans? I’m trying to get at how high you can push that dose?

The only thing I can say is the therapeutic index of 8 or 9 is very high. I think it’s dependant on species different obviously, but it is very high, we can push up the dose significantly higher than we currently have. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Okay. And then just finally, Ian, a super housekeeping question, but there is a lot of confusion about it. Can you give us your fully diluted share count with everything thrown in at the end of the year? Is that possible? And then I’ll get back in the queue. I appreciate you taking my questions.

Mark, I’m not sure what you mean by everything thrown in. So let me define it. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: Okay. Sure.

So at this point in time, when I talk about approximately 200 million shares outstanding, that is the common shares outstanding currently plus the shares that are outstanding relating to the convertible debt. That’s outstanding, and remember, we had approximately $32 million of convertible debt outstanding. So it’s about -- I think it’s 400,000 shares included in that. We do have options and if you are asking for the options as well, then it is approximately 20 million options outstanding, so if you want to put the options in as well, it takes you up to close to 220 million shares completely. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank:

I assume you are trying to model an EPS as we go forward, Mark, what we found in practice is the company’s exercise history has shown that it’s 2 to 3 million shares get added to the common shares outstanding based on option exercises or restricted stock becoming unrestricted, so if you are trying to model it year-to-year. Mark Schoenebaum – Deutsche Bank: That's great. Thanks a lot.

Next up is Credit Suisse’s Michael Aberman. Ian – Credit Suisse: This is actually Ian [ph] in place of Michael. Can you give us more details in terms of what kind of regimen you have in mind and what the end point would be?

Well, as we reported earlier, the concept is that we try to basically combine Telaprevir and 222 in one way, on the other hand as a single trial with the two compounds alone. The other thing is that we basically also do a quad means Telaprevir, 222. The set up is in a way that we have the possibility to basically stop after 12 weeks, which is, I think, phenomenal, and will push us ahead of everybody else. Patient population is around naive, not (inaudible). I think this is also a very important differentiator compared to BMS. And obviously they are stopping rules in there. And we measure, basically, as we are, and safety as the overall outcome, hoping that we have SVR12 and as a critical, let’s- say end point and can see where we go from there. The patients that will fail, let’s say by measuring in week two and eight, the stopping road means being not detectable, obviously go on to some safety regimen, that are basically not different from what we do right now, is basically 24 weeks, and the relapse is about 48 weeks. I think that is sort of high level what it is. We will come with more details when we have the final, final, which is very soon, and you get some other but important is, it is a real trial and real patients with populations that matter. It is a 12-week setup that gives us the opportunity if it works, to have maybe a regimen out there that is a 12-week regimen, and I think this is a wonderful type of opportunity. We’re looking forward for the success. Ian – Credit Suisse: Okay. Thank you.

Next up, we’ll hear from Yaron Werber, Citi. Yaron Werber – Citi: Hey, thanks for taking my question. Ian, two questions for you. Just trying again, as we are on an old model, as you mentioned going into the commercial launch, help us understand a little bit, I have one question on SG&A and one on COGS. SG&A in the guidance of 175 to 200 is a step up, so obviously it sounds like there is a lot of commercial planning in there. Help us understand kind of how do we think of that year, you are going to be launching your file sometime later on this year, so you are really launching in the '11. Are you thinking that by the end of this year, you are going to have sales persons on the ground, or should we model that more as a 2011 kind of cost? And then I had a question on COGS too.

Yaron, thanks. Nancy is going to jump in here and give you some thoughts on let’s say timing and how we’re thinking about infrastructure build through the next year, 18 months to launch, and then I come back and give you the financial outcomes of what Nancy will tell you.

Yes, thank for the question, Yaron, it’s a good point. We’re right in the midst now, we’re early, but I think we’re in a good spot being more than a year out from launch to really start driving the build of all of the infrastructure systems that we need, and everything put in place in headquarters. As that is coming to completion later in the year, we’ll also be starting to hire on the sales side. We’ll obviously start with management. That will definitely begin in this year, and some of that may likely carry over in to 2011 as well. Yaron Werber – Citi: How many reps are you thinking? I don’t know if you can share with us a little bit kind of, what you think maybe as how you are thinking about the size of what you need to really adequately (inaudible) and just to kind of think about what kind of costs we should be expecting to the out years?

Yes, I think you can actually look at what other competitive companies have done historically to get a general idea of the bounds here. They are usually looking for coverage of about 4,000 physicians in terms of the specialty arena, who are actually doing the treating, and that can be and has been covered by somewhere between 100 reps to 150 reps, flash with management sales force, so we’re evaluating that now, and we’ll bring that in to a little crisper focus as the year progresses. Yaron Werber – Citi: Okay.

And, Yaron, on the financial answer, what it sounds like is you are trying to project outlook what’s kind of steady state SG&A expense. I think what is more easy to do is to say to you that as we look at our G&A; G&A investment is around $100 million right now, up from the 175 that we gave you. And then the 75 million is going to grow, because it is not a full-year cost. So as you look out in to the future years, say, 2011 or 2012. I don’t anticipate that G&A continues to ramp up. We’re in pretty good shape in terms of infrastructure around there. But in terms of that $75 million number, it’s directed towards a commercial organization, you are going to see that increase. But there still is a decent carrying cost as we come to the end of 2010, which should move up in 2011. Yaron Werber – Citi: Right. That’s really useful, and just quickly on COGS. You mentioned that the COGS can be very competitive, and pretty much in line with many of the small molecules out there, but it sounds like manufacturing of this product is a little bit more complicated, you talked about kind of the chain, I don’t know if you can help us understand a little bit, typically we think of, let’s say high single digit, maybe low double digits kind of cost? I mean is that what you have in mind?

At this point let me give you some broad strokes on how to think of the cost of goods for the gross margin calculation, but specifically because we’re expensing our inventory, we have been now for the last couple of years, when we launch the product there isn’t actually a cost of goods within our gross margin calculation for the product because we have been expensing it all prior to the point that the drug is actually approved. So we have a very unusual gross margin as we launch this product, and I appreciate you asking the question, because as we work with a number of the models with the sell side and sometimes with the buy side, but specifically the sell side, we find it has been missed sometime so. There is an unusually high margin on maybe the first 18 months to two years of launch of this drug because there is no cost of goods. As we then look forward into the future, I think you can look at other small molecule drugs and think about how they are priced and then think about more normally what their cost is, and then you can do the normal model for a small molecule drug cost, and then consider that versus what price you may be assuming for the product.

In terms of manufacturing it is not more complicated than other molecules I have developed in my life, which are many. So I think we have the manufacturing infrastructure very well thought through and in place. It’s functioning very well. So don’t be worried about this. In terms of costs, in general, I think will we are in a very, let’s say good place, and as Ian said really comparable to what you normally see in other small molecules out there, it’s not outrageous, and if anything it’s on the better side. Yaron Werber – Citi: Great. Thank you.

Our next question today comes from Geoff Meacham, JP Morgan. Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan: Hi, guys, thanks for taking the question. A couple of questions on 809. The patients in the 200 mg cohort, I’m curious if you saw NPD differences and see electrophysiology and really any of the patients? And if not, how do you guys reconcile these differences?

Yes, this is Bob; I’ll try to answer that one. As you know NPD, is very important because it measures potential differences in the organ of interest, in the respiratory of helium. On the other hand it has a relatively narrow dynamic range, and quite a lot of variability just the way that technology is done, and there’s quite a bit of variability. And so we put NPD into the trial, although our expectations were not high that we would see an NPD effect, and in fact, that is what happened. We didn’t see an effect. We have just gotten the data recently, we’re going back and looking now at the individual patients to try to tease out something, based on your question to try to tease out something, but we have not really completed that yet, so there’s not really much to say. Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan: Okay. And then back to an earlier question on 809 –

One comment I want to make on top of that. Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan: Okay.

For the secondary end points, it was not hard to get statistical significance. It was an exploratory type of exercise to see whether any of those markers might pop up and what they do. And so we are currently in the analysis of offset to figure out whether they were strength or not, I think the jury is open.

Okay. And back to an earlier question, 809, what animal studies that look at delta F maturation, what do they tell you about synergy with 770 and 809.

First of all, thereafter are no good animal models that you know. The only animal model that there’s no even, the first models coming down the pike with some people in the University of Iowa, that’s the first reliable one, as you probably might be aware of, which is a pig, but I think this model is not validated, so all the measurements that we did is basically done in vitro by taking patient sample, which are HBE brochial, epithelial cells basically from humans and did our measurements with the compound, including the combination. Now, in HBEs what you have seen in 770 so far, 100% translated into human beings. The same you see for 809. Those systems 100% translated into human beings in the same range. Now, the only thing we have not yet in humans is basically the combination. But in terms of HBEs the combination of 809 and 770, is more than additive, so it’s a 2.5 fold to 3 fold increase basically to a certain extent even and I think which we’re expecting, given the fact that 770 translated into humans, and 809 translated into humans, that there is some positive outcome, in 809 and 770. The only open question is that enough to basically induce therapeutic relevant outcome? And we will see that when we do the study. Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan: Got you. Okay. And then a final question for, Ian, just when you think about R&D for '09 is there any way in broad brush strokes you can break out any hep C, CF and everything else and then maybe extrapolate these trends and how they evolve going forward?

Strokes on 2009, yes, I can give you some indication, Geoff, which helps you go forward, which is total R&D costs for 2009 was approximately $480 million, and first of all, you have to deduct the research cost of that, which is, as always has stayed pretty steady now for the last few years. That’s about $150 million. So that leaves development investments at around $330 million, of which there is some commercial supply investment in that. Let’s just call the development investment about $300 million. And the way to carve that up is the principal investment is towards HCV and CF and if you think about the number of patients we’re studying in HCV which is close to 2500, the number of patients we treated during 2009, and then compare that to start-up cost in the patients we started with cystic fibrosis which was probably 200 to 250 in all the trials, it gives you a pretty good idea of the spread. I’ll point out though that the cost of running a cystic fibrosis or the cost of a patient in a cystic fibrosis trial is significantly more expensive than that in an HCV. Unfortunately, these patients are very sick and also a lot of the work that we’re doing in the CF area is with some of the academic institutions. So, it carries a higher cost per patient, but it gives you an idea of how it splits up. Geoff Meacham – JP Morgan: Okay. Thanks a lot.

Our next question comes from Howard Liang of Leerink Swann. Howard Liang – Leerink Swann: Thank you very much. I have a few questions related to data time line for this year. First for Telaprevir 222 combination data we’re going to see in the third quarter would that be on-treatment data or follow-up day?

That will be on-treatment data. Howard Liang – Leerink Swann: Okay. And then for STRIVE, I heard Peter say that I think the trial is 48 weeks. I think the design is six months efficacy, 12 months safety. Is that still the same? And will we see six month efficacy data this year?

You got the trial design right. So I’ll take the disclosure question, Howard. And this question has been asked a number of times. There are different scenarios that you may see the 24-week data, but they will generally be if we’re being asked by the FDA to file early because the data is so compelling, or the FDA is requiring us to file early, which will be a combination of the efficacy data and also the six months safety date. And there will probably be some patients that have completed a full 12 months at that point. But, if not, then you will remain blinded to the 24 -week answer through to the trial running its course for 48 weeks, given that that is the trial design. So basically the trigger to think about getting something early is that the FDA is asking us to file early. Howard Liang – Leerink Swann: Okay. And lastly, could we see DISCOVER data this year?

Likely to see DISCOVER data this year?

The answer is no, we probably won’t be disclosing that prior to sort of all of the rest of it being disclosed. Bob.

Yes, the idea here is that the FDA asked us to run three programs. It was all part of the whole registration package, whether it was in adults, ages 6 through 11, and then the delta 508, which was part of the registration package for safety, so we’re looking at it as our one unit to file with the FDA, unless they ask us to do something differently. Howard Liang – Leerink Swann: Thanks very much.

JMP Securities, Liisa Bayko has the next question. Eric – JMP Securities: This is Eric [ph] calling in for Liisa. I just had a couple of quick questions on the STAT-C Combo. How much animal tox do you have for 222? And secondly, I guess this is for Peter, what gives you confidence in 222 and Telaprevir as a 12-week regimen.

I think that’s a good question. First answer is we have three-month coverage for both molecules, 222, as well as obviously, Telaprevir we have everything all the way through the end, we have basically a year safety. So we have enough, basically to do what we planned to do. We are basically also conducting longer-term talks as we go forward, that’s in the works, but at this point in time, I think we can conduct the trial that we have in mind. Now what gives me the confidence? The confidence is driven by simulation approaches that we have in our organization, as you might well be aware of, and we have probably spoken to that already is, we have a very sophisticated HCV disease model that also gives insight in therapeutic regimens and the responsible regimens to effect the patient behavior. We use that model to predict basically how Telaprevir will work, and that was the phase for basically getting down from 48 weeks to 24 weeks. This model is very sophisticated, has all patient information, including very information in patients and sequencing data in there. When you do that, but adding in 222, you get a good insight for the potential outcome might be. The confidence level in this model is high. It’s actually very accepted by the (inaudible) also in the FDA. When you look at that, there is a chance that is regimen might at the end of the day (inaudible) that’s why I’m confident. I’m very confident about that. We’ll see how it goes. Eric – JMP Securities: Great. And just one last quick question. Going forward can Telaprevir be dosed for more than three months based on its tolerability profile, as a combination agent?

Yes. This is Bob. We’ve looked at that and if you remember in the PROVE 3 trial there was one of the treatment arms that included 24 weeks in Telaprevir in combination with in vitro viral and our overall view was that the tolerability of that regimen was somewhat less than 12 weeks, and yes, there was no biologic benefit to increasing the treatment from 12 weeks t0 24 weeks. . So in terms of risk benefit, there didn’t seem to be any real need to go beyond 12 weeks of Telaprevir. I think for the combination work, we certainly believe that’s true. We don’t believe the maturations point of the 12 weeks for Telaprevir would be necessary.

The other comment I want to make is you have a very different regimen because you have not akin to ribavirin as background. That might change to safety profile to the better, and we basically cannot extrapolate from the one to the other. Eric – JMP Securities: All right. Thanks, guys.

Jason Kantor, RBC Capital Markets is up next. Jason Kantor – RBC Capital Markets: Most of my questions have been asked already. Thanks for taking mine. Sorry I was on mute there. Real quick on the RA program, what sort of data will we see this year? What timeframe would we expect this to be in? Would this be kind of final Phase 2 data or would this be interim? And then another question, real quick, for Nancy, you mentioned that you in joining the firm saw that they, the company has a unique HCV market insights. And I’m just wondering what those might be relative to what everybody else is thinking about the market.

I’ll answer the first question, Jason. That’s a good question. So as we have said, we’re measuring HCV 20, 50, and 70, and that’s one of the key readouts. On the other hand it is basically a safety profile, and we look at everything that needs to be looked at there. So that is the type of data you can expect in the second half of the year. And Nancy – Jason Kantor – RBC Capital Markets: Is that 12-week data that we’ll be seeing?

This is Bob. No, it will be interim data.

Okay. So, thank you, Jason. This is Nancy. I was very impressed once I joined Vertex and had a chance to start meeting particularly with my direct reports and the staff on the commercial side that they have done quite a bit of work. In fact, maybe sort of leading the whole pack in terms of how we think about the HCV market. I can tell you one of the biggest differences that I saw once I got in house and had access to this, really, very sound research, is particularly as it relates to the differentiation of the patients who have been previously treated and their thinking about moving forward, and the physicians thinking about moving forward versus the naive patients, and really looking at those as two different segments, and we’ll be progressing with that thinking moving forward, and I hope to share more details as we learn more.

And I’d just add to what Nancy said in that, the understanding of the market, because a lot of this came earlier on, our understanding of the market and how to access these patients in these different patient was has driven how the team has created the clinical studies. And if you think about the studies that we’re running today as a company, and then the fast followers that their studies that they are running, they have become model after us. So when you look at some of the features in our trial design, specifically the RVR measure that we’ve driven how and now we’re finding at the major patient motivator to stay on therapy, I use that as one example, but the trial design and the following other are now showing of design their own study, that is very similar to our own, has all come out of our understanding of this market, the patient, the dialogue that’s going on between the physician and the patient, and then also the type of patient, which is difficult to understand, and then clearly the advocacy groups. We have been working very closely with them, and spending a lot of time down in D.C. with the CDC as well to understand this market and maybe drive more screening for what we think is a really serious disease. Jason Kantor – RBC Capital Markets: Thank you.

Next up, we’ll hear from Terence Flynn with Lazard Capital Markets. Terence Flynn – Lazard Capital Markets: Hi, thanks for taking the question. Just two quick ones. First, I was wondering if you guys can give us any update on the plans to conduct a Telaprevir trial, and patients and co-infected with hep C and HIV and then any plans to get that on an eventual Telaprevir label? And then second question is just wondering if we’re going to see any further commercial supply build in the first half of 2011 prior to the launch of the drug? Thanks a lot.

This is Bob; I’ll answer the first one. We have a co-infection study, a pilot study actually running right now. And, yes, we would hope to get HIV co-infection on the label eventually. Everything will depend on the results we see in the pilot study and then subsequent design of a Phase 3 program. But it’s ongoing.

And in terms of supply chain, Terence, I think yes, you will see something in 2011 because it’s a continuous process, it’s basically an 18-month type of endeavor, you have to make sure that you have safety stock and everything else, so I think we have now done in 2010, just to continue that for2011, goes on now, and is driven by market forecast, and other customer needs that we have like Mitsubishi.

To be honest, I m a little confused by the question. We expect that this have longevity in the market. So as well product we got to replace it, so, of course, in 2011, 12, 13, and onwards we’re building commercial inventory for turning into product for patients. It will be accounted for in a different manner, but the point is that it’s a proved, that’s what the question to driving at the point the product is approved, and we will be capitalizing inventory. Terence Flynn – Lazard Capital Markets: Great. Thanks a lot.

We’ll now go to Brian Abrahams, Oppenheimer & Company. Brian Abrahams – Oppenheimer & Company: Hi, thanks for taking my questions. Two questions on VX-809. I apologize if some of this was already covered and I hopped on late, in escalating doses further with single -agent 809, would you be able to do this as an extension of the Phase 2 that just reported out or would this need to be an entirely new trial? And then how high of a magnitude in sweat chloride improvements, which you need to get to relative to what you saw with 770 to be confident that 809 is ultimately going to produce functional benefits either loan or in combo with 700 or are you already there? Thanks.

This is Bob. I’ll take those questions. For one the study that we reported out is closed. So there’s no opportunity to include additional doses in that trial. We would actually look forward to potentially doing the dose escalation with VX-809 in conjunction with a combination trial. Perhaps is one part of it. Those plans are not solid yet, but that’s what we’re thinking. We obviously have to analyze the current study first and then move on. We would probably include them as potentially as one trial with some dose escalation followed by a combination work. Then, your second question is one that I can’t really answer because, I think that is one of the major questions in the program, is how much the FBR activity, how much correction is necessary to produce a clinically meaningful effect. As you are aware we saw this in VX-770, with the given amount of sweat chloride change, but it’s only one point and that’s the only point we have so far. So I think it will really depend a lot on what we see in the next set of trials. That’s of course the major question for the program. And that’s the next step. Brian Abrahams – Oppenheimer & Company: Good enough. Thanks very much.

Moving on to Adam Cutler, Canaccord. Adam Cutler – Canaccord: Hi, thanks for taking the question. I’m wondering if you can just remind us what studies you have done with 222 since you bought (inaudible), and anything that you may have learned in particular from those studies about the ability to dose up further or dose down, any other lessons perhaps? And then separate question is, is it still a possibility that you may work with other companies to look at Telaprevir in combinations with other agents

Okay. So to the first thing, I think we did basically single dose and multiple dose escalating studies in healthy volunteers with 222. We did DDI studies, as you mentioned we develop here on. And those data were helping us to basically build the foundation for the combination trial that we are currently having in the works with agencies. So that’s the number one thing. In terms of the other question can Telaprevir be linked with other type of approaches and molecules? Absolutely, yes. The reason that we believe in that is we are on our own have still other programs going on like a 5A program that you are aware of and we are constantly evaluating out of rural, whether there are any molecules out there that are commensurate and compatible with overall growth for Telaprevir or the goal of a combination therapy. Adam Cutler – Canaccord: Okay. And then just one further point on that, do you expect the 750-milligram BID regimen is what you will, for 222, is what you’ll use on the combo studies?

Can you just hold on that kind of specifics on the combo studies? What we’ll do actually when we announce the combination study, is we’ll actually give you the data on the dose ranging study that Peter referred to, and also the drug-drug interaction study that was referred to, and that will help support why we have designed the trial the way we have. So if you just hold on that, we will give it to you shortly. Adam Cutler – Canaccord: Okay.

Dosing regimens for the combo you will see sooner we basically announce some split up. But I assume that we go with the most straightforward fashion. Adam Cutler – Canaccord: Great. Thanks. I look forward to it.

Our next question comes from Davis Bu, Goldman Sachs. Davis Bu – Goldman Sachs: Hi, thank you for taking the questions. I guess I had a question about your CF program or two related questions. The first is looking at the DISCOVER trial, am I right in assuming that it’s powered to demonstrate efficacy? And if so, if you could share with us what the powering assumptions are? And then secondly as it relates to that, does the 809 data change your level of optimism for showing, positive benefits in the DISCOVER trial? And would you consider upsizing that trial?

So Bob, do you want to? I answer the second one first, and then Bob talk to the first one. I think 809 is a corrector molecule and 770, the cover trial is a potentiator molecule. So we compare here (inaudible) type of approaching different for malaise, so. I think can’t really compare that. However, VX-809 enhance my enthusiasm for the overall success of the combination in CF program, absolutely, I’m enthusiastic that we saw what we saw. I think this is really phenomenal, and it gives you a lot of options as we go forward. So Bob will talk about –

Yes, this is Bob. So the DISCOVER trial really was sized for a safety end point based on in vitro data, we have a certain set of expectations on the amount of potential activity we would see. It’s very much exploratory; we actually don’t know what we’ll see. And I guess to my confidence level, VX-809, as Peter mentioned, is just a very different drug, and that’s why different mechanisms, so I really wouldn’t expect there to be any spill-over effect in confidence from one compound to the other. I think you have to see them as very independent. And the answer is no, we’re going to keep the study the size that it currently is. Davis Bu – Goldman Sachs: Thank you.

Operator, I think we have time for one more question.

Thank you. And our final question today will come from Jason Zhang, BMO Capital Markets. Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets: Hi, thanks. Can you hear me?

Yes. Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets: Okay. I have two questions, one, I don’t know whether it’s too early to talk about pricing, but let me just pose this question. Ian, you say you have a very good understanding of the market, particularly, the difference between the treatment-naive and treatment-failure. Knowing that these patients are going to come to the treatment differently, and that affects your assumption of revenue, is that something you also would take into consideration when you price the drug?

Yes, so, let’s keep it broad right now, and it s early to talk about pricing, but broadly, we can talk by, we’re going to look at the patient flow. We’re going to look at the benefit we’re providing to the two different patient populations. And we need to look at the results that we get in the two different trials that we’re running, that’s the benefit to the patients. So I guess part of the answer is absolutely we’re going to take a look at treatment failure versus naive, because there is a differential benefit between these two patient populations, and we’ll incorporate that into our strategic pricing. Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets: Okay. Then the second one, maybe I guess this is for both Bob and Peter, given what we have seen with 809 data, I guess, Bob you lose a little bit in that the combination trial, you might actually include a dose escalating of 809, and based on that data, you might proceed to the combination or you are going to go straight to the combination no matter what, but I think given those response and given the modest activity at least for our sweat chloride decrease, would it make more sense to really find a optimal dose of 809 before you actually decide the combination trial?

This is Bob. So, yes, we are obviously committed to going as quickly as we can into the combination, since we see that as the primary development path for the drug. At the same time we have to get the doses right. And you just can’t run a study at the wrong dose level. So, both are true. I think we would do the dose escalation should it be warranted when we take a look at all the data, and then we could just include those higher doses in a combination part of that study, for example as one study or could be done as two closely links trials, that’s really what we haven’t really completely firmed up yet. We’ll be doing that shortly. Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets: Okay. Just a quick follow-up on the previous question about DISCOVER. Even though, the two drugs works very differently, but we know in preclinical model, particularly, if you do test in the 508 deletion mutants, the tuition to have a somewhat, I guess, same efficacy, but you put them together like Peter said you have two full inquiries. I’m just wondering again, given what you have seen with 809 in this mutant, what is your view on the DISCOVER trial now? Or would they also inform you about your future combination? Would you rather wait to see what that trial will give you? Because again if you have the same effect like you have seen with 809 in that trial, what confidence level do you have for the combination?

I want to give a very high level answer to that point. I think at the end of the day, as you well know, Jason, it’s all about what it really does in human beings, so let’s do the trials, figure out what the response is, and then basically make a good and solid discussion and decision how to move forward. My confidence level out of the preclinical data is high that we will see something, but we will see what that means in therapeutic benefit as soon as we have patient data, and that is sort of what I would say, the rest is speculation. You can speculate until the (inaudible) come home and you can have your ideas, I can have mine, and that’s wonderful. Jason Zhang – BMO Capital Markets: Thanks.

Okay. Thanks, everyone for joining us. We will be in our offices this evening and available for additional questions, and we appreciate you taking the time to participate tonight. Thanks.

And once again, ladies and gentlemen, that does conclude today’s conference. Thank you for all for your participation.