Table of Contents

Filed Pursuant to Rule 424(b)(4)
Registration No. 333-220755

PROSPECTUS

9,900,990 Common Shares

and

Warrants to Purchase up to 8,910,891 Common Shares

(8,910,891 Common Shares

Underlying the Warrants)

Acasti Pharma Inc. is offering 9,900,990 common shares, together with warrants to purchase up to 8,910,891 common shares. Each accompanying warrant is to purchase 0.90 of a common share. The common shares and warrants will be separately issued but will be purchased together in this offering. Each full warrant will have an exercise price of US$1.26 per share, will be exercisable upon issuance and will expire five years from the date on which such warrants were issued.

Our common shares are listed for trading on the NASDAQ Stock Market and the TSX Venture Exchange under the symbol “ACST”. On December 20, 2017, the closing price of our common shares on the NASDAQ Stock Market was US$1.18 per share and on the TSX Venture Exchange was $1.52 per share. There is no established trading market for the warrants. We do not intend to apply for any listing of the warrants on the NASDAQ Stock Market or the TSX Venture Exchange or any other securities exchange or nationally recognized trading system.

We are an “emerging growth company” under the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act of 2012.

Investing in our securities involves risks. See “Risk Factors” beginning on page 9 of this prospectus.

PRICE US$1.009 PER SHARE AND US$0.001 PER WARRANT

We have granted the underwriters an option to purchase up to an additional 1,100,110 common shares and/or warrants to purchase up to an aggregate of 990,099 common shares at an exercise price of US$1.26 per share to cover over-allotments, if any. The underwriters can exercise this option at any time within 30 days after the date of this prospectus.

Neither the United States Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has approved or disapproved of the securities or passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this prospectus. Any representation to the contrary is a criminal offense.

The underwriters expect to deliver the common shares and the warrants against payment on or about December 27, 2017 which is the third business day following the date of pricing of the common shares and accompanying warrants (such settlement being referred to as “T+3”). Under Rule 15c6-1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, trades in the secondary market generally are required to settle in two business days unless the parties to any trade expressly agree otherwise. See “Underwriting”.

The date of this prospectus is December 21, 2017.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Neither we nor the underwriters have authorized anyone to provide information different from that contained in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus or in any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. Neither we nor the underwriters take any responsibility for, and can provide no assurance as to the reliability of, any information other than the information in this prospectus, any amendment or supplement to this prospectus, and any free writing prospectus prepared by us or on our behalf. Neither the delivery of this prospectus nor the sale of our securities means that information contained in this prospectus is correct after the date of this prospectus. This prospectus is not an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy our securities in any circumstances under which such offer or solicitation is unlawful.

We are offering to sell, and seeking offers to buy, securities only in jurisdictions where offers and sales are permitted. Neither we nor any of the underwriters have done anything that would permit this offering or possession or distribution of this prospectus in any jurisdiction where action for that purpose is required, other than in the United States. You are required to inform yourselves about and to observe any restrictions relating to this offering and the distribution of this prospectus. The offered securities have not been and will not be qualified for distribution pursuant to a prospectus filed with the securities regulatory authorities in any of the provinces or territories of Canada and may not be offered or sold in Canada except pursuant to an exemption from the prospectus requirements of applicable Canadian securities laws.

Table of Contents

ABOUT THIS PROSPECTUS

Except as otherwise indicated, references to “Acasti”, the “Corporation”, “we”, “us”, “it”, “its”, “our” or similar terms refer to Acasti Pharma Inc.

This prospectus contains company names, product names, trade names, trademarks and service marks of Acasti, Neptune Technologies & Bioressources Inc. and other organizations, all of which are the property of their respective owners. We own or have rights to trademarks, service marks or trade names that we use in connection with the operation of our business. In addition, our name, logo and website names and addresses are our service marks or trademarks. CaPre^® and the phrase “BREAKING DOWN THE WALLS OF CHOLESTEROL” are our registered trademarks. The other trademarks, trade names and service marks appearing in this prospectus are the property of their respective owners. Solely for convenience, the trademarks, service marks, tradenames and copyrights referred to in this prospectus are listed without the ^©, ^® and ^TM symbols, but we will assert, to the fullest extent under applicable law, our rights or the rights of the applicable licensors to these trademarks, service marks and tradenames.

Our financial information contained herein are presented in Canadian dollars. All references in this prospectus to “dollars”, “CDN$” and “$” refer to Canadian dollars, and references to “US$” refer to United States dollars. Potential purchasers should be aware that foreign exchange rate fluctuations are likely to occur from time to time and that we do not make any representation with respect to future currency values. Investors should consult their own advisors with respect to the potential risk of currency fluctuations.

All financial information derived from our financial statements contained in this prospectus is presented in accordance with International Financial Reporting Standards, or IFRS, as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB. We use multiple financial measures for the review of our operating performance. These measures are generally IFRS financial measures, but one adjusted financial measure, Non-IFRS operating loss (adding to net loss, finance expenses, depreciation and amortization and impairment loss, change in fair value of derivative warrant liabilities, stock-based compensation and subtracting finance income and deferred income tax recovery), is also used to assess our operating performance. We use this measure, in addition to the IFRS financial measures, for the purposes of evaluating our historical and prospective financial performance, as well as our performance relative to competitors and to plan and forecast future periods as well as to make operational and strategic decisions. We believe that providing this non-IFRS information to investors, in addition to IFRS measures, allows them to see our results through the eyes of our management, and to better understand our historical and future financial performance. See “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Caution Regarding Non-IFRS Financial Measures”.

Unless otherwise indicated, market data and certain industry data and forecasts included in this prospectus concerning our industry and the markets in which we operate or seek to operate were obtained from internal company surveys, market research, publicly available information, reports of governmental agencies and industry publications and surveys. We have relied upon industry publications as our primary sources for third-party industry data and forecasts. Industry surveys, publications and forecasts generally state that the information contained therein has been obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but that the accuracy and completeness of such information is not guaranteed. We have not independently verified any of the data from third-party sources, nor have we ascertained the underlying economic assumptions relied upon therein. Similarly, internal surveys, industry forecasts and market research, which we believe to be reliable based upon management’s knowledge of the industry, have not been independently verified. By their nature, forecasts are particularly subject to change or inaccuracies, especially over long periods of time. In addition, we do not know what assumptions regarding general economic growth were used in preparing the forecasts cited in this prospectus. While we are not aware of any misstatements regarding the industry data presented herein, our estimates involve risks and uncertainties and are subject to change based on various factors, including those discussed under “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” and “Risk Factors” in this prospectus. While we believe our internal business research is reliable and market definitions are appropriate, neither such research nor definitions have been verified by any independent source.

- 1 -

Table of Contents

- 2 -

Table of Contents

- 3 -

Table of Contents

- 4 -

Table of Contents

- 5 -

Table of Contents

- 6 -

Table of Contents

- 7 -

Table of Contents

RISK FACTORS

An investment in our securities involves a high degree of risk and should be considered speculative. An investment in our securities should only be undertaken by those persons who can afford the total loss of their investment. You should carefully consider the risks and uncertainties described below, as well as other information contained in this prospectus. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us or that we believe to be immaterial may also adversely affect our business. If any of these risks actually occur, our business, financial condition, prospects, results of operations or cash flow could be materially and adversely affected and you could lose all or a part of the value of your investment. Certain statements below are forward-looking statements. See “Cautionary Statement Regarding Forward-Looking Statements”.

Risks Facing Our Business and Industry

We may not be able to maintain our operations and advance our research and development of CaPre without additional funding.

We have incurred operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since our inception. To date, we have financed our operations through public offerings and private placements of securities, proceeds from exercises of warrants, rights and options, and receipt of research tax credits and research grant programs. Our cash and cash equivalents (including restricted investments) were $5.3 million as of September 30, 2017, $9.8 million as of March 31, 2017 and $12.5 million as of February 29, 2016. Our current assets as at September 30, 2017 are projected to be significantly less than needed to support our current liabilities as at September 30, 2017 when combined with our projected level of expenses for the next twelve months, including initiation of, and enrollment of patients in, our Phase 3 program for CaPre. Our positive working capital balance has declined during the current fiscal year and is expected to continue to decline until we raise additional funds or find a strategic partner. We will also require substantial additional funds to conduct further research and development and our Phase 3 program, obtain regulatory approvals and commercialize CaPre. In addition to completing nonclinical and clinical trials, we expect that additional time and capital will be required by us to file an NDA to obtain FDA approval for CaPre in the United States and to complete marketing and other pre-commercialization activities. We will also most likely require additional capital to fund our daily operating needs. Based on a conservative estimate, we believe that the net proceeds of this offering, together with our existing cash and cash equivalents, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through May 2018. To achieve our business plan, we will need to raise the necessary capital primarily through additional securities offerings and strategic alliances in the near term. We have no committed source of additional capital from Neptune, which currently owns approximately 34% of our common shares, or any other party, and if we are unable to raise additional capital in sufficient amounts or on terms acceptable to us, we may have to significantly delay, scale back or discontinue our development or commercialization of CaPre or our other research and development initiatives. Funding needs could also force us to seek strategic partners for CaPre at an earlier stage than we desire or on terms that are less favorable to us or force us to relinquish or license our rights to CaPre on unfavorable terms or in markets where we would prefer to pursue development or commercialization ourselves. Additional funding from third parties may not be available on acceptable terms or at all to enable us to continue and complete our research and development of CaPre.

We recently entered into a non-binding term sheet with a leading China-based pharmaceutical company. Completion of the transaction is subject to further negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement, which once signed would grant an exclusive license to the Chinese pharmaceutical company to commercialize CaPre in certain Asian countries, including China. If a definitive agreement is reached and signed, the term sheet contemplates that we would receive an upfront payment of US$8 million upon signing, plus potential regulatory and commercial milestone payments in excess of US$125 million, and tiered double-digit royalties on net sales. The term sheet contemplates that the term of the license, including the period during which milestone payments, if any, could be achieved, would be the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the last-to-expire patent or (ii) 2035, and the license would be automatically renewable for one renewal term of ten years. The term sheet is preliminary and non-binding at this stage and the license, upfront payment, possible milestone payments and royalties contemplated by it will only become operative if definitive documents are executed. It is possible that no definitive agreement will be reached, or, if a definitive agreement is reached, that its terms and conditions

- 8 -

Table of Contents

may differ from those described above. If we do enter into definitive documents, the near term timing of the next steps in the advancement of our research and development of CaPre could be affected, depending on whether our development of CaPre in those Asian countries would be pursued under a separate clinical program or as part of our existing Phase 3 clinical program.

If we do not raise additional funds or find one or more strategic partners, we may not be able to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of business. As a result, there exists a material uncertainty that casts substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and, therefore, realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of business. Our financial statements have been prepared on a going-concern basis, which assumes we will continue our operations in the foreseeable future and will be able to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities and commitments in the ordinary course of business. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, material write-downs to the carrying value of our assets, including intangible assets, could be required. If we fail to obtain additional financing, we may not be able to continue as a going concern.

If we encounter difficulties enrolling patients in our Phase 3 program, our development activities for CaPre could be delayed or otherwise adversely affected.

We may experience difficulties in patient enrollment in our clinical trials, including our Phase 3 program for CaPre, for a variety of reasons. Timely completion of our clinical trials in accordance with their protocols depends, among other things, on our ability to enroll a sufficient number of patients who remain in the trial until its conclusion. The enrollment of patients depends on many factors, including:

Our Phase 3 program for CaPre may compete with other clinical trials for product candidates that are in the same therapeutic areas as CaPre. This competition could reduce the number and types of patients and qualified clinical investigators available to us, because some patients who might have opted to enroll in our Phase 3 program may instead opt to enroll in a trial being conducted by one of our competitors or a clinical trial site may not allow us to conduct our clinical program at that site if competing trials are already being conducted there. We may also encounter difficulties finding adequate clinical trial sites at which to conduct our Phase 3 program. Delays in patient enrollment may result in increased costs or may affect the timing or outcome of our Phase 3 program, which could impair or prevent its completion and adversely affect our ability to advance the development of CaPre.

Our prospects currently depend entirely on the success of CaPre, which is still in clinical development, and we may not be able to generate revenues from CaPre.

We have no prescription drug products that have been reviewed or approved by the FDA, Health Canada or any similar regulatory authority. Our only prescription drug candidate is CaPre, for which we have not yet filed an

- 9 -

Table of Contents

NDA, and for which we must conduct a Phase 3 program, undergo further development activities and seek and receive regulatory approval prior to commercial launch, which we do not anticipate will occur until the second half of 2021 at the earliest. We have invested significant effort and financial resources in researching and developing CaPre. Further development of CaPre will require substantial investment, access to sufficient commercial manufacturing capacity and significant marketing efforts before we can generate any revenue from sales of CaPre, if it is ever approved for commercialization.

We do not have any other prescription drug candidates in development and so our business prospects currently depend entirely on the successful development, regulatory approval and commercialization of CaPre, which may never occur. Most prescription drug candidates never reach the clinical development stage and even those that do reach clinical development have only a small chance of successfully completing clinical development and gaining regulatory approval. If we are unable to successfully commercialize CaPre, we may never generate meaningful revenues. In addition, if CaPre reaches commercialization and there is low market demand for CaPre or the market for CaPre develops less rapidly than we anticipate, we may not have the ability to shift our resources to the development of alternative products.

We may not be able to obtain required regulatory approvals for CaPre.

We have limited experience in conducting and managing the clinical trials necessary to obtain regulatory approvals, including approval by the FDA and, as a company, we have no experience in obtaining approval of any product candidates. The research, testing, manufacturing, labeling, packaging, storage, sale, marketing, pricing, export, import and distribution of prescription drug products are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA and other regulatory authorities in the United States and other countries and those regulations differ from country to country. We are not permitted to market CaPre in the United States until we receive approval of an NDA from the FDA and similar restrictions apply in other countries. In the United States, the FDA generally requires the completion of preclinical testing and clinical trials of each drug to establish its safety and efficacy and extensive pharmaceutical development and manufacturing controls to ensure its quality before an NDA is approved. Regulatory authorities in other jurisdictions impose similar requirements. Of the large number of drugs in development, only a small percentage result in the submission of an NDA to the FDA and even fewer are approved for commercialization. To date, we have not submitted an NDA for CaPre to the FDA or comparable applications to other regulatory authorities.

Our receipt of required regulatory approvals for CaPre is uncertain and subject to a number of risks, including:

- 10 -

Table of Contents

The FDA and other similar regulators have substantial discretion in the approval process and may refuse to accept our application or may decide that our data is insufficient for approval and require additional clinical trials, or preclinical or other studies for CaPre. If regulatory approval for CaPre is obtained in one jurisdiction, that does not necessarily mean that CaPre will receive regulatory approval in all jurisdictions in which we seek approval. If we fail to obtain approval for CaPre in one or more jurisdictions, our ability to obtain approval in a different jurisdiction may be negatively affected.

We may not achieve our publicly announced milestones on time, or at all.

From time to time, we may publicly announce the timing of certain events we expect to occur, such as the anticipated timing of results from our clinical trials. These statements are forward-looking and are based on the best estimate of management at the time relating to the occurrence of the events. However, the actual timing of these events may differ from what has been publicly disclosed. The timing of events such as completion of a clinical trial, discovery of a new product candidate, filing of an application to obtain regulatory approval, beginning of commercialization of products, or announcement of additional clinical trials for a product candidate may ultimately vary from what is publicly disclosed. For example, we cannot provide assurances that we will conduct our Phase 3 clinical trials for CaPre, that we will make regulatory submissions or receive regulatory approvals as planned, or that we will be able to adhere to plans for the scale-up of manufacturing and launch of CaPre. These variations in timing may occur as a result of different events, including the nature of the results obtained during a clinical trial or during a research phase, problems with a supplier or a distribution partner or any other event having the effect of delaying the publicly announced timeline. We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking information, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as otherwise required by law. Any variation in the timing of previously-announced milestones could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition or operating results and the trading price of our common shares.

If outcome studies being conducted by two of our competitors testing the impact of OM3 on treating patients with high TGs are negative, there could also be an adverse impact for CaPre.

We are currently awaiting outcome study data from two of our competitors that are testing the effects of OM3 on patients with high TGs. These cardiovascular outcome studies are expected to report in mid-2018 (the REDUCE-IT trial sponsored by Amarin) and 2019 (the STRENGTH trial sponsored by AstraZeneca). If those studies show that OM3 therapeutic drugs effectively treat patients with high TGs and improve cardiovascular, morbidity and mortality outcomes, we believe that the potential to expand CaPre’s indication in the future to include the treatment of high TGs would be significantly advanced. Conversely, if outcome study data from one or both of those competitors is negative, or if one or both clinical trials fail to be completed, our potential target market for CaPre could be limited solely to patients with severe HTG and our ability to realize greater market potential of CaPre could be harmed.

Reimbursement decisions by third-party payors may have an adverse effect on pricing and market acceptance. If there is not sufficient reimbursement for CaPre, it is less likely that it will be widely used.

Even if CaPre is approved for sale by the appropriate regulatory authorities, market acceptance and sales of CaPre will depend on reimbursement policies and may be affected by future healthcare reform measures. Government authorities and third-party payors, such as private health insurers and health maintenance organizations, decide which drugs they will reimburse and establish payment levels. We cannot be certain that reimbursement will be available for CaPre. If reimbursement is not available or is available on a limited basis, we may not be able to successfully commercialize CaPre.

There may be significant delays in obtaining coverage and reimbursement for newly-approved drugs, and coverage may be more limited than the purposes for which the drug is approved by the FDA or other regulatory authorities. Moreover, eligibility for coverage and reimbursement does not imply that a drug will be paid for in all cases or at a rate that covers our costs, including research, development, manufacture, sale and distribution expenses. Interim

- 11 -

Table of Contents

reimbursement levels for new drugs, if applicable, may also be insufficient to cover our costs and may not be made permanent. Reimbursement rates may vary according to the use of a drug and the clinical setting in which it is used, may be based on reimbursement levels already set for lower cost drugs and may be incorporated into existing payments for other services. Net prices for drugs may be reduced by mandatory discounts or rebates required by government healthcare programs or private payors and by any future relaxation of laws that presently restrict imports of drugs from countries where they may be sold at lower prices than in the United States. Our inability to promptly obtain coverage and profitable payment rates from both government-funded and private payors for CaPre could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and our overall financial condition.

Recent and future legal developments could make it more difficult and costly for us to obtain regulatory approvals for CaPre and negatively affect the prices we may charge.

In the United States and elsewhere, recent and proposed legal and regulatory changes to healthcare systems could prevent or delay our receipt of regulatory approval for CaPre, restrict or regulate our post-approval marketing activities, and adversely affect our ability to profitably sell CaPre. Proposals have also been made to expand post-approval requirements and to restrict sales and promotional activities for pharmaceutical products. We do not know whether additional legislative changes will be enacted, or whether the FDA’s regulations, guidance or interpretations will be changed, or what impact any such changes will have, if any, on our ability to obtain regulatory approvals for CaPre. Further, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, or CMS, frequently changes product descriptors, coverage policies, product and service codes, payment methodologies and reimbursement values. Also, increased scrutiny by the U.S. Congress of the FDA’s approval process could significantly delay or prevent our receipt of regulatory approval for CaPre and subject us to more stringent product labeling and post-marketing testing and other requirements.

In the United States, the Medicare Modernization Act, or the MMA, changed the way Medicare covers and pays for pharmaceutical products. The MMA expanded Medicare coverage for drug purchases by the elderly and introduced a new reimbursement methodology based on average sales prices for drugs. In addition, the MMA authorized Medicare Part D prescription drug plans to use formularies where they can limit the number of drugs that will be covered in any therapeutic class. As a result of the MMA and the expansion of federal coverage of drug products, we expect there will be additional pressure to contain and reduce healthcare costs. These healthcare cost reduction initiatives and other provisions of the MMA could decrease the coverage and price that we would receive for CaPre. While the MMA applies only to drug benefits for Medicare beneficiaries, private health insurance companies often follow Medicare coverage policy and payment limitations in setting their own reimbursement rates, and any reduction in reimbursement that results from the MMA may result in a similar reduction in payments from private health insurance companies.

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act (the Health Care Reform Law), has broadened access to health insurance, reduced or constrained the growth of healthcare spending, enhanced remedies against fraud and abuse, added new transparency requirements for the healthcare and health insurance industries, imposed new taxes and fees on the health industry and imposed additional health policy reforms. Provisions of the Health Care Reform Law affecting pharmaceutical companies include requirements to offer discounts on brand-name drugs to patients who fall within the Medicare Part D coverage gap, commonly referred to as the “donut hole”, and to pay an annual non-tax deductible fee to the federal government based on each company’s market share of prior year total sales of branded products to certain federal healthcare programs, such as Medicare, Medicaid, Department of Veterans Affairs and Department of Defense.

Despite initiatives to invalidate the Health Care Reform Law, the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld key aspects of it. Due to the results of the recent presidential election, the Health Care Reform Law may be significantly changed and we do not know whether any such changes could have significant negative financial impacts on the development or potential profitability of CaPre. At this time, it remains unclear whether there will be any changes made to the Health Care Reform Law, whether to certain provisions or its entirety. The Health Care Reform Law or any replacement of it could continue to apply downward pressure on pharmaceutical pricing,

- 12 -

Table of Contents

especially under the Medicare program, and may also increase our regulatory burdens and operating costs. Additional federal healthcare reform measures could be adopted in the future limiting the amounts that federal and state governments will pay for healthcare products and services, which could negatively affect the value of CaPre and our ability to achieve profitability.

In Canada, most new patented drug prices are limited so that the cost of therapy is in the range of the cost of therapy for existing drugs sold in Canada used to treat the same disease. As a result:

If CaPre receives regulatory approval in Canada, restrictions on the price we can charge there for CaPre could reduce the value of CaPre and our ability to generate revenue and achieve profitability.

In many jurisdictions outside the United States, a product candidate must be approved for health care reimbursement before it can be approved for sale. In some cases, the price that we intend to charge for CaPre will also be subject to approval. If we fail to comply with the regulatory requirements in our target international markets or to receive required marketing approvals, our potential market for CaPre will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential for CaPre will be harmed.

We may not be able to compete effectively against our competitors’ pharmaceutical products.

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to CaPre. It is probable that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to CaPre will increase. Many of these and other existing or potential competitors have substantially greater financial, technical and human resources than we do and may be better equipped to develop, manufacture and market products. These companies may develop and introduce products and processes competitive with or superior to CaPre. In addition, other technologies or products may be developed that have an entirely different approach or means of accomplishing the intended purposes of CaPre, which might render our technology and CaPre non-competitive or obsolete.

Our competitors in the United States and globally include large, well-established pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical sales and marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies. GlaxoSmithKline plc, which currently sells LOVAZA, a prescription-only OM3 fatty acid indicated for patients with severe HTG, was approved by FDA in 2004 and has been on the market in the United States since 2005. Multiple generic versions of LOVAZA are now available in the United States. Amarin launched its prescription-only OM3 drug VASCEPA in 2013, and reached a market share of approximately 20% by the end of 2015. In addition, EPANOVA (OM3-carboxylic acids) capsules, a free fatty acid form of OM3 (comprised of 55% EPA and 20% DHA), is FDA-approved for patients with severe HTG. Omtryg, another OM3 fatty acid composition developed by Trygg Pharma AS, received FDA approval for severe HTG. Neither EPANOVA nor Omtryg have yet been commercially launched, but could launch at any time. Other large companies with products competing indirectly with CaPre include AbbVie, Inc., which currently sells Tricor and Trilipix for the treatment of severe HTG, and Niaspan, which is primarily used to raise HDL-C but is also used to lower TGs. Generic versions of Tricor, Trilipix and Niaspan are also now available in the United States. In addition, we are aware of a number of other pharmaceutical companies that are developing products that, if approved and marketed, would compete with CaPre.

Even if it receives regulatory approval, CaPre may need to demonstrate compelling comparative advantages in efficacy, convenience, tolerability and safety to be commercially successful. Other competitive factors, including generic drug competition, could force us to lower prices or could result in reduced sales of CaPre. In addition,

- 13 -

Table of Contents

new products developed by others could emerge as competitors to CaPre. If we are not able to compete effectively against our current and future competitors, our business will not grow and our financial condition and operations will suffer.

We may never become profitable or be able to sustain profitability.

We are a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company with a limited operating history. The likelihood of the success of our business plan must be considered in light of the problems, expenses, difficulties, complications and delays frequently encountered when developing and expanding early-stage businesses and the regulatory and competitive environment in which we operate. Biopharmaceutical product development is a highly speculative undertaking, involves a substantial degree of risk and is a capital- intensive business. We expect to incur expenses without any meaningful corresponding revenues unless and until we are able to obtain regulatory approval for and begin selling CaPre in significant quantities. We filed our investigational new drug application, or IND, for CaPre in late 2013, which allowed us to initiate clinical development in the United States towards FDA approval for CaPre. To date, we have not generated any revenue from CaPre, and we may never be able to obtain regulatory approval for marketing CaPre in any indication. Even if we are able to commercialize CaPre, we may still not generate significant revenues or achieve profitability. Additionally, we may not be able to attain our targeted cost of goods sold, and levels of insurance reimbursement for CaPre may not be commercially viable in all global markets. We incurred net losses of $4.5 million for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, $7.3 million for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017, $11.2 million for the thirteen month period ended March 31, 2017, and $6.3 million and $1.7 million for our fiscal years ended 2016 and 2015, respectively. As of September 30, 2017, we had an accumulated deficit of $58.2 million.

We expect that our expenses will increase significantly as we continue our Phase 3 clincial program for CaPre under the current indication and prepare to seek FDA approval for the commercial launch of CaPre. We also expect that our research and development expenses will continue to increase if we pursue FDA approval for CaPre for other indications. As a result, we expect to continue to incur substantial losses for the foreseeable future, and these losses may be increasing. We are uncertain about when or if we will be able to achieve or sustain profitability. If we fail to become and remain profitable, our ability to sustain our operations and to raise capital could be impaired and the price of our common shares could decline.

We currently have no marketing and sales personnel and, as a company, no experience in marketing products. If we are unable to establish marketing and sales capabilities or enter into agreements with a strategic partner to market and sell CaPre, we may not be able to generate revenue.

We currently have no sales, marketing or distribution personnel and, as a company, we have no experience in marketing products. If CaPre or another of our future product candidates is approved for commercialization, unless we find a strategic partner to assist us with sales, marketing and distribution, we will be required to develop in-house marketing and sales force capability, which would require significant capital expenditures, management resources and time. Also, we would have to compete with other biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies to recruit, hire, train and retain marketing and sales personnel. We face competition in our search for strategic partners to assist us with sales, marketing and distribution, and we may not be able to establish or maintain any such arrangements. If we do find strategic partners, any revenue we receive from CaPre would partly depend upon the efforts of each strategic partner, which may not be successful. We may have little or no control over the marketing and sales efforts by any strategic partner we find for CaPre and our revenue may be lower than if we had commercialized CaPre independently.

If we are not successful in attracting and retaining highly qualified personnel, we may not be able to successfully implement our business strategy.

Our ability to compete in the highly competitive pharmaceuticals industry largely depends upon our ability to attract and retain highly qualified managerial, scientific and medical personnel. Competition for skilled personnel in our market is intense and competition for experienced scientists and business personnel may limit our ability

- 14 -

Table of Contents

to hire and retain highly qualified personnel on acceptable terms. We are highly dependent on our management, scientific and medical personnel. Despite our efforts to retain valuable employees, members of our management, scientific and medical teams may terminate their employment with us on short notice or potentially without any notice at all. The loss of the services of any of our executive officers or other key employees could potentially harm our business, operating results or financial condition. Our success may also depend on our ability to attract, retain and motivate highly skilled junior, mid-level, and senior managers and scientific personnel. In addition, we do not maintain “key person” insurance policies on the lives of our executives or those of any of our other employees. Other pharmaceutical companies with which we compete for qualified personnel have greater financial and other resources, different risk profiles, and a longer history in the industry than we do. They also may provide more diverse opportunities and better chances for career advancement. Some of these characteristics may be more appealing to high-quality candidates than what we can offer. If we are unable to continue to attract and retain high-quality personnel, the rate and success at which we can develop and commercialize CaPre and any other future product candidates would be limited.

Neptune has significant influence over matters we put to a vote of our shareholders.

Neptune currently owns approximately 34% of our outstanding common shares. As a result, Neptune has significant influence with respect to all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, such as the election and removal of directors, amendments to our articles of incorporation and by-laws and the approval of certain business combinations. This concentration of holdings may cause the market price of our common shares to decline, delay or prevent any acquisition, delay or discourage take-over attempts that shareholders may consider to be favorable, or make it more difficult or impossible for a third party to acquire control of us or effect a change in our board of directors and management. Any delay or prevention of a change of control transaction could deter potential acquirers or prevent the completion of a transaction in which our shareholders could receive a premium over the then current market price for our common shares.

Neptune’s interests may not align with those of us or our other shareholders.

Neptune’s interests may not in all cases be aligned with interests of us or our other shareholders. Neptune may have an interest in pursuing acquisitions, divestitures and other transactions that may ultimately be detrimental to our business and negatively affect the market price of our common shares.

Business disruptions could seriously harm our future revenue and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses.

Our operations, and those of our suppliers, third party manufacturers and other contractors and consultants could be subject to earthquakes, power shortages, telecommunications failures, water shortages, floods, hurricanes, typhoons, fires, extreme weather conditions, medical epidemics and other natural or man-made disasters or business interruptions, for which we are predominantly self- insured. The occurrence of any of these business disruptions could seriously harm our operations and financial condition and increase our costs and expenses. We rely on third-party manufacturers to manufacture CaPre. Our ability to obtain supplies of CaPre could be disrupted if the operations of our manufacturers and suppliers are affected by a man-made or natural disaster or other business interruption.

Even if we receive regulatory approval for CaPre, it may just be for a limited indication.

If we obtain regulatory approval for CaPre, we will only be permitted to market it for the indication approved by the FDA, and any such approval may put limits on the indicated uses or promotional claims we may make for it, or otherwise not permit labeling that sufficiently differentiates CaPre from competitive products with comparable therapeutic profiles. For example, while our initial objective is to seek regulatory approval for the treatment of severe HTG, afterwards obtaining approval for CaPre to address high TGs could greatly expand our potential market for CaPre. However, even if CaPre is approved for severe HTG, it may never be approved for the treatment of high TGs. In addition, any approval we receive for CaPre could contain significant use restrictions

- 15 -

Table of Contents

for specified age groups, warnings, precautions or contraindications, or may be subject to burdensome post-approval study or risk management requirements. If any regulatory approval for CaPre contains significant limits, we may not be able to obtain sufficient funding or generate meaningful revenue from CaPre or be able to continue developing, marketing or commercializing CaPre.

We may be unable to find successful strategic partnerships to develop and commercialize CaPre.

We have started seeking co-development, licensing and/or marketing partnership opportunities with third parties that we believe will complement or augment our development and commercialization efforts for CaPre. Pursuing partnership relationships is requiring us to incur non-recurring and other charges, and may require us to increase our near and long-term expenditures, issue securities that dilute our existing shareholders or disrupt our management and business. Entering into partnership relationships in certain countries could also delay the development of CaPre and our other future product candidates in those countries if we become dependent upon a strategic partner and that strategic partner does not prioritize the development of CaPre relative to its other development activities. In addition, we face significant competition in seeking strategic partners and the negotiation process is time-consuming and complex. We may not be successful in our efforts to establish a strategic partnership or other alternative arrangements for CaPre on our anticipated timeline, or at all, because CaPre may be deemed to be at too early of a stage of development for collaborative effort and third parties may not view CaPre as having the requisite potential to demonstrate safety and efficacy. Even if we do enter into strategic partnerships, those partnerships may not achieve our objectives.

We may be unable to develop alternative product candidates.

To date, we have not commercialized any prescription drug candidates and, other than CaPre, we do not have any compounds in clinical trials, nonclinical testing, lead optimization or lead identification stages. If we fail to obtain regulatory approval for and successfully commercialize CaPre as a treatment for severe HTG or any other indication, whether as a stand-alone therapy or in combination with other treatments, we would have to develop, acquire or license alternative product candidates or drug compounds to expand our product candidate pipeline beyond CaPre. In such a scenario, we may not be able to identify and develop or acquire product candidates that prove to be successful products, or to develop or acquire them on terms that are acceptable to us.

CaPre could face competition from products for which no prescription is required.

If it receives regulatory approval, CaPre will be a prescription-only OM3. Mixtures of OM3 fatty acids are naturally occurring substances in various foods, including fatty fish. OM3 fatty acids are also marketed by other companies as dietary supplements or natural health products. Dietary supplements may generally be marketed without a lengthy FDA premarket review and approval process and do not require a prescription. However, unlike prescription drug products, manufacturers of dietary supplements may not make therapeutic claims for their products; dietary supplements may be marketed with claims describing how the product affects the structure or function of the body without premarket approval, but may not expressly or implicitly represent that the dietary supplement will diagnose, cure, mitigate, treat, or prevent disease. We cannot be certain that physicians or consumers will view CaPre as superior to these alternatives or that physicians will be more likely to prescribe CaPre. If the price of CaPre is significantly higher than the prices of commercially available OM3 fatty acids marketed by other companies as dietary supplements or natural health products, physicians may recommend these commercial alternatives instead of CaPre or patients may elect on their own to take commercially available non-prescription OM3 fatty acids. Either of these outcomes could limit how we price CaPre and negatively affect our revenues.

Even if we obtain FDA approval of CaPre, we may never obtain approval or commercialize it outside of the United States, which would limit our ability to realize CaPre’s full market potential.

In order to market CaPre outside of the United States, we must establish and comply with numerous and varying regulatory requirements of other countries regarding safety and efficacy. Clinical trials conducted in one country may not be accepted by regulatory authorities in other countries, and regulatory approval in one country does not

- 16 -

Table of Contents

mean that regulatory approval will be obtained in any other country. Approval procedures vary among countries and can involve additional clinical testing and validation and additional administrative review periods. Seeking foreign regulatory approvals could result in significant delays, difficulties and costs for us and may require additional preclinical studies or clinical trials, which would be costly and time consuming. Regulatory requirements can vary widely from country to country and could delay or prevent the introduction of CaPre in those countries. In addition, our failure to obtain regulatory approval in any country may delay or have negative effects on the process for regulatory approval in other countries. If we fail to comply with regulatory requirements in international markets or to obtain and maintain required approvals, our target market will be reduced and our ability to realize the full market potential of CaPre will be harmed.

If we or our third-party service providers fail to comply with healthcare laws and regulations or government price reporting laws, we could be subject to civil or criminal penalties.

In addition to the FDA’s restrictions on marketing pharmaceutical products, several other types of federal and state healthcare fraud and abuse laws restrict marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. These laws include the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute, U.S. False Claims Act and similar state laws. The U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits, among other things, offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration to induce, or in return for, purchasing, leasing, or ordering any healthcare item or service reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid or other federally financed healthcare programs. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute or special intent to violate the law in order to have committed a violation. This statute has been interpreted broadly to apply to arrangements between pharmaceutical manufacturers and prescribers, dispensers, purchasers and formulary managers. The exemptions and safe harbors from prosecution are drawn narrowly and we may fail to meet all of the criteria for safe harbor protection from anti-kickback liability.

In addition, the Health Care Reform Law provides that the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from a violation of the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the U.S. False Claims Act. Federal false claims laws prohibit any person from knowingly presenting, or causing to be presented, a false claim for payment to the federal government or knowingly making, or causing to be made, a false statement to get a false claim paid. The “qui tam” provisions of the False Claims Act allow a private individual to bring civil actions on behalf of the federal government alleging that the defendant has submitted a false claim to the federal government. These individuals, sometimes known as “relators” or, more commonly, as “whistleblowers”, may share in any amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. The number of filings of qui tam actions has increased significantly in recent years, causing more healthcare companies to have to defend a case brought under the federal False Claim Act. If an entity is determined to have violated the federal False Claims Act, it may be required to pay up to three times the actual damages sustained by the government, plus attorneys’ fees and costs, and civil penalties of up to US$21,563 for each separate false claim. Certain administrative sanctions, up to and including exclusion of an entity from participation in the federal healthcare programs, may also ensue.

Additional laws and regulations include:

- 17 -

Table of Contents

Over the past few years, a number of pharmaceutical and other healthcare companies have been prosecuted under these laws for a variety of alleged prohibited promotional and marketing activities, such as providing free trips, free goods, sham consulting fees and grants and other monetary benefits to prescribers; reporting to pricing services inflated average wholesale prices that were then used by federal programs to set reimbursement rates; engaging in off-label promotion that caused claims to be submitted to Medicaid for non-covered, off-label uses; and submitting inflated best price information to the Medicaid Rebate Program to reduce liability for Medicaid rebates. Most states also have statutes or regulations similar to the U.S. Anti-Kickback Statute and the U.S. False Claims Act, which apply to items and services reimbursed under Medicaid and other state programs, or, in several states, apply regardless of the payor. Sanctions under these federal and state laws may include civil monetary penalties, exclusion of a manufacturer’s products from reimbursement under government programs, criminal fines and imprisonment. Settlements of U.S. government litigation may include Corporate Integrity Agreements with commitments for monitoring, training, and reporting designed to prevent future violations.

Any action against us for an alleged or suspected violation of these laws could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and could divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business, even if our defense is successful. In addition, achieving and sustaining compliance with these laws and regulations may be costly to us in terms of money, time and resources. If we or any strategic partners, manufacturers or service providers fail to comply with these laws, we could be subject to enforcement actions, including:

We will rely on third parties to conduct our Phase 3 program for CaPre.

We will rely on contract research organizations, or CROs, to monitor and manage data for our Phase 3 program for CaPre. While we will only control certain aspects of the CRO’s activities, we nevertheless are responsible for ensuring that our clinical trials are conducted in accordance with applicable protocols, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on the CRO does not relieve us from those responsibilities. We and the CRO are required to comply with current good clinical practices, or cGCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, Health Canada and comparable foreign regulatory authorities for any products in clinical development.

- 18 -

Table of Contents

The FDA enforces these cGCP regulations through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or the CRO fail to comply with applicable cGCPs, the clinical data generated in our clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA, Health Canada or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before approving our marketing applications for CaPre. Upon inspection, the FDA could determine that our clinical trials do not comply with cGCPs. In addition, our clinical trials must be conducted with products produced under current good manufacturing practice, or cGMP, regulations and require a large number of test subjects. If we or the CRO fail to comply with these regulations, we may have to repeat preclinical studies or clinical trials for CaPre, which would delay the regulatory approval process and could also subject us to enforcement action up to and including civil and criminal penalties.

If our relationship with a CRO terminates, we may not be able to enter into arrangements with alternative CROs. If the CRO does not successfully carry out its duties or obligations or meet expected deadlines, if it needs to be replaced or if the quality or accuracy of the clinical data it obtains is compromised due to the failure to adhere to our clinical protocols, regulatory requirements or for other reasons, we may have to extend, delay or terminate our preclinical studies or clinical trials, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory approval for or successfully commercialize CaPre.

The third parties that will help conduct our Phase 3 Program for CaPre will not be our employees and, except for remedies available to us under our agreements with the CROs, we cannot control whether or not they devote sufficient time and resources to our preclinical, clinical and nonclinical programs. These third parties may also have relationships with other commercial entities, including our competitors, for whom they may also be conducting clinical studies or other drug development activities, which could affect their performance on our behalf.

We rely on third parties to manufacture, produce and supply CaPre and we may be adversely affected if those third parties are unable or unwilling to fulfill their obligations, including complying with FDA requirements.

Producing pharmaceutical products requires significant expertise and capital investment, including the development of advanced manufacturing techniques and process controls. Currently, we do not own or operate manufacturing facilities for the production of CaPre. Accordingly, we need to rely on one or more third party contract manufacturers to produce and supply our required drug product for our nonclinical research and clinical trials for CaPre.

Although we are currently working with CordenPharma at its Chenôve facility in Dijon, France to develop a commercially viable manufacturing process for CaPre, doing so is a difficult and uncertain task, and there are risks associated with scaling to the level required for commercialization, including, among others, cost overruns, potential problems with process scale up, process reproducibility, stability issues, lot consistency and timely availability of reagents or raw materials. We may not be able to attain our targeted cost of goods sold for CaPre. Any of these challenges could delay completion of our clinical trials for CaPre, require bridging or repetition of studies or trials, increase development costs, delay approval of CaPre, impair our commercialization efforts, and increase our costs. We may have to delay or suspend the production of CaPre if a third-party manufacturer:

If our third-party contract manufacturers fail to achieve and maintain high manufacturing standards in compliance with cGMP regulations, we may be subject to sanctions, including fines, product recalls or seizures, injunctions, delays or suspensions of our clinical trials for CaPre, total or partial suspension of production of

- 19 -

Table of Contents

CaPre, civil penalties, withdrawals of previously granted regulatory approvals, and criminal prosecution. We do not currently have arrangements in place for redundant supply. If any one of our current contract manufacturers cannot perform as agreed, we may be required to replace that manufacturer. Although we believe that there are several potential alternative contract manufacturers who could manufacture CaPre, we may incur added costs and delays in identifying and qualifying any such replacement.

Manufacture of CaPre involves using potentially hazardous materials.

Manufacturing activities relating to CaPre involve the controlled use of potentially hazardous substances, including chemical and biological materials, such as acetone. Our manufacturers for CaPre will be subject to federal, provincial, state and local laws and regulations in Canada, the United States and in other jurisdictions governing laboratory procedures and the use, manufacture, storage, handling and disposal of medical and hazardous materials. Although we believe that our manufacturers’ procedures for using, handling, storing and disposing of these materials comply with legally prescribed standards, we cannot completely eliminate the risk of contamination or injury resulting from medical or hazardous materials. If any such contamination or injury were to occur, we may incur liability or local, city, provincial, state or federal authorities may curtail the use of these materials and interrupt our business operations and the production of CaPre. In the event of an accident, we could be held liable for damages or penalized with fines, and the liability could exceed our resources. We do not have any insurance for liabilities arising from medical or hazardous materials. Complying with environmental, health and safety laws and regulations is expensive, and current or future environmental regulations may impair our research, development and production efforts relating to CaPre, which could harm our business, prospects, financial condition or results of operations. Although we maintain workers’ compensation insurance to cover us for costs and expenses we may incur due to injuries to our employees resulting from the use of hazardous materials, this insurance may not provide adequate coverage against potential liabilities. We do not maintain insurance for environmental liability or toxic tort claims that may be asserted against us in connection with our storage or disposal of biological, hazardous or radioactive materials. In addition, we may incur substantial costs in order to comply with current or future environmental, health and safety laws and regulations. These laws and regulations may make it more difficult for us to conduct our research, development or production activities relating to CaPre and if we fail to comply with them, we could have substantial fines, penalties or other sanctions imposed against us.

We depend on Neptune for certain administrative and accounting services.

Neptune has provided us in the past with certain shared back office services and functions, including corporate affairs, public company reporting, accounting, payroll, information technology, accounts payable, accounts receivable and shared premises. As of the date of this prospectus, the corporate affairs and public company reporting services have not been renewed, so we are now incurring incremental costs, partially offset by reduced shared service fees, and expect to do so in the future, for providing these services independently or through qualified third parties. If our arrangements with Neptune for the remaining services were to be terminated or not renewed, we may have to incur additional costs to provide them ourselves or to source them from another third party.

In the past, Neptune supplied us with the krill oil needed to produce CaPre for our clinical programs, including the krill oil projected to be needed for our Phase 3 program, and we are now evaluating alternative supplies.

We have sourced all of our krill oil from Neptune in the past to produce CaPre. We have sufficient krill oil inventories that we anticipate will be required to complete our Phase 3 program. However, in light of Neptune’s recent announcement of its plan to discontinue krill oil production and the sale of its krill oil inventory to Aker, we are evaluating alternative suppliers of krill oil. While we believe that alternative supplies of krill oil that can meet our specifications will be readily available, any alternative supply of krill oil may not be of comparable quality to that provided by Neptune, which could negatively affect the efficacy, or the markets’ perception of the efficacy, of CaPre. Our reliance on third-party suppliers for krill oil exposes us to risks such as potential fluctuations in supply and reduced control over our production costs and delivery schedules for CaPre.

- 20 -

Table of Contents

Interruptions of our supply of CaPre could impair any future revenue streams, if CaPre reaches commercialization.

We will require much larger amounts of CaPre than we have in the past if CaPre reaches commercialization. Supply interruptions for CaPre could occur and our inventory of CaPre may not always be sufficient due to a number of factors, including:

We are also in the process of scaling-up our production of CaPre, and CaPre may not be of comparable quality when produced in larger 200 kilogram or more batches. If we experience interruptions in the production of CaPre, our ability to complete our Phase 3 program could be interrupted. If CaPre receives regulatory approval, interruptions in the production of CaPre or insufficient inventory levels of CaPre could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

If product liability lawsuits are brought against us, we may incur substantial liabilities and be required to cease the sale, marketing and distribution of CaPre.

We face a potential risk of product liability associated with any future commercialization of CaPre or any other future product candidate we develop. For example, we may be sued if CaPre allegedly causes injury. Any such product liability claims may include allegations of defects in manufacturing, defects in design, a failure to warn of dangers inherent in the product, negligence, strict liability and a breach of warranties. Claims could also be asserted under U.S. state or Canadian provincial or other foreign consumer protection legislation. If we cannot successfully defend against product liability claims, we may incur substantial liabilities or be required to cease the sale, marketing and distribution of CaPre. Even successful defense against product liability claims would require significant financial and management resources. Regardless of the merits or eventual outcome, liability claims may result in:

If we are unable to obtain and retain sufficient product liability insurance at an acceptable cost to protect against potential product liability claims, the commercialization of CaPre or any other product candidates we develop could be hindered or prevented. We currently carry product liability insurance, shared with Neptune, in the amount of $10.0 million in the aggregate. Any claim that may be brought against us could result in a court

- 21 -

Table of Contents

judgment or settlement in an amount that is not covered, in whole or in part, by our insurance or that is in excess of the limits of our insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also have various exclusions, and we may be subject to a product liability claim for which we have no coverage. In the event of a successful product liability claim against us, we may have to pay from our own resources any amounts awarded by a court or negotiated in a settlement that exceed coverage limitations or that is not covered by our insurance, and we may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to pay such amounts.

We may be subject to foreign exchange rate fluctuations.

Our reporting currency is the Canadian dollar. However, many of our expenses, such as CaPre’s chief manufacturing organization’s production activities and certain CRO arrangements that we anticipate entering into for our Phase 3 program, currently are and/or are expected to be, denominated in foreign currencies, including European euros and U.S. dollars. Though we plan to implement measures designed to reduce our foreign exchange rate exposure, the U.S. dollar/Canadian dollar and European euro/Canadian dollar exchange rates have fluctuated significantly in the recent past and may continue to do so, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations.

Risks Related to Intellectual Property

It is difficult and costly to protect our intellectual property rights.

The success of our business will largely depend on our ability to:

Our patents and/or proprietary technologies could be circumvented through the adoption of competitive, though non-infringing, processes or products. The patent positions of pharmaceutical companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal, scientific and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowable or enforceable in our patents, including the patents licensed to us by Neptune.

We face risks that:

- 22 -

Table of Contents

Further, patents have a limited lifespan. In the United States, a patent generally expires 20 years after it is filed (or 20 years after the filing date of the first non-provisional U.S. patent application to which it claims priority). While extensions may be available, the life of a patent, and the protection it affords, is limited. Without patent protection for CaPre or any other of our future product candidates, we may be open to competition from generic versions of CaPre or our other future product candidates. Further, the extensive period of time between patent filing and regulatory approval for a product candidate limits the time during which we can market that product candidate under patent protection. Patents owned by third parties could have priority over patent applications filed or in-licensed by us, or we or our licensors could become involved in interference, opposition or invalidity proceedings before U.S., Canadian or foreign patent offices. The cost of defending and enforcing our patent rights against infringement charges by other patent holders may be significant and could limit our operations.

In addition to our own patents, CaPre is covered by patents that are sublicensed to us by Neptune.

In addition to our proprietary patent applications, we have an exclusive worldwide license under a license agreement with Neptune to use certain patents and know-how to develop and commercialize CaPre within a specified field of use, namely the development and commercialization of CaPre and our novel and active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs, for the prescription drug and medical food markets. These patents were recently acquired by Aker BioMarine Antarctic AS, or Aker, from Neptune. Aker then licensed this intellectual property back to Neptune. Our license with Neptune remains in place and unchanged. This limitation on our field of use may prevent us from developing and commercializing CaPre in other fields.

Disputes may arise between us and Neptune or Aker regarding the intellectual property that is subject to the license agreement, including with respect to:

If our sublicense with Neptune is terminated due to a breach by us of its terms (or should Neptune’s license agreement with Aker otherwise terminate and we are unable to enter into a direct license agreement with Aker), we would not be able to manufacture and market CaPre, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and financial condition.

CaPre may infringe the intellectual property rights of others, which could increase our costs and delay or prevent our development and commercialization efforts.

Our success depends in part on avoiding infringement of the proprietary technologies of others. The pharmaceutical industry has been characterized by frequent litigation regarding patent and other intellectual property rights. Identification of third party patent rights that may be relevant to our proprietary or licensed technology is difficult because patent searching is imperfect due to differences in terminology among patents, incomplete databases and the difficulty in assessing the meaning of patent claims. Additionally, because patent applications are maintained in secrecy until the application is published, we may be unaware of third-party patents that may be infringed by our development and commercialization of CaPre or any other future product candidate. There may be certain issued patents and patent applications claiming subject matter that we may be required to license in order to research, develop or commercialize CaPre, and any such patents and patent applications may not be available to license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. If claims of patent infringement are asserted by third parties against us, they could be time-consuming and may:

- 23 -

Table of Contents

Others may hold proprietary rights that could prevent CaPre from being marketed. Any patent-related legal action against us claiming damages and seeking to enjoin commercial activities relating to CaPre or our processes could subject us to potential liability for damages and require us to obtain a license to continue to manufacture or market CaPre or any other future prescription drug candidates. We might not prevail in any such actions or if any license is required under any of these patents it may not be available on commercially acceptable terms, if at all.

Even if a license can be obtained on acceptable terms, the rights may be non-exclusive, which could give our competitors access to the same technology or intellectual property rights licensed to us. We could be forced to redesign CaPre or any other future product candidates or processes to avoid infringement.

In addition, we may find it necessary to pursue claims or initiate lawsuits to protect or enforce our patent or other intellectual property rights. The cost to us in defending or initiating any litigation or other proceeding relating to patent or other proprietary rights, even if resolved in our favor, could be substantial, and litigation would divert our management’s attention. Some of our competitors may be able to sustain the costs of complex patent litigation more effectively than we can because they have substantially greater resources. Uncertainties resulting from the initiation and continuation of patent litigation or other proceedings could delay our research and development efforts and limit our ability to continue our operations.

A number of companies, including several major pharmaceutical companies, have conducted research on pharmaceutical uses of OM3 fatty acids, which has resulted in the filing of many patent applications related to this research. We are aware of third-party U.S., Canadian or other foreign patents that contain broad claims related to methods of using these general types of compounds, which may be construed to include potential uses of CaPre. If we were to challenge the validity of these or any other issued U.S., Canadian or other foreign patents in court, we would need to overcome a statutory presumption of validity that attaches to every U.S. and Canadian patent. This means that, in order to prevail, we would have to present clear and convincing evidence as to the invalidity of the other party’s patent’s claims. If we were to challenge the validity of any issued U.S. patent in an administrative trial before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, we would have to prove that the claims are unpatentable by a preponderance of the evidence. If there are disputes over our intellectual property rights, a jury and/or court may not find in our favor on questions of infringement, validity or enforceability.

If we do not protect our trademark for CaPre, we may not be able to build name recognition in our markets of interest.

We have trademarked CaPre. Our trademark may be challenged, infringed, circumvented or declared generic or determined to be infringing on other marks. We may not be able to protect our rights to this trademark or may be forced to stop using this name, which we need for name recognition by potential strategic partners and customers. If we are unable to establish name recognition based on our trademark, we may not be able to compete effectively and our business may be adversely affected.

- 24 -

Table of Contents

We may be involved in lawsuits to protect or enforce our patents or the patents of our licensors, which could be expensive, time- consuming and unsuccessful.

Competitors may infringe our patents or the patents of our licensors. To counter infringement or unauthorized use, we may be required to file infringement claims, which can be expensive and time-consuming. If we or our licensors were to initiate legal proceedings against a third party to enforce a patent covering CaPre or our technology, the defendant could counterclaim that our or our licensor’s patent is invalid or unenforceable. In patent litigation in the United States, defendant counterclaims alleging invalidity or unenforceability are commonplace. Grounds for a validity challenge could be an alleged failure to meet any of several statutory requirements; for example, lack of novelty, obviousness or non-enablement. Grounds for an unenforceability assertion could be an allegation that someone connected with prosecution of the patent withheld relevant information from the USPTO, or made a misleading statement, during prosecution. The outcome following legal assertions of invalidity and unenforceability during patent litigation is unpredictable. With respect to the validity question, for example, we cannot be certain that there is no invalidating prior art, of which we or our licensors and the patent examiner were unaware during prosecution. If a defendant were to prevail on a legal assertion of invalidity or unenforceability, we would lose at least part, and perhaps all, of the patent protection on CaPre or certain aspects of our platform technology. Such a loss of patent protection could have a material adverse impact on our business. Patents and other intellectual property rights also will not protect our technology if competitors design around our protected technology without legally infringing our patents or other intellectual property rights.

In addition, in an infringement proceeding, a court may refuse to stop the other party from using the technology at issue on the grounds that our patents do not cover the technology in question. An adverse result in any litigation or defense proceedings could put one or more of our patents at risk of being invalidated, held unenforceable, or interpreted narrowly and could put our patent applications at risk of not issuing. Defense of these claims, regardless of their merit, would involve substantial litigation expense and would be a substantial diversion of management and employee resources from our business.

Interference proceedings provoked by third parties or brought by the USPTO may be necessary to determine the priority of inventions with respect to our patents or patent applications or those of our licensors. An unfavorable outcome could result in a loss of our current patent rights and could require us to cease using the related technology or to attempt to license rights to it from the prevailing party. Our business could be harmed if the prevailing party does not offer us a license on commercially reasonable terms, or at all. Litigation or interference proceedings may result in a decision adverse to our interests and, even if we are successful, may result in substantial costs and distract our management and other employees. We may not be able to prevent, alone or with our licensors, misappropriation of our trade secrets or confidential information, particularly in countries where the laws may not protect those rights as fully as in the United States. Furthermore, because of the substantial amount of discovery required in connection with intellectual property litigation, there is a risk that some of our confidential information could be compromised by disclosure during this type of litigation. In addition, there could be public announcements of the results of hearings, motions or other interim proceedings or developments. If securities analysts or investors perceive these results to be negative, it could have a substantial adverse effect on the price of our common shares.

Obtaining and maintaining our patent protection depends on compliance with various procedural, document submission, fee payment and other requirements imposed by governmental patent agencies, and our patent protection could be reduced or eliminated for non-compliance with these requirements.

Changes in patent law could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect CaPre and any of our other future product candidates.

Numerous recent changes to the patent laws and proposed changes to the rules of the USPTO may have a significant impact on our ability to protect our technology and enforce our intellectual property rights. For

- 25 -

Table of Contents

example, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or AIA, enacted in 2011, involves significant changes in patent legislation. An important change introduced by the AIA is that, as of March 16, 2013, the United States transitioned to a “first-to-file” system for deciding which party should be granted a patent when two or more patent applications are filed by different parties claiming the same invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO after that date but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by the third party. This will require us to be cognizant going forward of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Further, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled on several patent cases in recent years, some of which cases either narrow the scope of patent protection available in certain circumstances or weaken the rights of patent owners in certain situations. These changes have led to increasing uncertainty with regard to the scope and value of our issued patents and to our ability to obtain patents in the future.

Among some of the other changes introduced by the AIA are changes that limit where a patentee may file a patent infringement suit and providing opportunities for third parties to challenge any issued patent in the USPTO. This applies to all of our U.S. patents, even those issued before March 16, 2013. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal court necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence would be insufficient to invalidate the claim if first presented in a district court action. Accordingly, a third party may attempt to use the USPTO procedures to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party as a defendant in a district court action.

Once granted, patents may remain open to opposition, interference, re-examination, post-grant review, inter partes review, nullification derivation and opposition proceedings in court or before patent offices or similar proceedings for a given period after allowance or grant, during which time third parties can raise objections against the initial grant. In the course of any such proceedings, which may continue for a protracted period of time, the patent owner may be compelled to limit the scope of the allowed or granted claims attacked, or may lose the allowed or granted claims altogether. Depending on decisions by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. federal courts, the USPTO or similar authorities in foreign jurisdictions, the laws and regulations governing patents could change in unpredictable ways that may weaken our and our licensors’ ability to obtain new patents or to enforce existing patents we and our licensors or partners may obtain in the future.

We may not be able to protect our intellectual property rights throughout the world.

Many companies have encountered significant problems in protecting and defending intellectual property rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of some countries, particularly certain developing countries, do not favor the enforcement of patents, trade secrets and other intellectual property protection, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patents or marketing of competing products in violation of our proprietary rights generally. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial costs and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business, could put our patents at risk of being invalidated or interpreted narrowly and our patent applications at risk of not issuing and could provoke third parties to assert claims against us. We may not prevail in any lawsuits that we initiate and the damages or other remedies awarded, if any, may not be commercially meaningful. Accordingly, our efforts to enforce our intellectual property rights around the world may be inadequate to obtain a significant commercial advantage from the intellectual property that we develop or license.

Risks Relating to Our Common Shares, Warrants and this Offering

There is a significant risk that we may be classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Potential investors in our common shares and warrants who are U.S. holders should be aware that, based on our most recent financial statements and projections and given uncertainty regarding the composition of our future

- 26 -

Table of Contents

income and assets, there is a significant risk that we may be classified as a “passive foreign investment company” or “PFIC” for our taxable year ending March 31, 2018 and possibly subsequent years. If we are a PFIC for any year during a U.S. holder’s holding period of the common shares or warrants acquired pursuant to this prospectus, then such U.S. taxpayer generally will be required to treat any gain realized upon a disposition of such common shares or warrants or any so-called “excess distribution” received on such common shares or warrants, as ordinary income (with a portion subject to tax at the highest rate in effect), and to pay an interest charge on a portion of such gain or excess distribution. In certain circumstances, the sum of the tax and the interest charge may exceed the total amount of proceeds realized on the disposition, or the amount of excess distribution received, by the U.S. taxpayer. Subject to certain limitations, a timely and effective QEF Election under Section 1295 of the Code or a Mark-to-Market election under Section 1296 of the Code may be made with respect to the common shares. Neither the QEF Election nor the Mark-to-Market Election is available with respect to the warrants. A U.S. holder who makes a timely and effective QEF Election generally must report on a current basis its share of our net capital gain and ordinary earnings for any year in which we are a PFIC, whether or not we distribute any amounts to our shareholders. A U.S. holder who makes the Mark-to-Market Election generally must include as ordinary income each year the excess of the fair market value of their common shares over the holder’s basis therein. This paragraph is qualified in its entirety by the discussion below under the heading “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations—U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations of the Acquisition, Ownership, and Disposition of Common Shares—Passive Foreign Investment Company Rules”. Each potential investor who is a U.S. holder should consult its own tax advisor regarding the U.S. federal, U.S. state and local, and non-U.S. tax consequences of the acquisition, ownership, and disposition of common shares and warrants acquired pursuant to this prospectus, the U.S. federal tax consequences of the PFIC rules, and the availability of any election that may be available to the holder to mitigate adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences of holding shares in a PFIC.

The trading price of our common shares may be volatile.

Market prices for securities in general, and those of pharmaceutical companies in particular, tend to fluctuate. The trading price for our common shares has experienced volatility in the past. Factors that could affect the trading price of our common shares and cause volatility include, among others:

- 27 -

Table of Contents

As a result, the market price of our common shares may fluctuate significantly in the future. In addition, the stock market in general, and pharmaceutical companies in particular, have experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations that have often been unrelated or disproportionate to the operating performance of these companies. Broad market and industry factors may negatively affect the market price of our common shares, regardless of our actual operating performance. In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility of the market price of a company’s securities. This type of litigation, if brought against us, could result in substantial costs and liabilities for us and divert our management’s attention and resources, which would harm our business, operating results or financial condition.

Future securities issuances by us could result in significant dilution for existing shareholders.

Our articles of incorporation permit us to issue an unlimited number of common shares and preferred shares, issuable in series, and our shareholders will have no pre-emptive rights in connection with further issuances of securities by us. Our directors have the discretion to determine the provisions attaching to any series of preferred shares and the price of issue of further issuances of our common shares. Also, additional common shares may be issued by us upon the exercise of outstanding stock options and warrants or the conversion of debentures. The issuance of these additional equity securities or the issuance of new stock options or warrants may have a dilutive effect on existing holders of our common shares and, as a result, the market price for our common shares could decline. The market price of our common shares could also decline as a result of future issuances by us in connection with strategic partnerships, or sales by our existing shareholders, or the perception that these sales could occur. Sales by our shareholders, including Neptune, might also make it more difficult for us to sell equity securities at a time and price that we deem appropriate, which could reduce our ability to raise capital and have an adverse effect on our business.

Raising additional capital may adversely affect the rights of our existing shareholders, restrict our operations or require us to relinquish rights to our technologies or product candidates.

We may seek additional capital through a combination of public and private equity offerings, debt financings, strategic partnerships and alliances and licensing arrangements. To the extent that we raise additional capital through the sale of equity or convertible debt securities, the ownership interests of our shareholders will be diluted, and the terms may include liquidation or other preferences that adversely affect the rights of our common shareholders. The incurrence of indebtedness would result in increased fixed payment obligations and could involve certain restrictive covenants, such as limitations on our ability to incur additional debt, limitations on our ability to acquire or license intellectual property rights and other operating restrictions that could adversely impact our ability to conduct our business. If we raise additional funds through strategic partnerships and licensing arrangements with third parties, we may have to relinquish valuable rights relating to CaPre or our other future product candidates, or grant licenses on terms unfavorable to us.

An active market for our common shares might not be sustained.

If an active market for our common shares is not sustained, holders of our common shares may be unable to sell their investments on satisfactory terms. Declines in the value of our common shares may adversely affect the

- 28 -

Table of Contents

liquidity of the market for our common shares. Factors unrelated to our performance may also have an effect on the price and liquidity of our common shares including:

A large number of our common shares may be issued and subsequently sold upon the exercise of our outstanding warrants and under our convertible debentures, which could depress the trading price for our common shares.

As of September 30, 2017, we had up to 5,254,535 common shares issuable under our outstanding warrants and convertible debentures. To the extent that holders of our warrants and convertible debentures sell underlying common shares issued under those warrants and convertible debentures, the market price of our common shares may decrease due to the additional selling pressure in the market and could encourage short sales by third parties. In a short sale, a prospective seller borrows common shares from a shareholder or broker and sells the borrowed common shares. The prospective seller anticipates that the common share price will decline, at which time the seller can purchase common shares at a lower price for delivery back to the lender. The risk of dilution from issuances of our common shares underlying our warrants and convertible debentures could also cause shareholders to sell their common shares, which could result in a decline in their market price.

We do not intend to pay dividends on our common shares for the foreseeable future.

We have never paid dividends on our common shares and we do not anticipate paying any dividends on our common shares for the foreseeable future because, among other reasons, we currently intend to retain any future earnings to finance our business. Any future payment of dividends by us will depend on factors such as cash on hand and whether we achieve profitability, our financial requirements to fund our growth, our general financial condition and other factors our board of directors may consider appropriate in the circumstances. Until we pay dividends, which we may never do, our shareholders will not be able to receive a return on their common shares unless they sell them.

There is no public market for the warrants being offered by us in this offering and an active trading market for the warrants is not expected to develop.

There is no established public trading market for the warrants being offered in this offering, and we do not expect a market to develop. In addition, we do not intend to apply for any listing of the warrants on the NASDAQ Stock Market, TSX Venture Exchange or any other securities exchange or nationally recognized trading system. Without an active market, the liquidity of the warrants will be limited.

The warrants are speculative in nature and may not have any value.

The warrants do not confer any rights of common share ownership on their holders, such as voting rights or the right to receive dividends, but rather merely represent the right to acquire common shares at a fixed price for a limited period of time. Specifically, commencing on the date of issuance, holders of the warrants may exercise their right to acquire common shares and pay an exercise price of US$1.26 per share, subject to certain adjustments, prior to the fifth anniversary of the date such warrants were issued, after which date any unexercised warrants will expire and have no further value. Moreover, following this offering, the market value of the warrants, if any, is uncertain and there can be no assurance that the market value of the warrants will equal or exceed their imputed offering price. The warrants will not be listed or quoted for trading on any market or

- 29 -

Table of Contents

exchange. There can be no assurance that the market price of the common shares will ever equal or exceed the exercise price of the warrants, and consequently, whether it will ever be profitable for holders of the warrants to exercise the warrants.

If we fail to meet applicable listing requirements, the NASDAQ Stock Market or the TSXV may delist our common shares from trading, in which case the liquidity and market price of our common shares could decline.

Our common stock is currently listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market and the TSXV, but we cannot assure you that our securities will continue to be listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market and the TSXV in the future. In the past, we have received notices from the NASDAQ Stock Market that we have not been in compliance with its continued listing standards, and we have taken responsive actions and regained compliance. If we fail to comply with listing standards and the NASDAQ Stock Market or TSXV delists our common shares, we and our shareholders could face significant material adverse consequences, including:

We may pursue opportunities or transactions that adversely affect our business and financial condition.

In the ordinary course of our business, our management regularly explores potential strategic opportunities and transactions, which may involve:

Public announcement by us of strategic opportunities or transactions might have a significant effect on the trading price of our common shares. Our policy is to not publicly disclose our pursuit of a potential strategic opportunity or transaction unless we are required to do so by applicable law. Investors who buy or sell our common shares could be doing so at a time when we are pursuing a particular strategic opportunity or transaction that, when announced, could have a significant effect on the trading price for our common shares.

In addition, any strategic transactions we enter into could carry significant risks, including:

- 30 -

Table of Contents

As a foreign private issuer, we are subject to different U.S. securities laws and regulations than a domestic U.S. issuer, which may limit the information publicly available to our U.S. shareholders.

We are a foreign private issuer under applicable U.S. federal securities laws, and therefore, we are not required to comply with all the periodic disclosure and current reporting requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. As a result, we do not file the same reports that a U.S. domestic issuer would file with the SEC, although we are required to file with or furnish to the SEC the continuous disclosure documents that we are required to file in Canada under Canadian securities laws. In addition, our officers, directors and principal shareholders are exempt from the reporting and short-swing profit recovery provisions of Section 16 of the Exchange Act. Therefore, our shareholders may not know on as timely a basis when our officers, directors and principal shareholders purchase or sell common shares as the reporting periods under the corresponding Canadian insider reporting requirements are longer. In addition, as a foreign private issuer, we are exempt from the proxy rules under the Exchange Act.

As an “emerging growth company”, we are exempt from the requirement to comply with the auditor attestation requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

We are an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the U.S. Jumpstart Our Business Start-ups Act, and we use the exemption provided to emerging growth companies from the auditor attestation requirements of Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Therefore, our internal controls over financial reporting will not receive the level of review provided by the process relating to the auditor attestation included in annual reports of issuers that are not using an exemption. In addition, we cannot predict if investors will find our common shares less attractive because we rely on this exemption. If some investors find our common shares less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common shares and trading price for our common shares may be negatively affected.

U.S. investors may be unable to enforce certain judgments against us because of our Canadian incorporation and presence.

We are a company existing under the Business Corporations Act (Québec). Some of our directors and officers are residents of Canada, and substantially all of our assets are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult to effect service within the United States upon us or upon some of our directors and officers. Execution by U.S. courts of any judgment obtained against us or any of our directors or officers in U.S. courts may be limited to assets located in the United States. It may also be difficult for holders of securities who reside in the United States to realize in the United States upon judgments of U.S. courts predicated upon civil liability of us and our directors and executive officers under the U.S. federal securities laws. There may be doubt as to the enforceability in Canada against non-U.S. entities or their controlling persons, directors and officers who are not residents of the United States, in original actions or in actions for enforcement of judgments of U.S. courts, of liabilities predicated solely upon U.S. federal or state securities laws.

We have broad discretion in how we use the net proceeds of the offering, and we may not use these proceeds in a manner desired by our shareholders.

We will have broad discretion with respect to the use of the net proceeds from the offering and investors will be relying on the judgment of our management regarding the application of these proceeds. We could spend most of the net proceeds from the offering in ways that our shareholders may not desire or that do not yield a favorable return. You will not have the opportunity, as part of your investment in our securities, to influence the manner in which the net proceeds of the offering are used. We currently intend to use the proceeds of the offering as described in “Use of Proceeds”. However, our needs may change as our business and our industry evolve. As a result, the proceeds we receive in the offering may be used in a manner significantly different from our current expectations.

- 31 -

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This prospectus contains information that may be forward-looking statements within the meaning of applicable securities laws. Forward-looking statements can be identified by the use of terms such as “may”, “will”, “should”, “expect”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “believe”, “intend”, “estimate”, “predict”, “potential”, “continue” or other similar expressions concerning matters that are not statements about the present or historical facts. Forward-looking statements in this prospectus include, among other things, or statements about:

- 32 -

Table of Contents

All forward-looking statements reflect our belief and assumptions based on information available at the time the assumption was made. The forward-looking statements in this prospectus are subject to a number of known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, including those described in this prospectus under “Risk Factors”, many of which are beyond our control, that could cause our actual results and developments to differ materially from those that are disclosed in or implied by the forward-looking information, including, among others:

- 33 -

Table of Contents

All of the forward-looking statements in this prospectus are qualified by this cautionary statement. There can be no guarantee that the results or developments that we anticipate will be realized or, even if substantially realized, that they will have the consequences or effects on our business, financial condition or results of operations that we anticipate. As a result, you should not place undue reliance on the forward-looking statements. Except as required by applicable law, we do not undertake to update or amend any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. All forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this prospectus.

- 34 -

Table of Contents

EXCHANGE RATE INFORMATION

The following table presents the average exchange rate for one Canadian dollar expressed as one U.S. dollar for each of our last five fiscal years. The average rate is calculated using the average of the exchange rates on the last day of each month during the period.

The following table presents the high and low exchange rate for one Canadian dollar expressed as one U.S. dollar for each month during the previous six months.

The exchange rates above are based upon the noon buying rate, as quoted by the Bank of Canada. As of May 1, 2017, the Bank of Canada no longer publishes updated data for exchange rates published under previous methodologies, including daily noon and closing rates as well as high and low exchange rates. For the month of May 2017 and each month thereafter, the exchange rate presented above is based upon the daily average closing rate. As of December 20, 2017, the exchange rate for one Canadian dollar expressed as one U.S. dollar, as quoted by the Bank of Canada was $1.00 = US$0.7787.

- 35 -

Table of Contents

USE OF PROCEEDS

We estimate that we will receive net proceeds of approximately US$8.6 million (or approximately US$9.6 million if the underwriters’ option to purchase additional common shares and warrants is exercised in full) from the sale of common shares and warrants offered by us in this offering and after deducting the estimated underwriting discounts and estimated offering expenses payable by us.

If all of the warrants sold in this offering came to be exercised in cash, we would receive additional net proceeds of approximately US$11.2 million. We cannot predict when or if these warrants will be exercised. It is possible that the warrants may expire and may never be exercised.

We currently intend to use the net proceeds of this offering, together with our cash on hand, for the further development of CaPre, including clinical site activation, progression of patient enrollment and production of clinical materials (both CaPre and placebo) for our Phase 3 program; expansion of business development activities; working capital; and other general corporate purposes.

Our expected use of net proceeds from this offering represents our current intentions based upon our present plans and business condition, which could change in the future as our plans and business conditions evolve. The amounts and timing of our actual use of the net proceeds will depend on multiple factors, including the progress, cost and results of our preclinical and clinical development programs, competitive and technological developments, strategic partnering activities, and the overall regulatory environment. As a result, our management will retain broad discretion in the application of the net proceeds, and investors will be relying on our judgment regarding the application of the net proceeds from this offering.

Pending our use of the net proceeds from this offering, we may plan to invest the net proceeds in short- and intermediate-term, interest-bearing obligations, investment-grade instruments, certificates of deposit or government securities, or hold them as cash.

- 36 -

Table of Contents

DIVIDEND POLICY

We do not anticipate paying any cash dividend on our common shares in the foreseeable future. We presently intend to retain future earnings to finance the development and growth of our business. Any future determination to pay dividends will be at the discretion of our board of directors and will depend on our financial condition, results of operations, capital requirements and other factors the board of directors deems relevant. In addition, the terms of any future debt or credit facility may preclude us from paying dividends. Any remittances of dividends to United States residents and to other non-residents are, however, subject to withholding tax. See “Certain U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” and “Certain Canadian Federal Income Tax Considerations” for additional information.

- 37 -

Table of Contents

CAPITALIZATION

The table below sets forth our total indebtedness and shows our capitalization as at September 30, 2017:

You should read this table together with our financial statements and accompanying notes included in this prospectus, and the other information appearing in “Selected Financial Information” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations.”

- 38 -

Table of Contents

The number of common shares outstanding as of September 30, 2017 on an adjusted basis is 24,636,927 common shares. The number of our common shares to be outstanding after this offering is based on 14,735,937 of our common shares outstanding as of September 30, 2017. The number of common shares to be outstanding after this offering excludes the following:

- 39 -

Table of Contents

DILUTION

If you invest in our securities in this offering, your ownership interest will be immediately diluted to the extent of the difference between the public offering price per share and the pro forma net tangible book value per share after this offering.

Our historical net tangible book value as of September 30, 2017 was approximately $3.6 million, or $0.25 per common share. Our historical net tangible book value is the amount of our total tangible assets less our liabilities. Net historical tangible book value per share is our historical net tangible book value divided by the number of common shares outstanding as of September 30, 2017.

Our pro forma net tangible book value as of September 30, 2017 was $14.7 million, or $0.60 per common share. Pro forma net tangible book value is our pro forma net tangible book value, plus the effect of the sale of common shares and warrants in this offering at a public offering price of US$1.01 per share and accompanying warrant, and after deducting underwriting discounts and estimated offering expenses payable by us. This amount represents an immediate increase in pro forma net tangible book value of approximately $0.35 per share to our existing shareholders, and an immediate dilution of approximately $0.70 per share to new investors participating in this offering.

The following table illustrates this dilution on a per share basis:

If the underwriters exercise their option to purchase additional common shares and warrants in full, the pro forma net tangible book value will increase to $0.62 per share, representing an immediate dilution of $0.68 per share to new investors purchasing our securities in this offering. For purposes of the foregoing discussion, the public offering price of US$1.01 per share and accompanying warrant has been converted into Canadian dollars based on the daily average exchange rate for one U.S. dollar expressed as one Canadian dollar, as quoted by the Bank of Canada of US$1.00 = $0.7787, as of December 20, 2017.

The discussion of dilution, and the table quantifying it, assumes no exercise of any outstanding options or warrants, including warrants issued under this offering, or other potentially dilutive securities. The exercise of potentially dilutive securities having an exercise price less than the offering price would increase the dilutive effect to new investors.

If the proceeds of the offering were reduced by the Derivative Warrant Liabilities of $5.5 million and excluding the effects of the underwriter’s option to purchase additional common shares and warrants and excluding all dilutive instruments, the pro forma net tangible book value will decrease to $0.37 per share, representing an immediate dilution of $0.93 per share to new investors purchase. The pro forma net tangible book value was computed including the full proceeds of the offering (i.e., without including the proceeds for the Derivative Warrant Liabilities).

- 40 -

Table of Contents

The number of our common shares to be outstanding after this offering is based on 14,735,937 of our common shares outstanding as of September 30, 2017, and excludes the following:

- 41 -

Table of Contents

BUSINESS

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical innovator focused on the research, development and commercialization of prescription drugs using omega-3, or OM3, fatty acids derived from krill oil. OM3 fatty acids have extensive clinical evidence of safety and efficacy in lowering triglycerides, or TGs, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, or HTG. Our lead product candidate is CaPre, an OM3 phospholipid, which we are developing initially for the treatment of severe HTG, a condition characterized by very high levels of TGs in the bloodstream (³ 500 mg/dL). Market research commissioned by us from DP Analytics in 2016 suggests there is a significant unmet medical need for an effective, safe and well-absorbing OM3 therapeutic that demonstrates a positive impact on the major blood lipids associated with cardiovascular disease risk. We believe that, if supported by our Phase 3 program in the United States, which we initiated during the second half of 2017 and for which we plan to start clinical site activation by the end of 2017, CaPre will address this unmet medical need. We also believe the potential exists to expand CaPre’s initial indication to the high TGs (200 – 499 mg/dL) segment, although at least one additional clinical trial would likely be required to expand CaPre’s indications to this segment. We may seek to identify new potential indications for CaPre that may be appropriate for future studies and pipeline expansion. In addition, we may also seek to in-license other cardiometabolic drug candidates for drug development and commercialization.

In four clinical trials conducted to date, we saw the following beneficial effects with CaPre, and we are seeking to demonstrate similar results in our Phase 3 program:

Our Successful Phase 1 and Phase 2 Studies Help Reduce Phase 3 Program Risk

- 42 -

Table of Contents

About Hypertriglyceridemia

According to the American Heart Association Scientific Statement on Triglycerides and Cardiovascular Disease from 2011, TG levels provide important information as a marker associated with the risk for heart disease and stroke, especially when an individual also has low levels of HDL-C and elevated levels of LDL-C. HTG can be caused by both genetic and environmental factors, including obesity, sedentary lifestyle and high-calorie diets. HTG is also associated with comorbid conditions such as chronic renal failure, pancreatitis, nephrotic syndrome and diabetes. Multiple epidemiological, clinical, genetic studies suggest that patients with elevated TG levels (³ 200 mg/dL) are at a greater risk of coronary artery disease, or CAD, and pancreatitis, a life-threatening condition, as compared to those with normal TG levels. The genes regulating TGs and LDL-C are equally strong predictors of CAD, but HDL-C is not. Other studies suggest that lowering and managing TG levels may reduce these risks. In addition, the Japan EPA Lipid Intervention Study, or JELIS, demonstrated the long-term benefit of an OM3 eicosapentaenoic acid, or EPA, in preventing major coronary events in hypercholesterolemic patients receiving statin treatment. JELIS found a 19% relative risk reduction in major coronary events in patients with relatively normal TGs but a more pronounced 53% reduction in the subgroup with TGs > 150mg/dL and HDL-C < 40mg/dL. Recently published meta-analyses by Alexander et al. (Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 2017) and Maki et al. (Journal of Clinical Lipidology, 2016) suggest that EPA and docosahexaenoic acid, or DHA, may be associated with reducing coronary heart disease risk to a greater extent in populations with elevated TG levels, and that drugs lowering TG and TG-rich lipoproteins may reduce cardiovascular event risk in patients with elevated TG levels, particularly if associated with low HDL-C.

About CaPre

CaPre is a krill oil-derived mixture containing polyunsaturated fatty acids, or PUFAs, primarily composed of OM3 fatty acids, principally EPA and DHA. EPA and DHA are well known to be beneficial for human health, and according to numerous recent clinical studies, may promote healthy heart, brain and visual function, and may also contribute to reducing inflammation and blood TGs. Krill is a natural source of phospholipids and OM3 fatty acids. The EPA and DHA contained in CaPre are delivered as a combination of OM3s as free fatty acids and OM3s bound to phospholipid esters, allowing these PUFAs to reach the small intestine where they undergo rapid absorption and transformation into complex fat molecules that are required for lipid transport in the bloodstream. We believe that EPA and DHA are more efficiently transported by phospholipids sourced from krill oil than the EPA and DHA contained in fish oil that are transported either by TGs (as in dietary supplements) or as ethyl esters in other prescription OM3 drugs (such as LOVAZA and VASCEPA), which must then undergo additional digestion before they are ready for transport into the bloodstream. The digestion and absorption of OM3 ethyl ester drugs requires a particular enzymatic process that is highly dependent on the fat content of a meal—the higher the fat content, the better the OM3 ethyl ester absorption. High fat content meals are not recommended in patients with HTG. We believe that CaPre’s superior absorption profile could represent a significant clinical advantage, since taking it with a low-fat meal represents a more realistic regimen for patients with HTG who must follow a restricted low-fat diet.

CaPre is intended to be used as a therapy combined with positive lifestyle changes, such as a healthy diet, and to be administered either alone or with other drug treatment regimens such as statins (a class of drug used to reduce LDL-C). CaPre is intended to be taken orally once or twice per day in capsule form.

Potential Market for CaPre

We believe a significant opportunity exists for OM3 market expansion because, among other things:

- 43 -

Table of Contents

According to the American Heart Association, the prevalence of HTG in the United States and globally correlates to the aging of the population and the increasing incidence of obesity and diabetes. The American Heart Association has estimated that one-third of adults in the United States have elevated levels of TGs (TGs >150 mg/dL), including approximately 36 million people diagnosed with high TGs, and 3 to 4 million people diagnosed with severe HTG. Moreover, according to Ford et al. in a study conducted between 1999 and 2004, 18% of adults in the United States, corresponding to approximately 40 million people, had elevated TG levels equal to or greater than 200 mg/dl, of which only 3.6% were treated specifically with TG-lowering medication. We believe this data indicates there is a large underserved market opportunity for CaPre.

In 2015, CaPre’s target market in the United States for treatment of HTG was estimated by IMS NSP Audit data to be approximately US$750 million, with approximately 5 million prescriptions written annually over the prior four years. The total global market for treatment of HTG was estimated by GOED Proprietary Research in 2015 to be approximately US$2.3 billion. Currently, all marketed OM3 products are approved by the FDA only for patients with severe HTG. We believe there is the potential to greatly expand the treatable market in the United States to the approximately 36 million people with high TGs, assuming favorable results from the CV outcome studies that are currently ongoing. These CV outcome trials are expected to report in mid-2018 (the REDUCE-IT trial sponsored by Amarin) and 2019 (the STRENGTH trial sponsored by AstraZeneca) and are designed to evaluate the long-term benefit of lowering TGs on cardiovascular risks with prescription drugs containing OM3 fatty acids. If these trials are successful, additional clinical trials would likely be required for CaPre to also expand its label claims to the high TGs segment. Given the large portion of the adult population in the United States that have elevated levels of TGs but who go largely untreated, we believe there is the potential for a very significant increase in the total number of patients eligible for treatment if the CV outcome trials are positive.

The following charts illustrate the estimated global and U.S. markets for HTG in 2015, according to IMS NSP Audit data:

CaPre has two FDA-approved and marketed branded competitors (LOVAZA and VASCEPA). In addition, Astra Zeneca has an FDA-approved product, EPANOVA, which has not yet been launched. LOVAZA generics became available on the U.S. market in 2013. In spite of generic options, audited prescription data from IMS NSP Audit

- 44 -

Table of Contents

suggests that over 50% of OM3 prescriptions are written for branded products (LOVAZA or VASCEPA). By 2015, there had been only an approximately 25% decline in total market value, in spite of some generic switching that occurs at pharmacies. This stability of branded products is due in part to the fact that the pricing differential between branded and generic OM3 products is smaller than is often the case between branded and generic products in the pharmaceutical industry. Based on both primary market research with pharmacy benefit managers, or PBMs, and audited prescription reports, the average pricing of generics is currently approximately US$190 per month, while pricing for branded products averages US$250—US$300 per month. Amarin has raised prices for VASCEPA annually since its launch in late 2013. PBMs offer “Preferred Brand” status (Tier 2 or Tier 3), without significant restrictions (i.e. no prior authorization, step edits, or high co-payments) for these branded OM3s.

Except as otherwise indicated, all of the information that follows under this heading has been derived from secondary sources, including audited U.S. prescribing data, and from a qualitative U.S. commercial and primary market research assessment conducted for us by DP Analytics, A Division of Destum Partners, Inc., or Destum, a market research firm, dated August 19, 2016, which we refer to as the Destum Market Research. In its market analysis for CaPre, Destum utilized secondary market data and reports and conducted primary qualitative market research with physicians and third-party payers, such as PBMs. One-on-one in-depth phone interviews lasting on average 30-60 minutes were conducted with 22 physicians and 5 PBMs, and key qualitative data was obtained by Destum on current clinical practice for treating patients with HTG, and their perceptions of the current unmet medical need in treating patients with HTG. All interviews were conducted by the same individual at Destum and recorded to ensure consistency and collection of key data points. Destum utilized OM3 prescription data from 2009 to 2015 to estimate the size of CaPre’s potential market. Based on its discussions with the PBMs, Destum also assumed CaPre would be viewed favorably by payers at launch (e.g., Tier 2 or 3, depending on payer plan, which is comparable to LOVAZA and VASCEPA). Upon completing the screening questionnaire and being approved for inclusion in Destum’s study, key opinion leaders, or KOLs, and high volume prescribers, or HVPs, were provided with a study questionnaire and were asked to comment on a target profile for a potential new OM3 “Product X” offering a “trifecta” of cardio-metabolic benefits similar to the potential efficacy and safety benefits demonstrated by CaPre in our two Phase 1 pharmacokinetic studies and two Phase 2 clinical trials, which we refer to as the Target Product Profile. Respondents were told that the unidentified product was being prepared for a Phase 3 program designed to confirm with statistical significance the product’s safety and efficacy in patients with severe HTG. The Target Product Profile was used by Destum strictly for market research analysis purposes and should not be construed as an indication of future performance of CaPre and should not be read as an expectation or guarantee of future performance or results of CaPre, and will not necessarily be an accurate indication of whether or not such results will be achieved by CaPre in our Phase 3 program. We subsequently retained Destum as our exclusive advisor and business development consultant to identify potential strategic partners for CaPre, under which Destum may be entitled to a success fee if a business arrangement or transaction is consummated. Destum’s market research and its conclusions were substantially completed prior our entry into this agreement with Destum.

During the Destum Market Research, KOLs and HVPs interviewed by Destum were asked to assess the level of unmet medical need associated with treating patients with HTG based on currently available treatment options. 91% of physicians interviewed by Destum indicated that they believe that the current unmet medical need for treating HTG was moderate to high. The reasons identified by these physicians for their dissatisfaction with the currently available OM3s included insufficient lowering of TGs (principally relating to VASCEPA), negative LDL-C effects (principally relating to LOVAZA), gastrointestinal side effects, and the fishy taste from fish oil-derived OM3s. Despite the availability of other drug classes to treat HTG, interviewed physicians indicated that they would welcome the introduction of new and improved OM3 products, particularly if they can address these perceived deficiencies.

Interviewed physicians responded favorably in the Destum Market Research to the Target Product Profile. They indicated that their weighted prescribing percentages of the Target Product Profile would increase by approximately 35% to 53% (with the range depending on the specific profile presented) of their HTG patients

- 45 -

Table of Contents

within two years of the Target Product Profile’s approval. Approximately 60% of the interviewed physicians indicated that they would switch primarily due to the “trifecta effect” of the Target Product Profile on reducing TGs and LDL-C while elevating HDL-C, and the remaining 40% indicated they would switch primarily due to the Target Product Profile’s effective reduction of TGs alone. In connection with their responses, the interviewed physicians were instructed to assume the Target Product Profile and all currently available OM3 products were not subject to any reimbursement or coverage hurdles (e.g., all products were on an equal health care coverage playing field). This assumption was supported by our interviews with leading PBMs in the United States.

We plan to conduct additional market research with KOLs, HVPs, primary care physicians and payers to further develop and refine our understanding of the potential marketplace for CaPre.

Our Clinical Data

CaPre is being developed by us initially for the treatment of patients with severe HTG. In two Phase 2 clinical trials conducted by us in Canada (our COLT and TRIFECTA trials), CaPre was found to be safe and well-tolerated at all doses tested, with no serious adverse events that were considered treatment-related. Among the reported adverse events with an occurrence of greater than 2% of subjects and greater than placebo, only diarrhea had an incidence of 2.3%.

In both Phase 2 clinical trials, CaPre significantly lowered TGs in patients with mild to severe HTG. Importantly, in these studies, CaPre also demonstrated no deleterious effect on LDL-C (unlike LOVAZA and EPANOVA, which have been shown to significantly increase LDL-C in patients with severe HTG). Further, our Phase 2 data indicated that CaPre may actually reduce LDL-C. LDL-C is undesirable because it accumulates in the walls of blood vessels, where it can cause blockages (atherosclerosis). In the Phase 2 trials, CaPre also reduced non-HDL-C (all cholesterol contained in the bloodstream except HDL-C), which is also considered to be a marker of cardiovascular disease. The COLT trial data showed a mean increase of 7.7% in HDL-C with CaPre at 4 grams per day (p=0.07). Further studies in our Phase 3 program are required to demonstrate CaPre’s statistical significance with HDL-C.

We believe that these potential multiple cardiovascular benefits, if confirmed in our Phase 3 program, could be significant differentiators for CaPre in the marketplace, as no currently approved OM3 drug has shown an ability to positively modulate these four major blood lipid categories (TGs, non-HDL-C, LDL-C and HDL-C) in the treatment of severe HTG. We also believe that if supported by additional clinical trials, CaPre has the potential to become a best-in-class OM3 compound for the treatment of patients with high TGs.

On September 14, 2016, we announced positive data from our completed comparative bioavailability study, or the Bridging Study. The Bridging Study was an open-label, randomized, four-way, cross-over, bioavailability study comparing CaPre, given as a single dose of 4 grams in fasting and fed (high-fat) states, as compared to the FDA-approved HTG drug LOVAZA (OM3-acid ethyl esters) in 56 healthy volunteers. The protocol was reviewed and approved by the FDA. The primary objective of the Bridging Study was to compare the bioavailability of CaPre to LOVAZA, each administered as a single 4 gram dose with a high-fat meal, which is the condition under which administration of OM3 drugs will yield the highest levels of EPA and DHA in the blood, and therefore has the highest potential for toxicity. To allow us to rely on the long-term safety data of LOVAZA to support a 505(b)(2) NDA for CaPre, our results had to show that the blood levels of EPA and DHA resulting from a single 4 gram dose of CaPre are not significantly higher than from a single 4 gram dose of LOVAZA under fed (high-fat meal) conditions. The Bridging Study met all of its objectives and demonstrated that the levels of EPA and DHA following administration of CaPre did not exceed corresponding levels following administration of LOVAZA in subjects who were fed a high-fat meal. We expect that these results will support a claim by us that CaPre and LOVAZA have a comparable safety profile. Also, among subjects in a fasting state, CaPre demonstrated better bioavailability than LOVAZA, as measured by significantly higher blood levels of EPA and DHA. Since most HTG patients must follow a restricted low-fat diet, we believe that CaPre’s strong bioavailability profile compared to OM3 ethyl ester drugs such as LOVAZA and VASCEPA could provide a more effective clinical solution for these patients.

- 46 -

Table of Contents

We summarized and submitted data from our Bridging Study to the FDA for review and discussed it with the FDA at an End-of-Phase 2 meeting during the first quarter of 2017. We also presented our Bridging Study data at the National Lipid Association Conference in May 2017 and we plan to submit the data from our Bridging Study for peer review and publication.

The graph below illustrates that the Bridging Study achieved all of its objectives:

Absorption of EPA and DHA as ethyl ester formulations in the currently available prescription OM3 drugs derived from fish oil (such as LOVAZA and VASCEPA) require the breakdown of the ethyl esters by pancreatic enzymes (lipases) to be released into the blood. These particular enzymes are produced in response to the consumption of high-fat content meals, leading to optimal absorption of EPA and DHA. As a result, these OM3 ethyl ester formulations have demonstrated lower absorption and bioavailability when taken with a low-fat meal or on an empty stomach. As shown in our CAP13-101 study described further below, absorption of CaPre, which is formulated as OM3 phospholipids and free fatty acids, is not meaningfully affected by the fat content of a meal consumed prior to drug administration. Since a low-fat diet is typically a critical component for treatment of patients with severe HTG, we believe that being able to effectively combine CaPre with a low-fat diet could give CaPre a significant clinical and marketing advantage over the ethyl ester-based OM3s, such as LOVAZA and VASCEPA, that must be taken with a high-fat meal to achieve optimal absorption.

Our CAP13-101 study was an open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, single-center, parallel-design study in healthy volunteers. 42 subjects were enrolled into 3 groups of 14 subjects who took 1 gram, 2 grams or 4 grams of CaPre, administered once a day 30 minutes after breakfast. The objectives of the study were to determine the pharmacokinetic, or PK, profile and safety on Day 1 following a single oral dose and Day 14 following multiple oral doses of CaPre in individuals pursuing a low-fat diet (therapeutic lifestyle changes diet). The effect of a high-fat meal on the bioavailability of CaPre was also evaluated at Day 15. Blood samples were collected for assessment of EPA and DHA total lipids in plasma to derive the PK parameters.

The PK profile of CaPre following multiple 4 gram doses obtained in the CAP13-101 study at Day 14 was compared to the results obtained in a similar PK study (Offman 2013—ECLIPSE 2) where LOVAZA was also administered at 4 grams a day for 14 days with a low-fat diet. Although CaPre contains approximately 2.5 times less EPA and DHA compared to LOVAZA (approximately 310 mg/1g capsule for CaPre versus 770 mg/1g capsule for LOVAZA), when administered with a low-fat meal, CaPre plasma levels of EPA and DHA are very similar to those of LOVAZA, as indicated by the area under the plasma drug concentration against time curve, or AUC, and the maximal plasma drug concentration. This study provided us with the basis for the dosing and design of our Phase 3 program.

- 47 -

Table of Contents

As illustrated by the two graphs below, CaPre reached similar blood and therapeutic levels to LOVAZA after 14 daily doses of CaPre at 4 grams/day, despite CaPre containing 2.5 times less EPA and DHA compared to LOVAZA:

The graph below illustrates that the bioavailability of CaPre (total EPA+DHA levels in the blood) does not appear to be meaningfully affected by the fat content of a meal after multiple daily doses of CaPre at 4 grams/day (< 20% difference in AUC). We believe that CaPre’s strong bioavailability could represent a significant clinical advantage for CaPre since taking it with a low-fat meal represents a more realistic regimen for patients with HTG who must follow a restricted low-fat diet.

Our Study CAP13-101 CaPre Pharmacokinetics Shows No Significant Food Effect

The graph below presents a summary of the effects of CaPre on patients’ lipid profiles as obtained in our completed TRIFECTA and COLT Phase 2 clinical trials. 90% of the patients in these clinical trials had high TGs (levels between 200 – 499 mg/dL) and 10% of patients had severe HTG (levels between 500 and 877 mg/dL), which was the maximum level of TGs permitted by Health Canada’s study protocol. Only 30% of the participating patients were taking statins, which we believe is important because statins appear to enhance the TG-lowering effect of OM3s. In contrast, in our competitors’ summary data that follows, 100% of the patients in those studies with high TGs were taking statins with their OM3s.

The summary data from our COLT and TRIFECTA clinical trials shows that CaPre significantly reduces TGs, but unlike some other prescription EPA/DHA-based OM3s, it has no deleterious effect on LDL-C and may

- 48 -

Table of Contents

potentially increase HDL-C (p=0.07), which we refer to as the “trifecta effect”. Also, a dose response was seen for all of the major lipid markers; the greater the dose of CaPre, the greater the beneficial effect of CaPre.

Our Phase 2 Study Results Show CaPre Dose Response and Potential for “Trifecta” Lipid Effect

TRIFECTA for 1g (N=130) & 2g (N=128) and COLT for 4g (N=62). HDL-C results at 4g from COLT approached statistical significance at P=0.07.

We conducted a subgroup analysis including only patients with severe HTG, consisting of approximately 10% of the patients from our TRIFECTA study, to compare the effects of CaPre versus other OM3 drugs in the initial target population of patients with severe HTG. Despite being given at a lower dose (only 1 gram and 2 grams), CaPre’s results compared very well with data from independent studies for the other prescription OM3 drugs that are FDA-approved for the treatment of severe HTG at higher doses of 2 grams and 4 grams. While the results of this subgroup analysis were not statistically significant for CaPre (which we believe is potentially due to the small sample size), numerically, the results compared well with the other OM3 drugs, even though CaPre was given at a much lower dose. The results for LDL-C, HDL-C and non-HDL-C levels in the subgroup shown in the table below are based on descriptive statistics only and are solely directional, meaning that no statistical testing was conducted and so no “p” values were generated.

- 49 -

Table of Contents

Our Sub-Group Analysis in Patients with Severe HTG: CaPre¹ at 1g and 2g Compares Well with Our Competitors² at 2g and 4g

Only ~1/3 of all patients across all studies were on statins

Since statins appear to enhance the TG-lowering property of OM3 drugs, we conducted a subgroup analysis that only included patients who were taking a statin at baseline in the COLT and TRIFECTA studies (approximately 30% of the population of both trials, combined). The graph below compares the TG-lowering effects of CaPre to other OM3s, all on a background of a statin drug, and shows that CaPre’s TG-lowering effects compare well with other FDA-approved OM3 drugs. We believe it is noteworthy that only 39 patients on 2 grams of CaPre in our TRIFECTA study (out of a total of 128) and only 22 patients on 4 grams of CaPre in our COLT study (out of 62) were taking statins.

The CaPre 2 gram bar graph in the table below shows the results from patients in our TRIFECTA trial who were taking statins. A statistically significant reduction in TGs (-25.7% placebo corrected) was seen in that statin subgroup. The CaPre 4 gram bar graph in the table below shows patient results only from our COLT trial (as there was no 4 gram component for our TRIFECTA). None of the results were statistically significant at 4 grams of CaPre, which we believe is potentially due to the small number of patients (22) in the statins subgroup.

As seen in the larger full study analyses in the tables above, CaPre does not show any deleterious effect on LDL, and shows the potential to decrease LDL and increase HDL (p=0.07). These observations will need to be confirmed in our Phase 3 program.

- 50 -

Table of Contents

Our Sub-Group Analysis in Patients Treated with Statins¹ vs Independent Competitor Data²: Potential for CaPre Trifecta Effect

In summary, in addition to effectively reduce TG levels in patients with mild to severe HTG, clinical data collected by us to date indicates that CaPre may also have:

We believe that these features could set CaPre apart from currently available FDA-approved OM3 treatment options in the marketplace and could give us a significant clinical and marketing advantage.

- 51 -

Table of Contents

Based on our Phase 2 clinical trial results, CaPre’s potential clinical benefits as compared to currently available FDA-approved OM3 treatment options are summarized in the table below and indicate that CaPre may deliver a more complete lipid management solution for patients with severe HTG:

Our Nonclinical Research

In addition to our Phase 2 clinical trials, we carried out an extensive nonclinical program to demonstrate the safety of CaPre in a defined set of studies required by the FDA. These studies were carried out by contract research organizations with Good Laboratory Practice certification and conducted on various species of animals recommended by the FDA to investigate the long-term effects of CaPre at doses of up to 65 grams of human equivalent dose over 39 weeks. In these studies, hematological, biochemical, coagulation and overall health parameters of CaPre were evaluated and no toxic effects were observed in any of the segments of the studies. Other studies focused on the potential toxic effects of CaPre on vital systems, such as the cardiovascular, respiratory and central nervous system as evaluated by behavioral studies of the various species. These studies showed that CaPre did not have any adverse or toxic effects on any of the vital systems investigated, again up to doses well above the recommended clinical dose of CaPre. To rule out short term toxic effects of CaPre on genes, genomic toxicity studies were undertaken on accepted cellular and animal models. These studies showed no toxic effects of CaPre on any of the genetic markers indicative of potential gene altering toxic effects.

We believe the studies conducted to date indicate that CaPre is well-tolerated and shows no significant toxic effects on any of the physiological and vital systems of the tested animals or their genes or molecules at doses well above CaPre’s anticipated clinical therapeutic dose of 4 grams daily.

In parallel to our Phase 3 program, we will have to complete additional nonclinical studies, including a pre- and postnatal development study in rodents and a 26-week oral carcinogenicity study in transgenic hemizygous rasH2 mice. These nonclinical studies will be required to support an NDA for CaPre.

Our Phase 3 Program Design

In March 2017, we announced our plans to proceed with our Phase 3 program following our End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA in February 2017. Based on the guidance we received from the FDA, we plan to conduct two pivotal, randomized, placebo-controlled double-blinded Phase 3 studies to evaluate the safety and efficacy of CaPre in patients with severe HTG. These studies of 26 weeks duration will evaluate CaPre’s ability to lower TGs from baseline in approximately 500 patients randomized to either 4 grams daily or placebo. The FDA’s feedback supported our plan to conduct two studies in parallel, potentially shortening the time to an NDA

- 52 -

Table of Contents

submission. These studies will be conducted in multiple centers across North America. The primary endpoint of these studies is to determine the efficacy of CaPre at 4 grams/day compared to placebo in lowering TGs in severe HTG patients, and to confirm safety. In addition, the Phase 3 studies will include numerous secondary and exploratory endpoints, which are designed to assess the effect of CaPre on the broader lipid profile and certain metabolic, inflammatory and CV risk markers. If any of these secondary or exploratory endpoints show statistical significance, they could become the basis for possible expanded claims and/or future indications for CaPre.

We have initiated our Phase 3 program and expect to begin site activation before the end of 2017, subject to obtaining the required financing through this offering. We are working with a major clinical research organization to prepare for site activation and to manage our Phase 3 program, and we recently announced that Dariush Mozaffarin, M.D., Ph.D., has agreed to serve as our principal investigator. Dr. Mozaffarin is a cardiologist and epidemiologist serving as the Jean Mayer Professor of Nutrition & Medicine, and the Dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science & Policy at Tuff’s University. His widely published research focuses on how diets, such as those rich in OM3s and lifestyle influence cardiometabolic health, and how effective policies can improve health and wellness.

The following chart illustrates the expected design and dosing of our Phase 3 program for CaPre.

Our Regulatory Strategy for CaPre

Our strategy is to develop and initially commercialize CaPre for the treatment of severe HTG. Our Phase 3 program is designed to fully evaluate the clinical effect of CaPre on TGs, non-HDL-C, LDL-C, and HDL-C levels together with a variety of other cardiometabolic biomarkers in patients with severe HTG.

In December 2015, we announced that we intend to pursue a 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway towards an NDA approval in the United States. A 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway is defined in the U.S. Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) as an NDA containing investigations of safety and effectiveness that are being relied upon for approval and were not, in whole, conducted by or for the applicant, and for which the applicant has not obtained a right of reference. 505(b)(2) regulatory pathways differ from a typical NDA because they allow a sponsor to rely, at least in part, on the FDA’s findings of safety and/or effectiveness for a previously-approved drug. We intend to pursue the 505(b)(2) regulatory pathway as a strategy to leverage the large body of safety data for LOVAZA, which could accelerate and streamline the development of CaPre and reduce associated costs and risks.

In connection with our intended use of the 505(b)(2) pathway, the FDA supported our proposal to conduct our Bridging Study that compared CaPre (which has an OM3 free fatty acid/phospholipid composition) with the

- 53 -

Table of Contents

FDA-approved HTG drug LOVAZA (which has an OM3-acid ethyl esters composition) in healthy volunteers. In February 2017, we met with the FDA to review our Bridging Study data. We confirmed with the FDA the 505(b)(2) regulatory approach to use the safety data for LOVAZA, and finalized the study design for our Phase 3 clinical trials, which will be required for NDA approval. We expect to continue our dialogue with the FDA during the second half of 2017 to obtain feedback on our regulatory and clinical plans and to clarify or answer specific questions regarding our Phase 3 clinical studies.

Our planned key milestones and development timeline are presented below.

As of the date of this prospectus, we plan to start clinical site activation by the end of 2017.

Our Intellectual Property Strategy

Under a license agreement we entered into with Neptune in August 2008, which we refer to as the license agreement, we received an exclusive license to use Neptune’s intellectual property portfolio related to cardiovascular pharmaceutical and medical food applications. The license agreement confers to us “freedom-to-operate” in order to develop and commercialize CaPre and our novel and active pharmaceutical ingredients, or APIs, for the prescription drug and medical food markets. We entered into the license agreement with Neptune in order to allow us to develop and commercialize CaPre until these Neptune patents expire. Upon the expiry of the last-to-expire licensed Neptune patents in 2022, and the concurrent expiry of our license agreement with Neptune, we believe that CaPre will be fully covered under our own issued and pending patents, and we do not believe that we will afterwards require any license from Neptune or any other third parties to support the commercialization of CaPre.

As a result of a royalty prepayment transaction we entered into with Neptune on December 4, 2012, we are no longer required to pay any royalties to Neptune under the license agreement during its term for the use of the licensed intellectual property. The license agreement expires on the date of the last to expire patent, which is in 2022.

On August 8, 2017, Neptune announced that it sold its krill oil inventory and intellectual property to Aker. Aker then licensed the intellectual property back to Neptune. The license agreement between us and Neptune remains in place and unchanged.

- 54 -

Table of Contents

The following table summarizes the patent applications related to our license agreement with Neptune.

In addition to the license agreement, we continue to expand our own intellectual property, or IP, portfolio and patents. We have now filed patent applications in 24 jurisdictions, including Europe, North America, Asia and Australia for our “Concentrated Therapeutic Phospholipid Composition” to treat HTG, and we currently have 20 issued or allowed patents and 15 patent applications pending. During the three-month period ended June 30, 2017, additional patents were granted to us by the Taiwanese and Australian patent offices to protect both composition of matter and methods of treatment. The last to expire of our patents is valid until 2031. In August 2017, the South Korean Patent Office has found the patent application (KR 10-2012-7013588) acceptable for grant.

U.S. patents were granted to us covering a method of reducing serum TG levels comprising administering a composition comprising about 66% phospholipid, or PL, (US 8,586,567), and a method of treating HTG comprising administering a composition comprising about 60% PL (US 9,475,830). We later filed a U.S. continuation patent application to pursue claims directed towards a composition encompassing an extract comprising a PL content between about 60% to about 99%. The U.S. patent granted to us covers the use of concentrated therapeutic phospholipid compositions for treating or preventing diseases associated with cardiovascular disease, metabolic syndrome, inflammation and associated diseases, neurodevelopmental diseases, and neurodegenerative diseases, comprising administering an effective amount of a concentrated therapeutic phospholipid composition. Corresponding patents have also been granted in South Africa, China, Japan, Mexico, Taiwan, Saudi Arabia, Panama, and Israel.

- 55 -

Table of Contents

A patent is generally valid for 20 years from the date of first filing. Patent terms can be further extended depending on the jurisdiction to compensate, for example, for regulatory delays during the pre-market approval process.

We believe these patents increase potential commercial opportunities for CaPre, including through possible licensing and partnership opportunities. We are committed to building a global portfolio of patents to ensure long-lasting and comprehensive intellectual property protection and to safeguard potentially valuable market expansion opportunities.

Our patent No. 600167 in New Zealand, which is enforceable until 2030 and relates to a concentrated phospholipid composition comprising 60% PL and method of using the same for treating cardiovascular diseases, has been opposed by BIO-MER Ltd. Our corresponding Australian patent No. 2010312238 was opposed by Enzymotec Ltd., but that opposition has been since been discontinued. The New Zealand patent opposition is in its early stages. In our view, no new prior art has been presented that was not already considered in other jurisdictions, such as in the United States and Japan, where our patents are in force.

We have applied for trademark protection of CaPre, and we are the owner of the trademark BREAKING DOWN THE WALLS OF CHOLESTEROL in Canada and the United States. The trademark CaPre^® is registered in the United States, Canada, Australia, China, Japan and Europe. In addition, we also protect our optimization and extraction processes through industrial trade secrets and know-how.

Manufacturing of CaPre

We are developing CaPre as a new chemical entity (which means a novel chemical product protected by patents), and we plan to conduct our Phase 3 program using good manufacturing practices, or cGMP, good clinical practices, or cGCP, and good laboratory practices, or cGLP. The contract manufacturing organizations, or CMOs, selected by us for manufacturing and packaging are all cGMP compliant. Batch sizes of 10 to 12 kilograms of CaPre have already been successfully produced and tested clinically, and we recently scaled up to 100 kg/day to fulfill the clinical product requirements for our Phase 3 program and initial commercial launch.

In preparation for our Phase 3 program, working together with our pharmaceutical CMOs, we have advanced the installation and qualification of the proprietary extraction and purification equipment used to manufacture CaPre. We ran our first engineered production run of CaPre in December 2016 and our first scaled cGMP production lots of CaPre at CordenPharma’s Chenôve facility in Dijon, France during the first half of 2017. As of the date of this prospectus, we have completed 2 clinical lots of CaPre for our Phase 3 studies.

The graphic below illustrates the current manufacturing sequence for CaPre:

CaPre is manufactured under strict cGMP as per 21 CFR parts 210 and 211:

- 56 -

Table of Contents

Our Business and Commercialization Strategy

Key elements of our business and commercialization strategy include initially obtaining regulatory approval for CaPre in the United States for severe HTG. We do not currently have dedicated in-house sales and marketing personnel and we are evaluating several alternative go-to-market strategies for commercializing CaPre in the United States. Our preferred strategy outside the United States is to commercialize CaPre through regional or country-specific strategic partnerships, and to potentially seek support and funding from each partner for clinical development, registration and commercialization activities. We believe that a late development-stage and differentiated drug candidate like CaPre could be attractive to various global, regional or specialty pharmaceutical companies, and we are taking a targeted approach to partnering and licensing in various geographies.

We recently entered into a non-binding term sheet with a leading China-based pharmaceutical company. Completion of the transaction is subject to further negotiation and execution of a definitive agreement, which once signed would grant an exclusive license to the Chinese pharmaceutical company to commercialize CaPre in certain Asian countries, including China. If a definitive agreement is reached and signed, the term sheet contemplates that we would receive an upfront payment of US$8 million upon signing, plus potential regulatory and commercial milestone payments in excess of US$125 million, and tiered double-digit royalties on net sales. The term sheet contemplates that the term of the license, including the period during which milestone payments, if any, could be achieved, would be the later of (i) the fifth anniversary of the last-to-expire patent or (ii) 2035, and the license would be automatically renewable for one renewal term of ten years. The term sheet is preliminary and non-binding at this stage and the license, upfront payment, possible milestone payments and royalties contemplated by it will only become operative if definitive documents are executed. It is possible that no definitive agreement will be reached, or, if a definitive agreement is reached, that its terms and conditions may differ from those described above.

If we reach commercialization of CaPre, as part of our sales and marketing strategy, we expect to focus our U.S. launch initially on lipid specialists, cardiologists and primary care physicians who comprise the top prescribers of lipid-regulating therapies for patients with severe HTG.

Our key commercialization goals include:

In addition to completing our Phase 3 program, we expect that additional time and capital will be required to complete the filing of an NDA to obtain FDA pre-market approval for CaPre in the United States, and to complete business development collaborations, marketing and other pre-commercialization activities before reaching the commercial launch of CaPre.

Competition

The biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries are highly competitive. There are many pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, public and private universities and research organizations actively engaged in the research and development of products that may be similar to CaPre. We believe that the number of companies seeking to develop products and therapies similar to CaPre will likely increase, particularly if the CV outcome trials by Amarin and/or Astra Zeneca are successful.

- 57 -

Table of Contents

Our competitors in the United States and globally include large, well-established pharmaceutical companies, specialty pharmaceutical sales and marketing companies, and specialized cardiovascular treatment companies. GlaxoSmithKline plc, which currently sells LOVAZA, a prescription-only OM3 fatty acid indicated for patients with severe HTG, was approved by the FDA in 2004 and has been available in the U.S. market since 2005. Multiple generic versions of LOVAZA are now available in the United States. Amarin launched its prescription-only OM3 drug VASCEPA in 2013, and reached a market share of approximately 20% by the end of 2015. In addition, EPANOVA (OM3-carboxylic acids) capsules, a free fatty acid form of OM3 (comprised of 55% EPA and 20% DHA), is FDA-approved for patients with severe HTG. Omtryg, another OM3 fatty acid composition developed by Trygg Pharma AS, received FDA approval for severe HTG. Neither EPANOVA nor Omtryg have yet been commercially launched, but could launch at any time. Other large companies with products that would compete indirectly with CaPre include AbbVie, Inc., which currently sells Tricor and Trilipix for the treatment of severe HTG, and Niaspan, which is primarily used to raise HDL-C but is also used to lower TGs. Generic versions of Tricor, Trilipix, and Niaspan are also now available in the United States. In addition, we are aware of a number of other pharmaceutical companies that are developing products that, if approved and marketed, would compete with CaPre.

Raw Materials

We use semi-refined raw krill oil as our primary raw material to produce CaPre. Krill is generally harvested in Antarctic waters. The total quantity of the krill species is estimated to be at least 500,000,000 metric tons. The krill biomass is the world’s most abundant biomass and is monitored to help ensure sustainable cultivation. Historically, we have sourced all of our krill oil from Neptune. On August 8, 2017, Neptune announced its near-term plan to discontinue krill oil production and the sale of its krill oil inventory and intellectual property to Aker. We are evaluating alternative krill oil sources. We have sufficient krill oil inventories that we anticipate will be required to complete our Phase 3 program and we believe that alternative supplies of krill oil that can meet our specifications will be readily available.

Employees, Specialized Skills and Knowledge

Our management consists of professionals from business development, sales and marketing, clinical development, pharmaceutical manufacturing, finance and science backgrounds. Our research team includes scientists with expertise in pharmaceutical development, chemistry, manufacturing and controls, nonclinical and clinical studies, pharmacology, regulatory affairs, quality assurance/quality control, intellectual property and strategic alliances. As of December 20, 2017, we employed 19 people in Canada and the United States, eight of whom have advanced biology, engineering, chemistry, biochemistry or microbiology degrees. We generally require all of our employees to enter into invention assignment, non-disclosure and non-compete agreements. We rely, in part, on some administrative and general accounting support from Neptune, and we also rely on third-party consultants from time to time. Our employees are not covered by any collective bargaining agreement or represented by a trade union.

Additional Information About Our Phase 2 Clinical Trials

Our COLT Trial

Our COLT clinical trial, which was completed in 2014, was a randomized, open-label, dose-ranging, multi-center trial in Canada designed to assess the safety and efficacy of CaPre in the treatment of patients with TG levels between 200-877 mg/dL. The primary objectives of the COLT study were to evaluate the safety and efficacy of 0.5 grams, 1 gram, 2 grams and 4 grams of CaPre per day in reducing fasting plasma TGs over 4 and 8 weeks, as compared to the standard of care alone.

The secondary objectives of the COLT study were to evaluate:

- 58 -

Table of Contents

The final results of the COLT trial indicated that CaPre was safe and effective in reducing TGs in patients with mild to severe HTG with significant mean (average) TG reductions above 20% after 8 weeks of treatment with daily doses of 4 grams and 2 grams. Demographics and baseline characteristics of the patient population were balanced in terms of age, race and gender. A total of 288 patients were enrolled and randomized and 270 patients completed the study, which exceeded our targeted number of evaluable patients. From this patient population, approximately 90% had high TGs.

The proportion of patients treated with CaPre that experienced one or more adverse events in the COLT trial was similar to that of the standard of care group (30.0% versus 34.5%, respectively). A substantial majority of adverse events were mild (82.3%) and no severe treatment-related adverse effects were reported. Only one patient was discontinued from the study due to an adverse event of moderate intensity. While the rate of gastrointestinal side effects was higher in the CaPre groups compared to standard of care alone and appeared to increase in a dose-related manner, none of the subjects participating in the study suffered from a serious adverse event. The COLT study results showed that even at higher doses, CaPre is safe and well tolerated with only transient and predominantly mild adverse events occurring at low rates.

The COLT trial met its primary objective of showing CaPre to be safe and effective in reducing TGs in patients with mild to severe HTG. After only a 4-week treatment, CaPre achieved a statistically significant TG reduction as compared to standard of care alone. Standard of care could be any treatment physicians considered appropriate in a real-life clinical setting and included lifestyle modifications as well as statins and/or ezetimibe. Patients treated with 4 grams of CaPre per day over 4 weeks reached a mean TG decrease of 15.4% from baseline and a mean improvement of 18.0% over the standard of care. Results also showed increased benefits after 8 weeks of treatment, with patients on a daily dose of 4 grams of CaPre registering a mean TG decrease of 21.6% from baseline and a mean improvement of 14.4% over the standard of care.

After 8 weeks of treatment, patients treated with 1 gram of CaPre for the first 4 weeks of treatment and 2 grams for the following 4 weeks, showed a statistically significant TG mean improvement of 16.2% over the standard of care, corresponding to a 23.3% reduction for the 1-2 grams patient population as compared to a 7.1% reduction for the standard of care. After 8 weeks of treatment, patients treated with 2 grams of CaPre for the entire 8 weeks showed statistically significant TG mean improvements of 14.8% over the standard of care, corresponding to a 22.0% reduction for the 2 grams as compared to a 7.1% reduction for the standard of care. Also, after 8 weeks of treatment, patients treated with 4 grams for the entire 8 weeks showed statistically significant TG, non-HDL-C and HbA1C mean improvements of 14.4% and 9.8% and 15.0%, respectively, as compared to standard of care. The 4 grams group showed mean improvements in:

In addition, all combined doses of CaPre showed a statistically significant treatment effect on HDL-C levels, with an increase of 7.4% as compared to standard of care. Trends (p-value < 0.1) were also noted on patients treated with 4 grams of CaPre for the entire 8-week treatment period with mean reduction of total cholesterol of 7.0% and increase of HDL-C levels of 7.7%, as compared to the standard of care. The results of the COLT trial indicated that CaPre has no significant deleterious effect on LDL-C (bad cholesterol) levels.

- 59 -

Table of Contents

Our TRIFECTA Trial

Our TRIFECTA clinical trial, which was completed in 2015, was a 12-week, randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, dose-ranging trial in Canada, designed to assess the safety and efficacy of CaPre at a dose of 1 gram or 2 grams on fasting plasma TGs as compared to a placebo in patients with TG levels between 200-877 mg/dL. A total of 387 patients were randomized and 365 patients completed the 12-week study, consistent with our targeted number of evaluable patients. From this patient population, approximately 90% had high TGs with baseline TGs between 200 and 499 mg/dL. The remainder had severe HTG with baseline TGs between 500 and 877 mg/dL. Approximately 30% of patients were on lipid-lowering medications, such as statins, and approximately 10% were diabetic.

Similar to our COLT study, the primary objective of the TRIFECTA study was to evaluate the effect of CaPre on fasting plasma TGs in patients with TGs between 200-877 mg/dL and to assess the tolerability and safety of CaPre. The secondary objectives of the TRIFECTA study were to evaluate:

CaPre successfully met the TRIFECTA’s study’s primary objective. The placebo-corrected percentage change in TGs were decreases of 9.1% (p=0.049) and 9.7% (p=0.044) for 1 gram and 2 grams of CaPre, respectively. Key secondary objectives were also met:

Finally, a statistically significant dose response increase in the OM3 index for patients on 1 gram and 2 grams versus placebo was noted. The OM3 index reflects the percentage of EPA and DHA in red blood cell fatty acids and the risk of cardiovascular disease is considered to be lower as the OM3 index increases.

CaPre was found to be safe and well tolerated at all doses tested, with no serious adverse events that were considered treatment-related. Out of 387 randomized patients, a total of 7 (1.8%) were discontinued as a result of adverse events, three were on placebo, two were on 1 gram and two were on 2 grams. The predominant incidence was gastrointestinal-related, with no difference between CaPre and placebo. The safety profiles of patients on CaPre and placebo were similar.

The COLT and TRIFECTA clinical trials were conducted by JSS Medical Research, a CRO specializing in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, nutraceutical and medical device industries, which is both owned and managed by Dr. John Sampalis, the brother of Dr. Tina Sampalis, who previously was our President and Chief Global Strategy Officer.

Government Regulation

United States Drug Development

Government authorities in the United States, at the federal, state and local level, and in other countries extensively regulate, among other things, the research, development, testing, manufacture, quality control, approval, labeling, packaging, storage, record- keeping, promotion, advertising, distribution, post-approval monitoring and reporting, marketing and export and import of drug products such as CaPre. Generally, before a new drug can be marketed, considerable data demonstrating its quality, safety and efficacy must be obtained, organized into a format specific to each regulatory authority, submitted for review and approved by the regulatory authority.

- 60 -

Table of Contents

FDA Regulatory Process

In the United States, the FDA regulates drugs under the FDCA and its implementing regulations. Drugs are also subject to other federal, state and local statutes and regulations. The process of obtaining regulatory approvals and the subsequent compliance with appropriate federal, state and local statutes and regulations require the expenditure of substantial time and financial resources.

In order to be marketed in the United States, CaPre must be approved by the FDA through the NDA review process. The process required before a drug may be marketed in the United States generally involves the following:

The data required to support an NDA is generated in two distinct development stages: nonclinical and clinical. The nonclinical development stage generally involves synthesizing or otherwise producing the active component, developing the formulation and determining the manufacturing process, as well as carrying out non-human toxicology, pharmacology and drug metabolism studies in the laboratory, which support subsequent clinical testing. The sponsor must submit the results of the nonclinical tests, together with manufacturing information, analytical data, any available clinical data or literature and a proposed clinical protocol, to the FDA as part of the IND, which is a request for authorization from the FDA to administer an investigational drug product to humans. The IND automatically becomes effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA, unless the FDA raises concerns or questions regarding the proposed clinical trials. The FDA may also place the IND on clinical hold within that 30-day time period. In such a case, the IND sponsor and the FDA must resolve any outstanding concerns before the clinical trial can begin. A clinical hold may be imposed at any time before or during a clinical trial due to safety concerns or non-compliance.

The clinical stage of development first involves the administration of the investigational drug to healthy volunteers and then to patients with the disease being targeted with the drug, all done under the supervision of qualified investigators, generally physicians not employed by or under the trial sponsor’s control, in accordance with cGCP. All research subjects must provide their informed consent for their participation in any clinical trial. Clinical trials are conducted under protocols detailing, among other things, the objectives of the clinical trial, dosing procedures, subject selection and exclusion criteria, data collection, and the parameters to be used to monitor subject safety and assess the investigational drug’s efficacy. Each protocol, and any subsequent amendments to the protocol or new investigator’s information, must be submitted to the FDA as part of the IND. Further, each clinical trial must be reviewed and approved by an independent institutional review board, or IRB, at or servicing each institution at which the clinical trial will be conducted. An IRB is charged with protecting the welfare and rights of trial participants and considers such items as whether the risks to individuals participating

- 61 -

Table of Contents

in the clinical trials are minimized and are reasonable in relation to anticipated benefits. The IRB also approves the informed consent form that must be provided to each clinical trial subject or its legal representative. There are also requirements governing the reporting of ongoing clinical trials and completed clinical trial results to public registries, as well as reporting of safety information under the IND.

Clinical studies are generally conducted in three sequential phases that may overlap, known as Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. Phase 1 generally involves a small number of healthy volunteers who are initially exposed to a single dose and then multiple doses of the investigational drug. The primary purpose of these studies is to assess the metabolism, pharmacologic action, side effect tolerability and safety of the drug. Phase 2 trials typically involve studies in disease-affected patients to determine the dose required to produce the desired benefits. At the same time, safety and further pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic information is collected, as well as identification of possible adverse effects and safety risks and preliminary evaluation of efficacy. Phase 3 clinical trials generally involve large numbers of patients at multiple sites, often in multiple countries (from several hundred to several thousand subjects) and are designed to provide the data necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the product for its intended use, its safety in use, and to establish the overall benefit/risk relationship of the product and provide an adequate basis for product approval. Phase 3 clinical trials should, if possible, include comparisons with placebo and may include a comparison to approved therapies. The duration of treatment is often extended to mimic the actual use of a product during marketing. Generally, two adequate and well-controlled Phase 3 clinical trials are required by the FDA for approval of an NDA (Pivotal Studies).

Progress reports detailing the results of the clinical trials must be submitted at least annually to the FDA. In addition, written IND safety reports must be submitted to the FDA and the investigators for serious and unexpected adverse events or any finding from tests in laboratory animals that suggests a significant risk for human subjects. The FDA, the IRB, or the sponsor may suspend or terminate a clinical trial at any time on various grounds, including a finding that the research subjects or patients are being exposed to an unacceptable health risk.

Additionally, some clinical trials are overseen by an independent group of qualified experts organized by the clinical trial sponsor, known as a data safety monitoring board or committee. This group provides oversight and will determine whether or not a trial may move forward at designated check points based on review of interim data from the study. A clinical trial may be terminated or suspended based on evolving business objectives and/or competitive climate.

The manufacturing process must be capable of consistently producing quality batches of the investigational drug and, among other things, must develop methods for testing the identity, strength, quality and purity of the final drug product. The sponsor must develop appropriate labeling that sets forth the conditions of intended use. Additionally, appropriate packaging must be selected and tested and stability studies must be conducted to demonstrate that the drug candidate does not undergo unacceptable deterioration over its shelf life.

Post-approval studies, sometimes referred to as Phase 4 clinical trials, may be conducted after initial marketing approval. These studies are used to gain additional experience from the treatment of patients in the intended therapeutic indication. In certain instances, the FDA may mandate the performance of Phase 4 studies as part of a post-approval commitment, such as pediatric studies.

NDA and FDA Review Process

Nonclinical and clinical information is filed with the FDA in an NDA along with proposed labeling. The NDA is a request for approval to market the drug and must contain proof of safety, purity, potency and efficacy, which is demonstrated by extensive nonclinical and clinical testing. Data may come from company-sponsored clinical trials intended to test the safety and effectiveness of a use of a product, or from a number of alternative sources, including studies initiated by investigators. To support marketing approval, the data submitted must be sufficient in quality and quantity to establish the safety and effectiveness of the investigational drug product to the satisfaction of the FDA.

- 62 -

Table of Contents

The submission of an NDA is subject to the payment of substantial user fees; a waiver of such fees may be obtained under certain limited circumstances. FDA approval of an NDA must be obtained before marketing a drug in the United States. In addition, under the Pediatric Research Equity Act, an NDA or supplement to an NDA must contain data to assess the safety and effectiveness of the drug for the claimed indications in all relevant pediatric subpopulations and to support dosing and administration for each pediatric subpopulation for which the product is safe and effective. The FDA may grant deferrals for submission of data or full or partial waivers.

The FDA reviews all NDAs submitted before it accepts them for filing and may request additional information. The FDA must make a decision on accepting an NDA for filing within 60 days of receipt. Once the submission is accepted for filing, the FDA begins an in-depth review of the NDA. Under the goals and policies agreed to by the FDA under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, or PDUFA, the FDA has ten months from the filing date in which to complete its initial review of a standard NDA and respond to the applicant. This review typically takes 12 months from the date the NDA is submitted to the FDA including the screening which takes a period of 60 days. The FDA does not always meet its PDUFA goal dates for standard NDAs, and the review process is often significantly extended by FDA requests for additional information or clarification.

After the NDA submission is accepted for filing, the FDA reviews the NDA to determine, among other things, whether the proposed product is safe and effective for its intended use, and whether the product is being manufactured in accordance with cGMP to assure and preserve the product’s identity, strength, quality and purity. The FDA will likely re-analyze the clinical trial data, which could result in extensive discussions with the FDA.

Before approving an NDA, the FDA will conduct a pre-approval inspection of the manufacturing facilities for the new product to determine whether they comply with cGMP. The FDA will not approve the product unless it determines that the manufacturing processes and facilities are in compliance with cGMP requirements and adequate to assure consistent production of the product within required specifications. In addition, before approving an NDA, the FDA may also audit data from clinical trials to ensure compliance with cGCP requirements. After the FDA evaluates the application, manufacturing process and manufacturing facilities, it will issue a Complete Response Letter, or CRL. A CRL indicates that the review cycle of the application is complete and whether the application is approved and, when applicable, the CRL describes the specific deficiencies in the NDA and may require additional clinical data and/or an additional Phase 3 clinical trial(s), and/or other significant and time-consuming requirements related to clinical trials, nonclinical studies or manufacturing. The applicant may either resubmit the NDA, addressing all of the deficiencies identified in the letter, or withdraw the application. Even if such data and information is submitted, the FDA may ultimately decide that the NDA does not satisfy the criteria for approval.

If a product receives marketing approval, the approval may be significantly limited to specific diseases and dosages or the indications for use may otherwise be limited, which could restrict the commercial value of the product. Further, the FDA may require that certain contraindications, warnings or precautions be included in the product labeling, may condition the approval of the NDA on other changes to the proposed labeling, or may require a Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS), which could limit the ability to market the drug once approved. The FDA may also require the development of adequate controls and specifications, or a commitment to conduct post-market testing or clinical trials and surveillance to monitor the effects of approved products.

U.S. Post-Marketing Requirements

Following approval of a new product, a pharmaceutical company and the approved product are subject to continuing regulation by the FDA, including, among other things, monitoring and recordkeeping activities, reporting to the applicable regulatory authorities of adverse experiences with the product, providing the regulatory authorities with updated safety and efficacy information, product sampling and distribution requirements, and complying with promotion and advertising requirements, which include, among others,

- 63 -

Table of Contents

standards for direct-to-consumer advertising, restrictions on promoting drugs for uses or in patient populations that are not described in the drug’s approved labeling, or “off-label use”, limitations on industry-sponsored scientific and educational activities, and requirements for promotional activities involving the internet. Although physicians may prescribe legally available drugs for off-label uses, manufacturers and distributors may not market or promote such off-label uses. Modifications or enhancements to the product or its labeling or changes of the site of manufacture are often subject to the approval of the FDA and other regulators, which may or may not be received or may result in a lengthy review process. In some cases, these changes will require the submission of clinical data and the payment of a user fee.

U.S. Patent Term Restoration and Marketing Exclusivity

Depending upon the timing, duration and specifics of the FDA approval of our prescription drug candidates, some of our U.S. patents may be eligible for limited patent term extension under the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984, commonly referred to as the Hatch-Waxman Amendments. The Hatch-Waxman Amendments permit a patent restoration term for an NCE of up to five years as compensation for patent term lost during product development and the FDA regulatory review process for a product that is the first permitted commercial marketed product. However, patent term restoration cannot extend the remaining term of a patent beyond a total of 14 years from the product’s approval date. The patent term restoration period is generally one-half the time between the effective date of an IND and the submission date of an NDA plus the time between the submission date of an NDA and the approval of that application. Only one patent applicable to an approved drug may be extended and the application for the extension must be submitted prior to the expiration of the patent. The USPTO in consultation with the FDA, reviews and approves the application for any patent term extension or restoration. In the future, we intend to apply for restoration of patent term for one of our currently owned or licensed patents to add patent life beyond its current expiration date, depending on the expected length of the clinical trials and other factors involved in the filing and review of the relevant NDA.

Non-U.S. Drug Regulation

In Canada, biopharmaceutical product candidates are regulated by the Food and Drugs Act and the related rules and regulations, which are enforced by the Therapeutic Products Directorate of Health Canada. In order to obtain approval for commercializing new drugs in Canada, the sponsor must satisfy many regulatory conditions. The sponsor must first complete preclinical studies in order to file a clinical trial application, or CTA, in Canada. The sponsor will then receive different clearance authorizations to proceed with Phase I clinical trials, which can then lead to Phase 2 and Phase 3 clinical trials. Once all three phases of trials are completed, the sponsor must file a registration file named a New Drug Submission, or NDS, in Canada. If the NDS demonstrates that the product was developed in accordance with the regulatory authorities’ rules, regulations and guidelines and demonstrates favorable safety and efficacy and receives a favorable risk/benefit analysis, then the regulatory authorities issue a notice of compliance, which allows the sponsor to market the product.

In addition to regulations in the United States and Canada, we are subject to a variety of regulations governing clinical studies and commercial sales and distribution of our products in other jurisdictions around the world. These laws and regulations typically require the licensing of manufacturing and contract research facilities, carefully controlled research and testing of product candidates and governmental review and approval of results prior to marketing therapeutic product candidates. Additionally, they require adherence to good laboratory practices, good clinical practices and good manufacturing practices during production. The process of new drug approvals by regulators in the United States, Canada and the European Union are generally considered to be among the most rigorous in the world.

Whether or not the FDA or Health Canada approval is obtained for a product, we must obtain approval from the comparable regulatory authorities of other countries before we can commence clinical studies or marketing of the product in those countries. The approval process varies from country to country and the time may be longer or shorter than that required for the FDA or Health Canada approval. The requirements governing the conduct of

- 64 -

Table of Contents

clinical studies, product licensing, pricing and reimbursement vary greatly from country to country. In some international markets, additional clinical trials may be required prior to the filing or approval of marketing applications within the country.

Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient Regulation

The FDA will regulate finished products containing APIs developed or under development by us. Depending on its intended uses, a finished product containing the API may be regulated as a drug under the procedures described above. It may be possible to market a finished product containing an API developed or under development by us as a dietary supplement. Dietary supplements do not require FDA premarket approval. However, it may be necessary to submit a notification to the FDA that a company intends to market a dietary supplement containing a “new dietary ingredient.” In general, the regulatory requirements in other countries also depend on the nature of the finished product and do not focus on the API itself.

Property, Plant and Equipment

Our head office and operations are located at 545 Promenade Centropolis, suite 100, Laval, Québec, Canada, H7T 0A3. We do not own our own manufacturing facility for the production of CaPre; however, we do own the proprietary equipment for producing the API and drug product. We currently do not have plans to develop our own manufacturing facility. However, this could change in the foreseeable future, as we consider the most cost-effective approaches to producing CaPre while ensuring the highest level of quality. We currently depend on third party suppliers and manufacturers to produce our required raw krill oil and drug substance and products. If CaPre is approved for distribution by the FDA, we initially expect to rely on cGMP-compliant third parties to manufacture NKPL66, which is the API in CaPre, encapsulate, bottle and package clinical supplies of CaPre.

We have entered into an agreement with CordenPharma Chenôve, a third party CMO, for the manufacturing of CaPre clinical material for the purposes of our Phase 3 program in accordance with cGMP regulations required by the FDA.

Legal Proceedings

Our former CEO is claiming the payment of approximately $8.5 million and the issuance of equity instruments from the Neptune group (including Acasti). As our management believes that these claims are not valid, no provision has been recognized. The Neptune group (including Acasti) also filed an additional claim to recover certain amounts from the former officer.

We are also involved in other matters arising in the ordinary course of our business. Since management believes that all related claims are not valid and it is presently not possible to determine the outcome of these matters, no provisions have been made in our financial statements for their ultimate resolution beyond the amounts incurred and recorded for such matters. The resolution of these other matters could have an effect on our financial statements in the year that a determination is made, however, in management’s opinion, the final resolution of all such matters is not projected to have a material adverse effect on our financial position.

- 65 -

Table of Contents

SELECTED FINANCIAL INFORMATION

The following table summarizes our selected historical financial data for the periods, and as of the dates, indicated. Our financial statements have been prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB.

We derived the statements of net earnings and comprehensive loss data for the fiscal years ended March 31, 2017, February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015 and the statement of financial position data as of March 31, 2017 and February 29, 2016 from our audited financial statements and the related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. The statements of net earnings and comprehensive loss data for the fiscal years ended February 28, 2014 and 2013 and the statement of financial position data as at February 28, 2015, 2014 and 2013 are derived from our audited financial statements and the related notes thereto not appearing in this prospectus. We derived the statements of net earnings and comprehensive loss data for the six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016 and the statement of financial position data as of September 30, 2017 from our unaudited interim financial statements and the related notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this prospectus. The statement of financial position data as at August 31, 2016 are derived from our unaudited interim financial statements and the related notes thereto not appearing in this prospectus. In the opinion of management, the unaudited interim financial statements reflect all adjustments necessary for a fair presentation of the financial statements. Our historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results that should be expected in the future, and the results for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the full year or any other period.

Beginning in fiscal 2017, our fiscal year end is on March 31. Previously, our fiscal year end was February 28. As a result, our financial statements and the corresponding notes to our financial statements appearing elsewhere in this prospectus include a transition year that includes thirteen months of operations, beginning on March 1, 2016 and ending on March 31, 2017, and two different three- and six-month periods: the period ended September 30, 2017 and the period ended August 31, 2016.

You should read this summary financial data together with our financial statements and related notes and the information under “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included elsewhere in this prospectus.

- 66 -

Table of Contents

MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

You should read the following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations together with the financial statements and the notes thereto included elsewhere in this prospectus. The following discussion contains forward looking statements that reflect our plans, estimates and beliefs. Our actual results could differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause or contribute to these differences include those discussed below and elsewhere in this prospectus, particularly those in the section of this prospectus entitled “Risk Factors.” Our financial statements were prepared in accordance with IFRS as issued by the IASB. See the financial statements included as part of this prospectus and the notes thereto for a discussion of the significant accounting policies and significant estimates and judgments required to be made by management. Our financial results are published in Canadian dollars. All amounts appearing in this MD&A are in thousands of Canadian dollars, except share and per share amounts or unless otherwise indicated.

Overview

We are a biopharmaceutical innovator focused on the research, development and commercialization of prescription drugs using omega 3, or OM3, fatty acids derived from krill oil. OM3 fatty acids have extensive clinical evidence of safety and efficacy in lowering triglycerides, or TGs, in patients with hypertriglyceridemia, or HTG. Our lead product candidate is CaPre, an OM3 phospholipid, which we are developing initially for the treatment of severe HTG, a condition characterized by very high levels of TGs in the bloodstream (> 500 mg/dL). Market research commissioned by us suggests there is a significant unmet medical need for an effective, safe and well-absorbing OM3 therapeutic that demonstrates a positive impact on the major blood lipids associated with cardiovascular disease risk. We believe that, if supported by our Phase 3 program in the United States, which we initiated during the second half of 2017 and for which we plan to start clinical site activation by the end of 2017, CaPre will address this unmet medical need. We also believe the potential exists to expand CaPre’s initial indication to patients with high TGs (blood levels between 200 – 499 mg/dL), although at least one additional clinical trial would likely be required to expand CaPre’s indication to this segment. We may seek to identify new potential indications for CaPre that may be appropriate for future studies and pipeline expansion. In addition, we may also seek to in-license other cardiometabolic drug candidates for drug development and commercialization.

We are subject to a number of risks associated with the conduct of our clinical program and their results, the establishment of strategic alliances and the successful development of new products and their marketing. We are currently not generating any revenues and we have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception. To date, we have financed our operations through the public offering and private placement of common shares and convertible debt, the proceeds from research grants and research tax credits, and the exercises of warrants, rights, and options. To achieve the objectives of our business plan, we plan to raise the necessary funds through additional securities offerings and the establishment of strategic alliances as well as additional research grants and research tax credits. CaPre and other product candidates developed by us will require approval from the FDA and equivalent regulatory organizations in other countries before their sale can be authorized. Our ability to ultimately achieve profitable operations is dependent on a number of factors outside of our control.

Our current assets of $5,852 as at September 30, 2017 include cash and cash equivalents totaling $5,329. Our liabilities total $4,951 at September 30, 2017 and are comprised primarily of $3,391 in amounts due to or accrued for creditors, $1,509 for our unsecured convertible debentures and $51 for derivative warrant liabilities. Our positive working capital balance has declined during the current fiscal year and is expected to continue to decline until we raise additional funds or find a strategic partner. Our current assets as September 30, 2017 are projected to be significantly less than needed to support our current liabilities as at that date when combined with the projected level of our expenses for the next twelve months, including the full initiation of, ongoing enrollment of patients in, and manufacturing of clinical materials for, our Phase 3 program for CaPre. Additional funds will also be needed for our expected expenses for our Phase 3 program for CaPre and other needed operations beyond the next twelve months. We also expect to incur certain increased general and administrative expenses as a result of a reduction of our shared administrative services with Neptune, with those added expenses beginning in the

- 67 -

Table of Contents

second quarter of our current fiscal year. We are working towards development of strategic partner relationships and plan to raise additional funds in the near future, but there can be no assurance as to when or whether we will complete any financing or strategic collaborations. If we do not raise additional funds, or find one or more strategic partners we may not be able to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of our business. As a result, there exists a material uncertainty that casts substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and, therefore, realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of business. We currently have no other arranged sources of financing.

Caution Regarding Non-IFRS Financial Measures

We use multiple financial measures for the review of our operating performance. These measures are generally IFRS financial measures, but one adjusted financial measure, Non-IFRS operating loss (adding to net loss, finance expenses, depreciation and amortization and impairment loss, change in fair value of derivative warrant liabilities, stock-based compensation and by subtracting finance income and deferred income tax recovery), is also used to assess our operating performance. We use this measure, in addition to the IFRS financial measures, for the purposes of evaluating our historical and prospective financial performance, as well as our performance relative to competitors and to plan and forecast future periods as well as to make operational and strategic decisions. We believe that providing this Non-IFRS information to investors, in addition to IFRS measures, allows them to see our results through the eyes of our management, and to better understand our historical and future financial performance.

Earnings and other measures adjusted to a basis other than IFRS do not have standardized meanings and are unlikely to be comparable to similar measures used by other companies. Accordingly, they should not be considered in isolation. We use Non-IFRS operating loss to measure our performance from one period to the next without the variation caused by certain adjustments that could potentially distort the analysis of trends in our operating performance, and because we believe it provides meaningful information on our financial condition and operating results. Our method for calculating Non-IFRS operating loss may differ from that used by other corporations.

We calculate our Non-IFRS operating loss measurement by adding to net loss, finance expenses, depreciation and amortization and impairment loss, change in fair value of derivative warrant liabilities, stock-based compensation and by subtracting finance income and deferred tax recovery. Items that do not impact our core operating performance are excluded from the calculation as they may vary significantly from one period to another. Finance income/expenses include foreign exchange gain (loss). We also exclude the effects of certain non-monetary transactions recorded, such as stock-based compensation, from our Non-IFRS operating loss calculation. We believe it is useful to exclude this item as it is a non-cash expense. Excluding this item does not imply it is necessarily non-recurring. A reconciliation of net loss to Non-IFRS operating loss is presented further below.

Basis of Presentation of the Financial Statements

Beginning in fiscal 2017, our fiscal year end is on March 31. Fiscal 2017 is a transition year, and includes thirteen months of operations, beginning on March 1, 2016 and ending on March 31, 2017. As a result, our financial statements and the corresponding notes to our financial statements for the thirteen months of operations beginning on March 1, 2016 and ending on March 31, 2017 include two unaudited periods: the one-month period ended March 31, 2017 and the twelve-month period ended February 28, 2017. In light of the change to our fiscal year end, this MD&A discusses and compares the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, the twelve-month period ended February 29, 2016 and the twelve-month period ended February 28, 2015. In addition, there is a comparative discussion of our results of operations for the three and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016, and a discussion on notable items related to our one-month result of operations ending March 31, 2017.

- 68 -

Table of Contents

Our financial statements have been prepared on a going concern basis, which assumes we will continue our operations in the foreseeable future and will be able to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities and commitments in the ordinary course of business. Our financial statements do not include any adjustments to the carrying values and classification of assets and liabilities and reported expenses that may be necessary if the going concern basis was not appropriate for our financial statements. If we are unable to continue as a going concern, material write-downs to the carrying values of our assets, including the intangible asset, could be required.

Results of Operations

Comparison of the three and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the three and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016:

Reconciliation of Net Loss to Non-IFRS Operating Loss

The net loss totaling $4,507 or ($0.31) per share for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 increased by $2,178 or ($0.09) per share from the net loss totaling $2,329 or ($0.22) per share for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. This resulted primarily from the $1,798 increased Non-IFRS operating loss and a $201 increase in financial expense, $42 from a decreased gain due to change in value of the warrant derivative liability, a $85 increase in stock-based compensation and a $52 increase in depreciation and amortization.

- 69 -

Table of Contents

The net loss totaling $7,285 or ($0.49) per share for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 increased by $1,801 or ($0.02) per share from the net loss totaling $5,484 or ($0.51) per share for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. This resulted primarily from the $1,608 increased Non-IFRS operating loss and an $86 increase in financial expense, combined with $60 from an increased gain due to the change in value of the warrant derivative liability, a $56 increase in stock-based compensation and a $111 increase in depreciation and amortization.

Stock-based compensation expense increased by $85 to $295 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 from $210 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. 100,000 options were granted in the three-month period ending September 30, 2017 compared to nil in the three-month period ending August 31, 2016. Stock-based compensation expense increased by $56 to $331 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 from $275 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. There was an increase of 286,100 options granted in the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. The increase in stock based compensation resulted primarily from the number of options vesting in the comparable periods. At September 30, 2017, 394,346 options were exercisable compared to 197,845 at August 31, 2016.

Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $52 to $667 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 from $615 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016, due to increased operational production equipment. Depreciation and amortization expense increased by $111 to $1,334 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 from $1,223 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016, also due to increased operational production equipment.

Financial expenses increased by $201 to $146 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 from income of $55 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. This resulted primarily from a $78 change from a foreign exchange gain of $10 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016 to a foreign exchange loss of $68 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017. This change also resulted from an increase in interest on convertible debentures of $92 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to nil for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016, and a decrease of $33 in interest income and other charges for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to the three-month period ended August 31, 2016, mainly related to the pledge amount earning interest at 9% that was released by Neptune on September 20, 2016.

Financial expenses increased by $86 to $259 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 from $173 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. This resulted primarily from a $160 reduced foreign exchange loss from a loss of $264 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016 to a loss of $104 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017. This was offset by an increase in interest on convertible debentures of $183 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to nil for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016, and a decrease of $76 in interest income and other charges compared to the quarter ended August 31, 2016, mainly related to the pledge amount earning interest at 9% that was released by Neptune on September 20, 2016.

The fair value of the derivative warrant liabilities totaled $51 at September 30, 2017 or $24 less than the $75 fair value at June 30, 2017 and $158 less than the $209 fair value at March 31, 2017. The fair value of the warrants is estimated at each reporting date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The fair value of the warrants issued in connection with our previous securities offerings was determined to be $0.58 per warrant upon issuance, $0.03 per warrant at September 30, 2017, $0.04 per warrant at June 30, 2017 and $0.11 per warrant as of March 31, 2017. During the three-and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017, the fluctuation in our stock price and the volatility decline resulted in a gain based on the change in fair value of the warrant liabilities reducing the corresponding liability in the statement of financial position. The fair value of the derivative warrant liabilities totaled $58 at August 31, 2016 or $66 less than the $124 value at May 31, 2016 and $98 less than the $156 fair value at February 29, 2016. In the three and six-month periods ended August 31, 2016, the decline in our stock price and volatility resulted in a gain based on the change in fair value of the warrant liabilities reducing the corresponding liability in the statement of financial position.

- 70 -

Table of Contents

Non-IFRS operating loss increased by $1,798 for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 to $3,423 compared to $1,625 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. This was primarily due to an increase in research and development, or R&D, expenses of $1,642 and an increase in general and administrative, or G&A, expenses of $156, before consideration of stock-based compensation, amortization and depreciation. Non-IFRS operating loss increased by $1,608 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 to $5,519 compared to $3,911 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. This primarily resulted due to an increase in R&D expenses of $1,152 and an increase in G&A expenses of $456, before consideration of stock-based compensation, amortization and depreciation.

Breakdown of major components of the statement of earnings and comprehensive loss for the three and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016

Three-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to three-month period ended August 31, 2016

During the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, we continued to move our R&D program forward as planned on our previously announced timeline for the conduct of our Phase 3 clinical program and production scale-up. The $3,349 in total R&D expenses for the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 totaled $2,592 before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation expense, compared to $1,594 in total R&D expenses for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016, or $950 before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation expense. This $1,642 increase in R&D expenses before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation was mainly attributable to the $895 increase in research contracts as well as an increase of $609 in professional fees. The increased research contract expense resulted primarily from a $693 increase in contracts associated with our clinical trial program, as $956 was incurred primarily with our clinical research organization, or CRO, during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 in preparation for our Phase 3 clinical study program site activation initiation by the end of 2017. This compares to $263 incurred during the prior comparative period in connection with the completion of contracts under our successful Phase 1 bioavailability bridging clinical study. The remaining $202 in increased research contracts resulted from expanded scale-up production activities relating to CaPre during the three-month period ended September 30,

- 71 -

Table of Contents

2017. The increased professional fees resulted primarily from completing due diligence and preliminary discussions for strategic R&D partnership and licensing arrangements. An increase of $94 in incremental salaries and benefits primarily related to full-time compared to half-time direct leadership and management of R&D, combined with the addition of several technicians to production and quality control during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to the three-month period ended August 31, 2016.

G&A expenses totaling $831 before stock-based compensation expense for the three-month period ending September 30, 2017 increased by $156 from $675 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. This $156 increase was mainly attributable to a $72 increase in salaries and benefits associated with adding full-time executive and managerial headcount to support our strategy and financing while becoming more independent from Neptune, partially offset by a $38 reduction in administrative fees. This increase also resulted from net increased professional fees of $99 due primarily to expenses for legal fees relating to the conduct of our annual and special meeting of shareholders, the completion of our periodic filings and other corporate matters, and the reactivation of our public and investor relations programs. The increased legal fees partially resulted from us becoming more independent from Neptune and resulting increased reliance on external legal counsel. These increases were partially offset by reduced marketing research expenses during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017.

Six-month period ended September 30, 2017 compared to six-month period ended August 31, 2016

As we continued our Phase 3 clinical program progress and production scale-up of CaPre within our R&D program, $5,331 was incurred in total R&D expenses for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 and $3,874 was incurred before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation expense. This compares to $3,987 in total R&D expenses for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016 or $2,722 before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation expense. This $1,152 increase in R&D expenses before depreciation, amortization and stock-based compensation was mainly attributable to the $893 increase in professional fees incurred in completing due diligence and preliminary discussions for strategic R&D partnership and licensing arrangements. Research contract expense remained approximately $2,000, but the nature of the expenses changed. Of the $2,000 expenses, $1,059 related to the Phase 3 and other clinical study programs, and $1,011 of contract manufacturing, or CMO, production expenses for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017. This is compared to $1,534 of expenses for our PK Bridging and other clinical study programs and $525 in CMO production expenses for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. Salary and benefits also contributed to the overall increase by $158 related to R&D management, combined with additional headcount for production and quality control in August 2017, as we advance our Phase 3 clinical study program. Of the increase of $103 in other expenses, $46 related to increased travel expenses for the strategic development due diligence activities.

G&A expenses totaling $1,645 before stock-based compensation expense for the six-month period ending September 30, 2017 increased by $456 from $1,189 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. This $456 increase was mainly attributable to a $238 increase in salaries and benefits associated with adding full-time executive and managerial headcount to support our strategy and financing while becoming more independent from Neptune, offset by a $62 reduction in administrative fees. This increase also resulted from increased professional fees of $248 due primarily to expenses relating to reactivating our public and investor relations programs and additional legal fees due to increased independence from Neptune, as well as an increase of $32 in other expenses.

- 72 -

Table of Contents

Comparison of the one-month and thirteen-month periods ended March 31, 2017 and years ended February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015

The following table summarizes our results of operations for the one-month and thirteen month periods ended March 31, 2017 and fiscal years ended February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015:

Reconciliation of Net Loss to Non-IFRS Operating Loss

The net loss totaling $11,247 or ($1.01) per share for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 increased $4,930 or ($0.42) per share compared to the net loss totaling $6,317 or ($0.59) per share for the year ended February 29, 2016. This change resulted primarily based on the $1,229 increased non-IFRS operating loss explained below, $2,254 from the increased loss due to the change in value of the warrant derivative liability due to the reduction in our share price, a $1,207 financial expense increase (led by a foreign exchange gain during the prior period transitioning to a foreign exchange loss during the current period), and increased depreciation and stock compensation expense offset by no impairment charge in the current period compared to the $339 charge in the prior period combined with the $129 tax benefit recognized in the current period.

The net loss totaling $6,317 or ($0.59) per share for the year ended February 29, 2016 increased $4,662 or ($0.43) per share compared to the net loss totaling $1,655 or ($0.16) per share for the year ended February 28,

- 73 -

Table of Contents

2015. This change resulted primarily based on the $7,445 decrease in net financial income, including a $6,623 decrease in the fair value of the warrant liabilities and the $810 decrease in the foreign exchange gain offset by the $1,527 decrease in G&A expenses and $1,256 decrease in R&D expenses.

There are no notable matters in stock-based compensation expense and no grants for the one-month period ended March 31, 2017. The overall stock-based compensation expense increased for the thirteen-month period ending March 31, 2017 as a total of 1,300,400 stock options were granted compared to 109,188 stock options being granted for the year ended February 29, 2016. The stock-based compensation expense decreased for the year ended February 29, 2016 compared to the same period in 2015 as the 2012 grants had fully vested.

Depreciation, amortization and impairment expense totaled $2,738 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, which approximated the same amount when compared to the year ended February 29, 2016. However, there was a change in the mix of this expense as the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 included only depreciation and amortization with the impact of one additional month of depreciation and amortization expense and the addition of new equipment generating incremental depreciation expense, but not the $339 impairment charge recognized during the year ended February 29, 2016. If the impairment charge is excluded from the expense for the year ended February 29, 2016, then the depreciation and amortization expense totaling $2,395 approximates the expense for the year ended February 28, 2015.

The net financial expenses (income) totaling $29 for the month ended March 31, 2017 also resulted primarily from the interest expense from our recent private placement financing in Canada. Net financial expenses (income) totaling $113 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 reflect a $1,207 decrease compared to ($1,094) for the year ended February 29, 2016 primarily resulting from the $1,023 foreign exchange gain recognized during the year ended February 29, 2016 changing to the $180 foreign exchange loss recognized during the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017. The foreign exchange changes resulted primarily from the utilization of US$-denominated cash and cash equivalents over the periods generating lower US$-denominated cash and cash equivalents throughout the periods and at March 31, 2017 compared to February 29, 2016 and, the periods then ended combined with a decrease in the reporting US$ exchange rate. The US$-denominated cash, cash equivalents and short-term investments totaled US$3,524 at March 31, 2017 and US$10,314 at February 29, 2016 and the exchange rate reporting of CA$ per US$ was $1.3299 at March 31, 2017 compared to $1.3531 at February 29, 2016. Additionally, interest income for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 totaled $125 compared to $73 for the year ended February 29, 2016, and $39 in interest expense was incurred in the current period, including $31 in March, in connection with the convertible debentures from the private placement. The net financial expenses (income) of ($1,094) for the year ended February 29, 2016 was $822 less than ($1,916) for the year ended February 28, 2015 based on the lower foreign exchange gain that year.

The fair value of the derivative warrant liabilities totaled $209 at March 31, 2017, or $53 more than the $156 fair value at February 29, 2016, $22 of which was recognized during the one-month ended March 31, 1017. The $156 fair value of the derivative warrant liabilities at February 29, 2016 was $2,201 less than the $2,357 value at February 28, 2015 and the decline in value for the year- ended February 28, 2015 was $8,824. The fair value of the warrants is estimated at each reporting date using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The fair value of the warrants issued in connection with our previous offerings was determined to be $0.58 per warrant upon issuance, $0.09 per warrant at February 29, 2016 and $0.11 per warrant as of March 31, 2017. In fiscal years 2016 and 2015, the decline in our stock price resulted in gains based on the change in fair value of the warrant liabilities reducing the corresponding liability in the statement of financial position.

We recorded a $129 deferred income tax recovery at February 28, 2017 to reduce to nil an income tax liability that was attributable to the difference between the tax basis and the carrying amount of the unsecured convertible debentures.

The non-IFRS operating loss increased by $1,229 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 to $7,798 compared to $6,569 for the year-ended February 29, 2016. This increase was primarily due to the incremental

- 74 -

Table of Contents

one-month period non-IFRS operating loss of $406 for March 2017 as well as increased G&A expenses compared to the prior period before consideration of stock-based compensation and amortization and depreciation. There were no notable matters for the one-month period ended March 31, 2017. The non-IFRS operating loss for the year ended February 29, 2015 totaled $8,507 or a $1,938 decrease compared to the year ended February 29, 2016.

Breakdown of major components of statement of earnings and comprehensive loss for the one-month and thirteen-month periods ended March 31, 2017 and fiscal years ended February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015

Thirteen-month and one-month periods ended March 31, 2017 compared to fiscal year-ended February 29, 2016

R&D expenses totaled $7,653 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, or an increase of $87 compared to $7,566 in total R&D expenses for the year ended February 29, 2016. The R&D expense increase resulted primarily from $426 in total R&D expenses during March 2017, the thirteenth month of the period ended March 31, 2017, offset by no intangible asset impairment charge in the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 compared to the $339 charge last year. R&D expenses, before consideration of stock-based compensation, amortization and depreciation and impairments of intangible assets, increased by $29 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, including $182 during the month of March 2017, to $4,808 compared to $4,779 for the year ended February 29, 2016. The increase of $29 was mainly attributable to the increase in research contracts of $419 and salaries and benefits of $305, principally offset by decreases in professional fees of $537, other expenses of $177 and government grants of $19. The increase of $419 in research contracts during the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017 includes $63 relating to the additional one-month period ended

- 75 -

Table of Contents

March 31, 2017, but was primarily due to the cost of our Phase 2 bioavailability bridging clinical study initiated early in fiscal 2017 exceeding the cost of our other Phase 2 and non-clinical testing completed in fiscal 2016. The increased salaries and benefits represented the cost of the expanded team headcount, led by full-time dedicated management (only part time in prior years), needed for us to continue our pharmaceutical process and analytical development and chemistry manufacturing control scale-up, as planned on our previously announced timeline. The decrease of $537 in professional fees is primarily due to a decrease in the development consulting fees incurred last year for our prior Phase 2 clinical study analytics and the planning for our Phase 2 bridging clinical study during the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017.

G&A expenses totaled $3,557 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, or an increase of $1,511 compared to total G&A expenses of $2,046 for the year ended February 29, 2016. This period-to-period increase includes $292 in total G&A expenses for the thirteenth month of March 2017, $243 in increased stock-based compensation expense and a $976 increase in other G&A expenses, excluding the thirteenth month and stock-based compensation expenses. G&A expenses, excluding the stock-based compensation, increased $1,200 to $2,990 for the thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017, including $224 during the month of March 2017, compared to $1,790 for the year ended February 29, 2016. This increase was primarily attributable to a $789 increase in salaries and benefits offset by a $254 decrease in Neptune administrative fees, combined with increased professional fees of $437, rent of $54 and other expenses of $174. The increase in salaries and benefit expenses resulted from our need for the added full-time executive and managerial headcount to lead our strategy, incremental financing and back office while supporting continued and expanded R&D with the need for full-time leadership from our management (which was only part time in prior years). The increased professional fees were principally comprised of expenses associated with our investor and public relations program, the achievement of business development milestones, increased market research expenses, and non-recurring project legal and accounting fees associated with the year-end change and immigration-related fees for the U.S.-resident executives.

Fiscal year ended February 29, 2016 compared to fiscal year ended February 28, 2015

R&D expenses totaled $7,566 for the year ended February 29, 2016, or $1,256 less than $8,822 in total R&D expenses for the year ended February 28, 2015. This R&D expense decrease resulted primarily from R&D expenses, before consideration of stock-based compensation, amortization and depreciation and impairment of intangible assets, decreasing by $1,450 to $4,779 from $6,229. This decrease is mainly attributable to a significant decrease in contract expenses related to our clinical studies of $2,332 and government grants increase of $85, partially offset by an increase in salaries and benefits of $524, professional fees of $306 and other expenses of $137.

G&A expenses totaled $2,046 for the year ended February 29, 2016, or $1,527 less than $3,573 for the year ended February 28, 2015. This G&A expense decrease resulted primarily from G&A expenses, before consideration of stock-based compensation, decreasing by $487 to $1,790 for the year ended February 29, 2016 from $2,277 for the year ended February 28, 2015. This decrease is mainly attributable to decreases in salaries of $208, administrative fees of $71, rent of $32 and other expenses of $199 partially offset by an increase in professional fees of $23.

Selected Quarterly Financial Data

Six-months ended September 30, 2017 and Fiscal year ended March 31, 2017

- 76 -

Table of Contents

Fiscal year ended February 29, 2016

The increase in net loss, net loss per share and non-IFRS operating loss in the fourth quarter of 2017 can partially be explained by the inclusion of the additional month in comparison to the comparative three-month quarterly financial data. The month of March 2017 explains an increase in the fourth quarter net loss of $769 or ($0.05) per share as well as an increase in non-IFRS operating loss of $406. The variances in net loss from quarter to quarter are mainly due to the changes in fair value of the warrant liabilities, notably for the quarter ended May 31, 2015 with a gain of $1,708, as well as variations in foreign exchange gains or losses, particularly for the quarter ended August 31, 2015 with a foreign exchange gain of $890. The quarterly year-to-year non-IFRS operating loss variances are mainly attributable to fluctuations in research and development expenses from quarter-to-quarter as well as an increase in general and administrative expenses over the prior year in the last three quarters of fiscal 2017.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

Share capital structure

Our authorized share capital consists of an unlimited number of Class A (which we refer to in this prospectus as our common shares), Class B, Class C, Class D and Class E shares, without par value. Our issued and outstanding fully paid shares, stock options, restricted shares units and warrants, were as follows as at September 30, 2017, March 31, 2017, February 28, 2017 and February 29, 2016:

- 77 -

Table of Contents

Sources of liquidity

We are currently not generating any revenues and we have incurred significant operating losses and negative cash flows from operations since inception. To date, we have financed our operations through the public offering and private placement of common shares and convertible debt, the proceeds from research grants and research tax credits, and the exercises of warrants, rights, and options. To achieve the objectives of our business plan, we plan to raise the necessary funds through additional securities offerings and the establishment of strategic alliances as well as additional research grants and research tax credits. CaPre and any other product candidates developed by us will require approval from the FDA and equivalent regulatory organizations in other countries before their sale can be authorized. Our ability to ultimately achieve profitable operations is dependent on a number of factors outside of our control.

Our current assets of $5,852 as at September 30, 2017 include cash and cash equivalents totaling $5,329. Our liabilities total $4,951 at September 30, 2017 and are comprised primarily of $3,391 in amounts due to or accrued for creditors, $1,509 for our unsecured convertible debentures and $51 for derivative warrant liabilities. Our positive working capital balance has declined during the current fiscal year and is expected to continue to decline until we raise additional funds or find a strategic partner. Our current assets as of this date are projected to be significantly less than needed to support our current liabilities as of that date when combined with the projected level of our expenses for the next twelve months, including not only the preparation for, but the planned initiation of our Phase 3 program for CaPre. Based on a conservative estimate, we believe that the net proceeds of this offering, together with our existing cash and cash equivalents, will enable us to fund our operating expenses and capital expenditure requirements through May 2018. We have based this estimate on assumptions that may prove to be wrong, and we could use our capital resources sooner than we currently expect. Additional funds will also be needed for our expected expenses for our Phase 3 program for CaPre and other needed operations beyond the next twelve months. We are working towards development of strategic partner relationships and plan to raise additional funds in the near future, but there can be no assurance as to when or whether we will complete any financing or strategic collaborations. If we do not raise additional funds, or find one or more strategic partners we may not be able to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of our business. As a result, there exists a material uncertainty that casts substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern and, therefore, realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of business. We currently have no other arranged sources of financing.

Cash flows and financial condition

Comparison of the three and six-months periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016

Summary

As at September 30, 2017, cash and cash equivalents totaled $5,329 with a use of cash totaling $2,238 for the three-month period and a use of cash totaling $4,443 for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017. This compares to $2,893 in total cash and cash equivalents as at August 31, 2016 with a source of cash totaling $1,502 for the three-month period and a use of cash totaling $134 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016.

Operating activities

During the three-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016, our operating activities used cash of $2,060 and $912, respectively, and during the six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016, our operating activities used cash of $3,706 and $2,983, respectively, further modified by changes in working capital, excluding cash. The use of cash flows in operating activities for the three and six-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016 when compared to the net losses for each period are mainly attributable to the change in non-cash operating items, further modified by changes in working capital, excluding cash.

- 78 -

Table of Contents

Investing activities

During the three-month period ended September 30, 2017, our investing activities used cash of $76 compared to generating cash of $2,400 for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016. Cash used by investing activities during the three-month period ended September 30, 2017 was due to the acquisition of equipment of $90, partially offset by interest received of $14. Cash generated by investing activities for the three-month period ended August 31, 2016 was mainly due to the maturity of short-term investments of $3,834, partially offset by the reinvestment of short-term investments of $903 and the acquisition of equipment totaling $542.

During the six-month period ended September 30, 2017, our investing activities used cash of $157 compared to generating cash of $2,915 for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016. Cash used by investing activities during the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 was due to the acquisition of equipment totaling $187, partially offset by interest received of $30. Cash generated by investing activities for the six-month period ended August 31, 2016 was mainly due to the maturity of short-term investments of $13,212, partially offset by a $9,266 reinvestment in short-term investments and the acquisition of equipment totaling $1,053.

Financing activities

During the three-month periods ended September 30, 2017 and August 31, 2016, we used nominal cash in financing activities.

During the six-month period ended September 30, 2017, our financing activities used cash of $422 due primarily to the payment of public offering transaction costs of $381 and the payment of private placement transaction costs of $40 related to securities offerings completed in February 2017. During the six-month period ended August 31, 2016, our financing activities used $15 to pay interest.

See “—Basis of Presentation” for additional discussion of our financial condition, including the need for additional funds and the material uncertainty that casts substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Use of funds

We have used and intend to continue to use the net proceeds from our February 2017 securities offerings to fund our manufacturing scale-up for CaPre and the clinical and regulatory preparations necessary to initiate our Phase 3 clinical program site activation for CaPre by the end of 2017, intellectual property expansion, business development activities, G&A expenses, and working capital. Based on our End-of-Phase 2 meeting with the FDA, which took place after the closing of our securities offerings in February 2017, we still expect that most of the more than $1 million in incremental net proceeds raised over the minimum offering amount disclosed in the prospectus for our February 2017 public securities offering in Canada will be used for Phase 3 clinical program pre-site activation preparation based on the plan now being better defined after the FDA meeting, including our plan to conduct two Phase 3 studies of the same 26-week duration instead of the one study with a greater number of patients to be treated with CaPre.

- 79 -

Table of Contents

Financial position

The following table details the significant changes to the statements of financial position as at September 30, 2017 compared to our most recent fiscal year end at March 31, 2017:

See the statement of changes in equity in our financial statements for the six-month period ended September 30, 2017 found elsewhere in this prospectus for details of changes to the equity accounts since March 31, 2017.

Derivative warrant liabilities

As of September 30, 2017, $51 included in liabilities represents the fair value of warrants issued as part of our previous securities offerings. The warrants issued in connection with the previous offerings are derivative liabilities (derivative warrant liabilities) for accounting purposes due to the currency of the exercise price (US$) being different from our Canadian dollar functional currency. The warrant liabilities will be settled in common shares. The fair value of the warrants issued in connection with the previous offerings was determined to be $0.58 per warrant upon issuance and $0.03 per warrant as of September 30, 2017. The fair value of the warrants is revalued at each reporting date.

Comparisons of the one-month period ended March 31, 2017; thirteen-month period ended March 31, 2017; and fiscal years ended February 29, 2016 and February 28, 2015

Operating activities