Investors present in Tallinn at Sorainen's office, and we have several investors also participating online. So let us continue with the meeting by setting Jana Karimova as a meeting secretary and myself, Tarmo Karotam, as the manager of this meeting. The proposal for this meeting from the management is to resolve issues of new units in the first quarter of 2026 in order to strengthen the balance sheet of the fund. At this point, based on the votes present in the meeting, also based on the power of attorneys received, we have not met the quorum requirement. Therefore, voting in this meeting cannot take place. However, there is a repeat meeting planned. It will It will be planned after this meeting, approximately one week from now, on the 16th of December. What we could say as well is that because of the quorum requirement, today is at least 50% of all votes present, then in the second meeting, the quorum will be made up of all the votes present in that meeting, regardless of the level. Based on today's information, we could say that the vast majority of the investors have voted in favor of the proposal, but that is to be finalized only in the second meeting. However, regardless that we cannot vote in this meeting, the management thought it's important to have a presentation once again on the reasons of this proposal and reasons of this equity issue upcoming in the beginning of next year. We have some slides presented or prepared, and I would like to use this opportunity to go over the key points of the offering. So, based on the calculations and with that in mind that we want to pay back the whole bond, which is around EUR 19 million today in our balance sheet, expensive piece of debt, then our ideal solution is to raise EUR 25 million in order to fully meet this requirement. However, since this offering is exclusively for the existing investors, then it is realistic that not all unit holders will be participating. It is a realistic, let's say, expectation. And therefore, as a management company, we have set, let's say, a realistic target for this offering to be 50% of all the investors participating in this additional units offering. That is the number that we are working with. We do hope that investors across the region have received this information and are considering the participation in this round. Of course, we welcome everybody to participate, pro rata. However, if you talk about expectations, then I think this is important to note as well for this purpose. There's been questions about what if we don't raise enough, what is the level where we will consider not going through with the offering, and we believe that that level is EUR 7.5 million. If that is not secured, then we will consider terminating the potential offering and finding other ways how to improve the liquidity of the fund going forward. The issue price has been discussed at length with the fund supervisory board, both independent and regular members, as well as many leading investors, and that's where this proposal has been derived. Yes, it is at a discount to the current market price, and the reason is to encourage and invite all the existing investors to participate and make efforts for this unit issue to be a successful one. Once again, this is an offering. It's not a traditional public offering where everybody can participate from the market. This is an offering only to existing Baltic Horizon Fund investors, as the terms are at a discount, and this is the idea that current investors should have only the right to proportionally increase their stake in the fund without being diluted. Investors can participate in the offering pro rata, up to pro rata. So no investor is forced to participate, and investors can also participate with less than pro rata, pro rata meaning that if an investor holds 1% of total units today, then of the new unit issue, they could subscribe for up to 1% of the offering. So just to clear this up once again, there's been many questions about this, and here we confirm that no investor, either major or minor, is receiving any preferential treatment here or has any allocation advantages. It is an equal offer to all existing unit holders. In case unit holders don't subscribe for this offering in full, then this doesn't mean that any large investor or any other investor can use the opportunity to invest more and take advantage of this offering to invest more. So everybody can invest up until their pro rata share in the fund by the time the offering takes place. At this point, we do have quite a lot of support for this offering, and also by the management of the company, by the new shareholders of the management company. However, it is not guaranteed at this point that everybody will take full pro rata. A subscription decision and the exact details of the offering will be announced when the voting takes place and if it's officially passed. It is for the existing investors in the region, and the detailed terms will be announced at the right time and most likely only after the second meeting has officially passed this decision. As a management company, we also acknowledge that in this offering, if it is to take place, then we are sacrificing the current NAV per unit via this potential dilution in order to make sure that the fund continues to be a strong solvent entity for the future. The bond financing for us has been very difficult to manage, and it is an expensive piece of funding in our balance sheet. It is also quite restrictive, and the key reason for us has been to remove the bond since basically the time that we had to roll it over in 2023. I know we believe that this is also the interest of the fund and all of its unit holders. And there's been a lot of questions being asked that, why don't we liquidate the fund? Why don't we sell assets in order to reduce the bond? And why are we doing a unit issue instead? So to remind, we started off with the bond being EUR 42 million in 2023. We have used all the opportunities and possibilities to refinance the bond and to pay it back. So today, instead of EUR 42 million, we have EUR 19 million of the bond left. We have attempted to test the market, whether we could reasonably sell any of our properties, especially throughout this year. However, our conclusion is, and I think it is also well known in the market, that the real estate market across the Baltics remains very illiquid, especially when it comes to larger and complex assets. There is a lot of assets potentially on the market. Many funds are reaching their terms, so it has been very difficult to receive reasonable proposals from the market, even for our strongest properties. That would make a difference on our balance sheet and basically allow us to pay back the bond. The market buyers, potential buyers, are local buyers today in the market, and they're very selective, and we have received certain proposals for our properties, not for all, only for some, that sometimes also represent a very similar discount compared to this equity offering. So, as we have run these calculations and as well, the management company with its leading investors are in the belief that this is the way we could turn around this fund and strengthen this balance sheet, then this is the proposal for the general meeting of investors and to one of the ways how to go forward. We have also analyzed it from various angles that even if we would be able to sell certain of our properties, then the fund will become smaller and smaller, and it will be also difficult. If it is to liquidate, then EUR 200+ million worth of assets today to sell in the Baltic market, it's not a question of months, it's a question of years. And that will also, we believe, will be detrimental to the fund and to the investors of the fund. That being said, for us to get rid of the bond, we have sold some properties, we have refinanced some loans, we have used or we plan to use some of the new equity, and in case we cannot remove the bond in full, then we will, of course, in parallel, still seek to dispose of our smaller assets at reasonable price levels that it would actually make a difference and help us to reduce the bond further, but we still hope that we will have a strong participation during the offering period and that we can remove the bond as soon as possible. I think these are some of the slides that many have already seen before, and the fund has been facing quite a lot of challenges, and one of them also being the change of our anchor tenants. I'm not even going to talk about the COVID anymore, but the real estate markets tend to or are challenging. There is a big fight for each tenant, especially for anchor tenants. And generally, we have worked towards stabilizing the fund for almost several years now. We have had some improvement in occupancy. We have reduced our general LTV, kept our average rent level at a reasonable level, and have been aiming to decrease the cost of debt, which is still a big burden for us, and bond investors receiving a large part of the free cash flow that we have in the fund generating as of today. We do have as well still some capital investments planned for our fit-outs. There's a lot of new tenants that we have brought into our properties already, but part of the offering is also meant to allow the fit-outs to continue in order to reach the maximum occupancy of the fund. And in a way, we prepared this slide that if we don't raise any capital, then we will have continuous challenges in financing our operations and making fit-out investments. And we do foresee, according to the independent valuations, some reduction in values of our properties by year. And for the valuators, it's very difficult to mark-to-market today with certain properties, but we have rules set that we will have to invite independent valuators to make valuations for the fund. However, that also may put some ratios at risk. And as well, strengthening the capital base is very much welcome by our senior property loan partners, the banks. So we believe that the additional capital for the fund will help us in a turnaround. And as an example, based on the third quarter results, in case we pay half of what we have, roughly EUR 9.5 million of the bond outstanding, the savings would be roughly EUR 250,000 per quarter, decreasing the average cost of debt. And in case we pay back the bond in full, the potential savings per quarter would be up to EUR 500,000. So that's what we are seeing. That's what we are aiming for. That's what we are working for. So this is, in that sense, a short presentation, but in case there are still some remaining questions, happy to take them. As mentioned before, we don't have the quorum in place to make the final decision, but we expect the quorum to be sufficient in the next meeting on potentially the 16th of December to make a positive decision on this proposal. I do see a few questions, so I will try to answer them in this presentation. In case there's a question, in case we don't raise any capital at all, that we don't reach the minimum of EUR 7.5 million that we consider, then we will have to consider very acutely whether to make this new units issue at all or then find other ways how to continue operating. As mentioned before, yes, disposals are still, even they may be at a very low level, it's still a way forward and potentially some refinancing of some of our assets. But we do hope, and we do expect that there will be some interest in the offering and that we raise a sufficient amount for us to improve the liquidity of the fund and make this turnaround as soon as possible. But can you still clarify what this other means? Is it only disposing properties or just what is your full list of? Basically, yes. It's only disposing properties and only maybe refinancing one or two of our bank loans. So there is no other tools. The third tool is basically new capital. And then what's the plan? If you got 50%, will all this money go to refinance the bond or something goes to capital expenditures or? So the way we have discussed it is that approximately EUR 2 million-EUR 3 million we will reserve for the fund's needs, potential fit-outs, and the rest will go to the bond. I think it's quite simple as that. There is one more question. The question is that is this considered as a rights issue as per definition? Then the answer to the question is no, because the fund is not a legal entity. Fund has different legislation that it follows. And in the fund and fund units trading world, we understand from our legal advices, there is no concept as rights issue. That is only for the companies that trade on the market. Is there any more questions at this point? Can you look forward? You wrote down this EUR 20 million, and then I did already preliminary result, which properties and how it's split between different properties. It's a preliminary evaluation. So the numbers may still change somewhat, but majority of the write-down is coming from our office buildings in Riga because of the vacancies, and as well some write-down, if I recall correctly, from Europa. So mainly those properties. We aim to have a full list of our valuations officially announced by 15th of December, which is also the date for the end of November NAV. So the aim is to include them in that NAV officially. Okay. And previously, you said you didn't receive any reasonable offers. So how large were the discounts compared to the official NAV for the properties you tried to sell? Well, we've received offers at the level of bank financing. We've received offers 20%-30% below the market value. But in today's market, it's difficult to say how even concrete or serious these offers are. So there's a lot of, I think, potential bias testing. But we've had some processes where we have found some kind of agreement, but the deal has not happened due to various reasons, one being lack of financing. There's a question on why did we decide to have an equal offering and pro rata without any possibility to subscribe for more? And how did that decision come about? So it was supported by the fund supervisory board, but also our top investors, that this offering has to be equal for all investors. It has to be straightforward, understanding that most likely we will not raise the full EUR 25 million amount. So, also discussions, which maybe I can also share here, is that in case the offering is not sufficient, then one of the options is to consider a new offering at maybe slightly different terms, but then for all investors. But right now, the reasoning is that everybody should have an equal right, and every current investor should only have that right. Can you comment also on this pricing principle? You mentioned previously that is it only based on this independent valuator, or at some point, you need to actually switch to the what's the real market value or what you have said? You said it's discounts or 20, 30, or this 0.14 or? Yes. So what I can comment is that we gathered information from the investors in the market as much as we could. There were some expectations that were much more extreme, and there were expectations that the discount doesn't have to be 30%, but can also be less. So I would say it was a consensus. It was a discussion where we thought that 30% based on the information we received is most fair to propose, and that would also have sufficient interest from the investor base. So that was basically the background of the development of that pricing proposal. My question was about what's the impact on official NAV? Do you need to switch actually at some stage to that this independent assessor is showing too high values, or you need to start using much bigger discount also there? You mean the property valuators? Yeah. You You need to use them or because you're saying that actual market price is much lower than what they are saying? So I think there are two different things here. One is what the investors believe that where they would invest at. And the second part, if I understand what you're talking about, is the valuations, which are based on different methods. And they are based on a 10-year cash flow method, and they are based on the actual transactions, not based on the proposals that we receive, which will never get accepted. So I think there are two different things. If you ask me where is the value today, if we would sell the whole portfolio in six months, then your guess is as good as mine, probably at a very big discount. And it's not even certain that we would sell all properties. So I think the valuators, if you ask about that, then they consider their valuations based on certain rules, which are based on 10-year cash flows and based on a more long-term view, not the fire sale view. And does the equity value is already so low? Have you considered reducing management fee of the fund? So this is a question that we receive as well quite often. The management fee, I can comment as much as a representative of the management company, but the management fee has been already decreasing. To annul it means that there will be no management. And I think the efforts that are being put in right now also by the supervisory board members and the new owners are not in any way paid for. I think here is more important to have functioning management, and that would work towards the turnaround of the fund. That's all I can comment on the management fee side, but also not to maybe have this comment that the management company shareholders have also invested a lot of their funds into the fund in order to participate in the turnaround. You may consider that some of those management fees have already been reinvested into the fund. That's all I can comment on that regard. The management fees will be reducing in case the valuations are finalized at the lower level. We do expect as well some decrease in the administration expenses since we have also completed the delisting in Stockholm and tried to find efficiency in all ways where we can find efficiencies in. Then you had also some write-downs in accounts receivable, or can you comment which properties or I'm not sure? We did have an increase in the reserves of receivables that are not, let's say, fully expected, so we didn't write them off, but it's mainly related to some tenants in Europa and a few tenants in Galerija Centrs, so that amount already includes this Sky, but that's a separate topic? That is still to be understood how big of a topic it is, but we decided to highlight this with an announcement, but this is not included in the provisions as far as I know. See if we have more. Let's say there is a question on what's the impact of potential of Sky. It is maybe at this point. I will not comment it because of the negotiations we're having. I think one can make quite a simple calculation. It's been announced that it is 2,600 sq m approximately. And I think it's quite well known what such anchor tenants are paying for rent. But unfortunately, I cannot comment on the Sky's case right now. There's a question on the payment or the remuneration of the fund board members. That's a decision of the or has been a decision and will be a decision of the general meeting of investors. So if they see that there is a lot of work to be done with the turnaround of the fund, so I think that is related to the remuneration levels. At the moment that the fund supervisor report, we have three members. We used to have four members. Okay. Thank you for the questions. And in case there are more information requests, we're happy to receive them. We're happy to address them in the next meeting. After this meeting is adjourned, we will send out an invitation to the new meeting. Most likely, it will take place on the 16th of December at the same location, and then we will gather the votes once again and see where the decision, if the decision can be made, so thank you for participating in this general meeting, and hopefully, this was informative so that, yeah, we can meet again next time.