Good afternoon, everyone. Thank you for joining us at such short notice today. I'm Danny Malone, Amigo's executive. With me in the room today is Kerry Penfold, our CFO, Nicholas Beal, our Chief Restructuring Officer, and Kate Patrick, our Investor Relations Director. On the call too are Jonathan Roe, our Chair, and Oliver Jackson from Peel Hunt, our corporate broker and financial advisor. Following this morning's announcement, what I'd like to do in a moment is give a brief summary of where we are with both the capital raise and the lending pilot. I would then like to open call to a few questions. Today's announcement is clearly not the news we were hoping to share with you. We have worked continuously since we launched the capital raise and pilot lending phase to secure the future of the business. During this time, the economic backdrop and consequently, the market conditions have deteriorated and made the process of raising equity capital significantly more challenging. Whilst we have secured term sheets for debt facilities, which we believe are key to execution, we have, to date, been unable to secure a commitment from a cornerstone equity investor to underwrite the whole of the capital raise. Through the conversations our advisors have been having with investors, a number have shown interest in a minority investment. Our focus now is on ascertaining the level of this interest in the absence of a cornerstone investor to support a capital raise of GBP 45 million, and our advisors will be having these conversations over this week. As outlined previously, if the capital raise is not completed or if the board determines that it cannot be achieved by 26th of May, 2023, the scheme will revert to the fallback solution outlined in the scheme, which is an orderly wind down of the business. On lending, as you know, we launched pilot lending in October last year with our new RewardRate branded products. We have seen strong demand for our products from both our direct and indirect channels. However, despite that level of interest, volumes of loans paid out have been very limited. This is partly due to our initial focus on testing the new technology platform and processes, but it also reflects our cautious approach to underwriting, given the market and regulatory environment, specifically, the impact on the increased cost of living on customers' affordability. We have continued to apply learnings from the pilot to both the customer journey and products, and loan payout rates should increase as a result. The pilot was for a minimum period of two months. We have extended this period until sufficient loans are written to enable us and a third party to undertake outcomes testing on the systems and controls in place. The completion of the pilot will clearly be dependent on the outcome of discussions we aim to have this week with potential minority equity investors. Today's announcement is disappointing, given the potential interest in minority investments, we will continue to work to secure the future of the business for you and for our other stakeholders and provide a further update when appropriate. We will now open the call to take questions. Please use the Zoom function to raise your hand and we'll unmute your line. I think we've actually had some questions already submitted. Kate? Yes, we have. Thank you. Thank you, Danny. It's quite a lot of questions that have come in before the call, so what I would do is read each one, and we will address each question in turn and then open the call again to further questions. The first question. First of all, where is the extra GBP 5 million funding needed came from? Have I missed something here? When did the raise go from GBP 40 million-GBP 45 million? We were looking at a GBP 15 million, GBP 25 million split. Yes, I'll take that, Kate. Yes, you're right. We've announced this morning we were looking for GBP 45 million. We have adjusted the business plan. This is a response to market conditions and the debt financing terms that we've seen available to us. We've also revised our expected growth plan and reflecting on the early pilot phase. That has resulted in a change that we announced this morning. Thank you. Second question. Can you please provide a breakdown of what the GBP 45 million you wish to raise is made up of? Is GBP 15 million included in that figure for the scheme? If so, what is the remaining GBP 30 earmarked for? Yes. Yes, that does include the GBP 15 million earmarked for the scheme. That GBP 30 million, then will fund an initial loss-making period as the new business grows, and also forms that equity portion against which we use as leverage to fund the loan book. That's the use of the GBP 30 million for that. It does include the GBP 15 million earmarked for the scheme. Thank you. third question. We've been told will have a chance to participate in a meaningful way, the latest RNS suggests you are looking to fulfill the whole new GBP 45 million figure from elsewhere. Why is this? It's probably, being misread. I mean, the GBP 45 million is the total we're looking to raise. We would do a rights issue, and that would be the amount underwritten. Whatever comes from shareholders will clearly be deducted. From existing shareholders will be deducted from that GBP 45 million, from the underwriter. Thank you. next question. Amigo previously mentioned that the ongoing uncertainty around any potential FCA fine outcome would hang over any potential investment. Is this outcome now known, or is it still unaddressed? If so, is this being seen as a blocker? Thanks, Kate. The outcome is still unknown. However, the FCA are aware that any significant fine may impact the ability to raise capital. Thank you. Has consideration been given to possibly revisit the legal terms of the scheme and the 90 for 1 requirement specifically? Given the close proximity to the date set by the court, the market environment and landscape has completely changed since court approval, also making it harder to achieve the terms and date targets. I'll take that one too, Kate. We have considered a variation to the scheme, but this is complex and would require a whole new scheme. It is not currently our intention to do so, but we will keep this under review. Thank you. Next question. How many investors have shown interest in smaller underwriting and what are the amounts they are willing to underwrite and who are the interested parties? I can't disclose who the interested parties are. There were a number of investors who said they were interested in a smaller underwrite. However, we have gone back to everyone that was originally spoken to, so over 100 people, or 100 potential investors that we spoke to originally. We have gone back to all of them, or our advisors have today, in case their appetite has changed, and they might be able to participate now, whereas previously they weren't. So, you know, there are a number, but they need to, you know, be sure that, you know, possibly without a lead investor or become a lead investor themselves, even on a smaller scale. We need to work out the art of the possible with them. Thank you. Next. Is the intention of Amigo to try and raise the full GBP 45 million from existing shareholders by way of a rights issue, and then the shares that aren't taken up then being offered to the investors that have underwritten the raise? That is correct, yes. Thank you. Next question. How much interest has there been in the new RewardRate products? What's the total value of new loans since the pilot phase commenced? Also, why have the FCA allowed RewardRate rates to continue to lend if there is not sufficient evidence to lend responsibly? There's three different pieces to that question. I mean, there has been substantial interest in terms of applications from customers. As we have said, the, particularly the early couple of months, we were testing processes and policies and, you know, trying to make sure that these work. This is a brand-new system that has, you know, been built from scratch. You know, we have said all of that before and anyone who's ever put in a new system, there are all the teething issues. We expected those teething issues, hence the pilot. We've been working through those and, you know, making improvements to the system. You know, it's improving week by week. The in terms of the conservatism that we have put on the underwrite as well, given, you know, when we actually started in October, the talk of, you know, the cost of living crisis dominated absolutely all headlines in the country. Given where Amigo had fallen down in the past, we took a particularly cautious approach to our underwriting during that period. As we have more data from the applications that we have received, we can evolve that underwriting and make it, you know, less stringent while still only writing good loans. That process is still underway and will continue to be underway. I mean, that was always gonna take 6-12 months. It's relatively early stages in that. We haven't disclosed the number of loans that we have written or the pounds that we have written. We have said it is a very low number. I therefore can't answer that on this call. The final part was why is there not evidence of ability to lend responsibly. The FCA are monitoring what we are doing. When we have written enough loans for a sample to be extracted and tested by a responsible third party, the results of that will be shared with the FCA. That's when they will consider what has gone on. You know, we have kept in contact with them throughout this process and, you know, they are aware of pretty much everything that has gone on. Great. Thank you. another few questions. Are the FCA purposely dragging out their investigations and making it hard for Amigo to reach the terms set out in the scheme? It seems a little untended that they allowed Provident scheme to fly straight through, which resulted in it just 4.3 pence per pound for claimants, while claimants in the Amigo scheme are looking at significantly higher payouts, even pushing Amigo to the brink of survival or failure. I can't really comment in terms of anything to do with the Provident scheme. You know, I don't believe the FCA are, you know, purposely dragging anything out. It is just the time it takes to go through the process. Thank you. Has it become clear whether people prefer the personal loans or the guarantor loans? What is the% split between the two products so far? Again, we're not giving any granular details of the actual, you know, number of loans. We're seeing more interest in the personal loans than the guarantor loans at the moment. That just, you know, reflects the size of the market as much as anything else. Thank you. Shareholders have been told Amigo in talks with institutional investors and expected the institutional investors to underwrite the majority of the raise. How are these talks progressing and what are the sticking points? Have any lenders pulled out of talks? If so, what are their reasons given? I think that's it's an investor rather than lenders. The biggest concern of the people that we have spoken to, you know, right throughout this process from the very beginning, is the regulatory environment and, you know, and the potential for, you know, change down the line versus, you know, where we are today. The potential investor that we were talking to up as late as, you know, last week, the end of last week, you know, they were aware and had their own concerns, but they were still prepared to invest. In the end, the timing didn't work for them. The, you know, other investors are also concerned. Those concerns are ongoing. Notwithstanding those concerns, you know, a number of them still said they were interested in taking a minority stake. It won't rule them out investing, even if they have concerns over the market. Thank you. Just a few more questions. As finding a workable solution for the business is becoming time critical, as we have a set in stone date at the end of May 2023 we are bound to, can you commit to providing existing shareholders, private and institutional, regular weekly updates on progress? Ideally, a virtual meeting where everyone can be provided with progress made from previous week and planned activities for the week to come. I think we can't commit to this. What we will do is we will provide investors with updates whenever there's anything that we think is worth updating them on. Okay, just two more. Third-party outcomes testing is planned to commence this month as per the RNS this morning. How long do we expect this element of testing to take place, and how long after this date can we expect to be notified of the outcome from such testing? We do expect as a guideline that testing to take two-four weeks, and the entire review process therefore takes four-six weeks. At this stage, that can only give a guide, unfortunately. The FCA have not been standing in the way at all, but they've also been clear that they won't be rushed. We need to make sure this is done correctly. As a guide, that's what we've been discussing with our third party. Just one more question that we've had prior to the call, and then we'll open up to other questions. The scheme states that the FCA need to approve lending of up to GBP 35 million by the end of February 2023, and the rights issue needs to be completed by May 2023. Only after has the final GBP 15 million been paid into the scheme will the FCA allow full unrestricted lending. Therefore, is it not prudent for the business to focus its intention on raising GBP 15 million to meet the obligations defined in the scheme and decouple any additional raise required from the scheme completely? This approach will not only make it more appealable to existing shareholders, but also to institutions who you seek to underwrite the rights issue. Once the terms of the scheme have been satisfied, another raise can be made for the additional GBP 30 million to support future growth once the business model has been proven and confidence is restored in Amigo and its RewardRate brand. I think the difficulty on that one is that it's not the FCA dictating this, it's not the scheme dictating this. These are all conditions of the scheme, and as Nick has said, without going through a new complete scheme, and asking the court to vary the original scheme, we have no choice but to comply with the requirements of it. Just to clarify a couple of things within there. The GBP 35 million of lending is a cap imposed by the scheme, not by the FCA. The FCA allow full restricted lending isn't after the final GBP 15 million has been paid into the scheme. It's whenever we exit the pilot stage. Great. Thank you. That is all the questions that we've had prior. I can see, at least one hand is raised, so perhaps we can go to Richard Griffiths. Hi. I just wanted to ask, how many applications do you actually need to send an underwrite sample to the FCA for it to be submitted? Like, how far off it are you? I think it would. Yeah. A statistically relevant sample. It, you know, it can't be everything that we've written. It needs to be a sample of the loans that we have written. Okay. We've got Daniel. Can we unmute Daniel? Thank you. Hi, Daniel. Hi. You didn't answer Richard's question then, which was how many do you have to send as a sample? So my question is, how many applications have you had? Which I don't see why you can't tell us. How many actually converted to a loan? How much did you actually lend? That's my first three questions, and I'd like specific answers, not a sample, not anything. I want specific numbers, please, and you must have those to hand. Secondly, I'd like to know, do the directors believe that the business is viable? Do they believe that they will get investors? Will the directors be taking up their own shareholdings and share issues and actually backing the company by purchasing shares in it, as soon as, obviously, they're allowed to? Will they give guarantees that they will be buying shares in the business? I think to, we can't answer your first question because we can't do it on this call. It's not in the RNS. We have said the numbers are very low, which is why we gave the update for the amounts that we have paid out. The number of applications has actually been, you know, quite a lot. You know, substantially more than we needed, the processes that we have gone through and the underwriting that we have gone through has made it, you know, more disappointing in terms of the numbers that we have actually paid out. The second point, your second question, Daniel, was, you know, do the shareholders believe... do the directors believe in the business? The answer is unequivocally, yes. We wouldn't have been able to enter into negotiations with other potential investors this week if we didn't believe that. You know, unequivocal, yes, we do. I think your third question was? Will the directors back it by purchasing shares and taking up their own rights issues? I would expect any director who has rights issues will take those up. I'm sure when we get out to issuing the prospectus, you know, something along those lines, you know, can be shared. Okay. Okay, thank you. Okay. If we move to, Judy Spencer-Morris. Is that Mike? Yes, it's actually Mike. Hi, Mike. Okay. Well, it's very nice to be able to speak to you. I only found out about this, by the way, approximately half an hour ago, so, you know, I haven't had really time to put everything down that I would like to. In basic terms, there was something called the Woolard Review that was much anticipated, commissioned obviously by the FCA from the outgoing chairman of the FCA. I believe it was issued in February the year before last, 2021. Woolard Review concluded definitively that there is a significant demand, public demand, from the financially excluded for a mid-cost service from lenders doing mid-cost loans. That there weren't enough of them, largely because the large end lending institutions, the major banks, don't want to be seen to be getting involved in mid-cost loans. The barriers to entry for new entrants, because of the FCA rules and regulations, were extremely high. It therefore follows that the fact that RewardRate, Amigo stroke RewardRate, sorry, difficult set, you know, is one of the only remaining mid-cost providers, that is available to the public. It makes it even more apparent how important it is for the company to both survive and thrive. JP Morgan has historically been a major investor in Amigo, and if it's possible for you to say, have JP Morgan been involved in the discussion vis-à-vis the underwriting? GBP 45 million of underwriting to that organization is, in relative terms, peanuts. In terms of JP Morgan, I can't talk about any individual investor. Yeah, everyone who we thought was feasible as an investor, you know, and in particular people who had interest in Amigo in the past, whether it's shares or bonds, has been approached. And for, you know, for many, it just doesn't fit what they're doing today. For some, it's, you know, they only do bonds, they don't do shares. Yeah, a number have been, you know, are concerned about the regulatory environment. You know, the Woolard Review, as you mentioned, you know, hasn't really led to an awful lot of difference out there on the high street. You know, the FCA, certainly in our discussions with them, have actually been very constructive over the last year, you know, in trying to, you know, get us back to market. Yeah, I couldn't, you know, complain about the people that we're dealing with in terms of, you know, are they, you know, trying to hurt us? Clearly not. You know, they're clearly trying to help us. Forgive me. The FCA are obviously aware. Once again, it was in the Woolard Report, made very clear that the credit unions, the socially motivated lenders like credit unions, CDFIs, are simply not able to meet the demand that there is in the marketplace, you know, from the financially excluded. Moreover, as is currently very publicly being proven to be a major problem, those people that can't get loans from such as RewardRate or credit union CDFIs are going to be going to loan sharks. There are always going to be loan sharks that are going to be totally unscrupulous, charging vastly more than we would be charging. I would have thought that the FCA would be bending over backwards to make sure that RewardRate does survive and thrive. Does that not have a bearing at all on the approach from the likes of JP Morgan? I mean, in terms of the market and the, and the, you know, Woolard's comments, I mean, we wholeheartedly agree with everything that you just said. You know, the market itself is running scared, a little bit, and, you know, the impacts that you are quoting are clearly out there. There's report after reports, saying the same. In terms of, you know, those major financial institutions, and I can't quote specifically about that one, but they have their own agenda based on their own appetites and, you know, where they want to invest that money. When you very correctly summed up the findings of the Woolard, of course, and I think also the Centre for Social Justice's work on illegal money lending, and it's clearly something that we do draw to the attention of investors but other stakeholders in our discussions with them. I think JP Morgan have been supporting the government's No Interest Loan Scheme, and have made a sort of charitable donation to that, and so that's one of the key ways they've been seeking to participate in this market. You know, we are reaching out to all interested parties as part of this process. Right. Could I just then say, two other questions, if I may. First of all, you mentioned that there is more of an appetite, possibly for bonds, I think, than equity. Is there any reason that some of the... Some or part of the GBP 45 million couldn't be raised by way of a bond issue? Sorry. What I said was that, you know, some I was quoting generically that some investors, you know, are only interested in bonds because that's what they do, rather than shares. I mean, certainly, if someone said they were gonna put in, you know, a, you know, material amount of money and it was in not pure equity, so long as we have sufficient equity to enable the rights issue and the underwrite of that to happen, then, you know, we'd work with them. You know, that message has gone out to those investors, and to be honest, it was part of the original message as well. Right. I see. It is possible that could happen? Yes. Right. Could I then come on to the penultimate question. I've got two other questions. With regard to shareholders, there are, as I understand it, approximately 8,000 private shareholders who are supporting Amigo PLC on an ongoing basis, I being one of them, of course. Under circumstances where the discussion about the rights issue has been ongoing for some time and everybody's been very keen to see what progress is being made and what is likely to be offered to us, my calculation, and forgive me for the simplicity of this, simplification of it. If all 8,000 shareholders were offered the opportunity to invest today in order to raise GBP 45 million, never mind GBP 15 million, it would actually work out that each investor would have to put in GBP 5,600 in order to raise that GBP 45 million. Obviously, not every current shareholder would be prepared to put in GBP 5,600, but I, for one, would. I have to say that. I'm sure that there are an awful lot of others that would too. There may well be some shareholders, I know that there is one shareholder who has over 3% of the Amigo shares, who may well be in a position to put in considerably more than that. Would you be prepared to have a discussion with a group of shareholders, you know, with myself being one of them, to discuss the prospect of approaching all the private shareholders that are currently there to see prior to a rights issue formally being announced, to see what the appetite would be from the shareholders you already have to put up as much as possible of that GBP 45 million? I think the difficulty with the process is we don't know who all of those individual shareholders are, because most of them are owned via funds. You know, there's only a few disclosable shareholders that we could speak to directly. There's a fair number. I'm aware of a fair number. There's, you know, anyway, in terms of proportions, I can't say what the proportion would be, but let me say, we would endeavor ourselves as shareholders to contact as many other shareholders as possible one way or the other in order to establish how many people would be prepared to put in how much money. It must be a process that is possible to do. When we're talking about the potential survival or otherwise of the business in which we have already invested, it would seem like a logical process. We're very grateful for your support. We certainly take away and think about how we can work with particularly retail investors. The key thing, in terms of the GBP 45 million we're looking for, is that that is an underwrite, and then we'll be looking for. We'll be asking the existing investors to take part in the rights issue as you suggest, and that would be the key opportunity to participate in the raise. Yes. We are very grateful for the support you clearly have for our business and we hope you'll get to. Mm-hmm. any more in future. I appreciate that what I'm saying may not be the normal process. Seeing as we're talking about at the moment the issue of finding, Well, you said that you've spoken to 100 organizations, individuals, whatever, about the prospect of taking up a minority share of that underwriting. I would've thought that if you have access or the potential access to around 8,000 other individuals, that it would be logical to speak to them too, give them the opportunity, particularly when they've already got money invested in the company, to see what appetite they would have about effectively underwriting the share issue. We'll take that away and we'll raise it with Peel Hunt. I think that's all I can say. We will take that away, and we'll discuss it with Peel Hunt to see, and see what can be done. Could I suggest that, as I said, before, that if a representative group of shareholders with myself and at least four or five others, were to get together with yourselves and Peel Hunt, to discuss this it would be a very good logical idea. Yeah. We'll be happy to do that. Good. I will send you through, if I may, my contact details. Come back to me and let me know when we could speak further about it. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank to Daniel. Daniel's got his hand up again. Shall we unmute Daniel? Sorry. Just I'd like to add, I would agree with that, and as one of the major shareholders, I would definitely be interested in clubbing together as shareholders and trying to underwrite the share issue ourselves. Okay? I know you've taken it on board, and you said you've taken it on board, but I just wanna put a point across. I think that's a really good opportunity. I don't know why a website can't be just created with a poll or something like that to see if shareholders would be interested. They put their contact details in there, and maybe a screenshot of the shareholdings, and then obviously you can contact them directly. If it's GBP 5,800 each to save a company, save the jobs and do the share issue, I think it's... To underwrite it ourselves, let's do it. I think that should be investigated. Then just the other question, has anybody, I know this is off the cuff, but has anybody actually contacted James Benamor to see if he would actually be interested in investing in the business? Um. Bearing in mind he made millions out of it, I'm just wondering if anybody's actually contacted him to say, "Hey, would you like to help and underwrite it per like as a, as a private angel investor? I think he might... You know, given the history of the firm and where it was, I suspect, and I don't know this for a fact, but I suspect that might be difficulty getting him approved as a controller by the FCA. I don't know that. Okay. If, if he wouldn't have control, if he just loaned the business some money or something like that, or did it in a different way, then he could still have a stake in the business but not own the shares, if you know what I mean. There could be a way of basically, using him as an ally way to underwrite it or something, that you don't need FCA approval for. We'll take that one away, Danny. Okay. All right. That's it. I'm done. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. Can we have Mark Thomas, please? If you can unmute your themselves. Hi. Good afternoon. Thank you, everyone. Yeah, question for the panel. It concerns a consideration of seeking adjustment to the current scheme. I think you'd initially told us that it would need a whole new agreement. I'm not necessarily convinced that it would. We all understand that the macroeconomic environment's changed, the whole landscape's different, the demands, the needs. My kind of understanding would be is you're not looking to do a complete brand-new scheme, it's just you're looking to tweak a few of the points, whether it's an extension to the dates that maybe allows the timing to work for your previous investor that's not going to work for them now, or if it was to tweak some of the arrangements that would allow for current investors, shareholders to invest more on a more favorable term in light of the situation. My point is this: have you discussed this with the FCA? B, have you actually received any legal advice, and if so, what did they say specifically? Thank you. To be honest, like my own assumption on this is the same as where you are. In terms of, it should be quite easy to get, you know, a tweak to the scheme if it isn't gonna hurt creditors. The legal opinion is definitive, and we have had a legal opinion that you cannot amend a scheme. You need to go through a full new scheme process to get any part of it amended. So yeah, it's a court document. We have to comply with it. There are no ways out, no exceptions without going through the same process again. I felt we could just go back to the judge and ask them. The legal opinion was quite clear, we couldn't do that. Thank you. We have another hand up. It's just a number, so I can't read a name but, can you unmute? If you'd like to unmute yourself. Phone number ending 691. Thank you. Hi, it's Mark Thomas. Just a question then regarding that you're unable to amend any documentation or. I think you said the testing is now on the pilot, and it's gonna take four to six weeks. That deadline is actually six weeks yesterday for a return to lending. Is that at risk at the moment of that term not being met? I mean, you mentioned earlier that the raise and the conversations next week have an impact on the pilot. I thought that was separate. I thought the pilot always had to come first. No. on. Sorry. No, they're separate things. The return to lending has already happened. We have confirmed that with the FCA, the condition to return to lending by the 26th of May has been fulfilled. This is just us working with the FCA separate to the scheme, to, you know, reassure them that what we are doing is in line with what we said we would do. the condition of returning to full lending by 26th of February, I think it was. Yeah. That has been met, yeah? Yes, it has. Thanks. Okay. Mike, have you got another question? Got your hand up. Any other questions? You'll have to raise your hand. Oh, sorry. It's Mike, yeah. I forgot to un-unmute myself. Just thinking about the situation vis-à-vis, as I said before, the Woolard report, the demand for a mid-cost service, and the FCA. The subject of the fine that has been under discussion now for several years, it clearly needs to be brought to a conclusion, from what you said before, that the potential of a fine is overhanging some of the discussions with prospective underwriters. Surely, the FCA must be aware of the fact that the company, the shareholders, everybody that's been involved with Amigo, you know, for a while, are already suffering the consequences of any wrongdoing that might have taken place in the past, with the application of the payouts to people that have applied for refunds. In order for the FCA to be able to assist RewardRate to survive and thrive, to serve the community that Christopher Woolard said needed the likes of RewardRate to serve them and to get away from the loan shark situation, surely the FCA could announce that there won't be a fine, or if there is a fine, it would be hopefully nominal. To actually conclude this element of discussions, to the benefit of the community that the FCA's previous chairman said need to be served. Yeah. If we hadn't been in a situation where we are with the scheme, the normal FCA process is for both redress to happen and potentially a fine if there is any wrongdoing. The situation that we're in at the moment is that because the fine sits outside of the scheme, it could potentially impact any new investors wanting to invest. The FCA have said, I can't remember the exact wording, but was they are acutely aware of the impact on scheme creditors if investment didn't happen because of any fine levied by them. Yeah. They won't commit to anything either way. You know, they are working to try and bring it to a conclusion in time to be included in any underwrite for any investment. You know, I can't... You know, I could give you my assessment of where it'll go, but it's a guess. You know, you know, they themselves have said their biggest concern is creditors. You know, historical creditors who, you know, need that, you know, redress. You know, they won't do anything that will jeopardize that redress. I mean, that's their words. You can interpret those yourselves. Yeah. Obviously, the potential downside for those that are due redress, would be for the company to wind down and, you know, therefore get less money than they are currently due, or would be due, you know, to receive. It would be in the I would have thought in the FCA's interest to bring the subject of fines to a conclusion, in order that it would free up the decision-making for the underwriters that the company needs. Exactly. They have had to finish their due process internally, before getting to that point. You're absolutely right. Good. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other questions on the call? Mark. Mark again. Please go ahead. Hi. Hi folks. Thanks, Kate. Just two quick ones. First one just around the legal advice around the seeking an amendment. I would really urge you to seek secondary legal opinion around that, because for me, I just think it from my understanding around the criminal process system is, it may technically be a new scheme, but actually it's going before a judge and approving everything that already exists and then, and making an amendment where there's no disagreements or obstructions. If the FCA want to look after creditors, surely it's in their interest and in our interest to do something differently. Just on the second point, could I just clarify, did someone say we've got agreement for full return to lending? 'Cause I wasn't sure whether I picked that up correctly. To answer your second point first, yes, we have. The FCA have confirmed that we have fulfilled the first condition of the scheme. To answer your first question, I had the same opinion and I also double-checked and triple-checked because I thought it would be relatively straightforward to go back to the judge and ask them to amend it. The legal advice was definitive. You must go through a complete new scheme process, including giving the creditors time to consider the proposals, et cetera, et cetera, before going back to court. It was absolutely definitive. Okay. Thanks, Danny. Just a secondary point is that I noticed that there's no mention of the return to lending in the RNS. Is that gone out before today or is that due to go out? I think we've already notified that. Oh, right. Okay. Maybe I missed it. Back in October when we said, we've had permission to return the lending, we did say that the. Yeah. That this meets the first scheme condition. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions on the line? I think that's... Oh, Richard. Sorry. Please go ahead. Would you like to unmute yourself, Richard? Yeah, sorry. It was just to ask, what date's the RNS where it states that you have been given the approval to resume lending again? 'cause I've not seen it on any of them. It was back in October. I think the clarity, it's the condition that we've met. Yeah ... to return to lending rather than permission to fall. Yeah. The condition of the scheme was to return to lending. The point at which we did our first lab, we had returned to lending. The pilot is separate to the scheme and was never envisaged as part of the scheme. That is an arrangement between us and the FCA, but it's not a scheme condition. Okay. Okay. Thanks. again, so... Is that Mark? Thank you. I think that that's where the confusion... I think a lot of investors, potentially think the same. The way the RNS read in October was that the return to full lending was dependent on that two months return trial pilot, and then there would be FCA testing on top of that. I think then what me and many other investors are probably expecting on this call is that following the FCA testing, you would announce a return to full lending. I believe there was meant to be funds paid into to allow that. I think that's just where the confusion... I don't know if you would wanna clear that up to the market and investors through an RNS. we'll double-check the RNS and confirm whether it needs further clarity. You know, as, you know, Nick said, at the time of the scheme, you know, the pilot period hadn't even been, you know, discussed with the FCA. It's not part of the scheme. That's a separate discussion with the FCA. I mean, that's good news. It's great news. I do think the message may have been lost that I think, you know, we were expecting that following the testing, there would be an announcement that Amigo is back to full-time lending. You know, I understand the need for FCA testing, especially with the CCA rules and regulations. You can't test someone till they're in default and things like that. I do think the message was probably lost and that we all assumed that we hadn't met that 26th of February deadline yet. Okay. We'll take that away and check. Let me see. The scheme condition has been met? Yes. Great. Have we got any other questions on the line? No, I think over to you, Danny. Okay. Oh, sorry. There's probably one come up. Would you like to unmute your line and ask your question? Hi. It's only a quick question. Really our only problem now is just getting the underwriting for the GBP 45 million sorted out. Is that where we're at? In terms of In terms of the actual lending, yes. In terms of the investment, I mean, that hasn't been an issue in terms of getting people across the line in investment. Right. Well, okay. Yeah. I need to know. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. Okay. I think that's everything. Please get in touch with Kate directly or use our investors@amigoplc.co.uk email address if you've any further questions or points you'd like to raise. Again, I can assure you we're doing everything we can to secure a viable future for Amigo, for our shareholders, creditors, and our employees. Thank you.