Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Argo Blockchain town hall meeting. Throughout today's meeting, attendees online will be in listening-only mode. Your questions are encouraged; they can be submitted at any time just using the Q&A tab situated on the right-hand corner of your screen. I'd now like to hand over to David Robinson, Partner at Fladgate. Good afternoon, David. Good afternoon. Thanks, Mark. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to this virtual town hall meeting. I'll deal with some administrative matters first. The meeting is being recorded to ensure that a complete and accurate record is kept. As Mark mentioned, if you wish to ask questions, please use the chat function on the video conference platform. It would be helpful in your question if you could identify yourself either as a holder of shares, ADSs, or notes in the company. Perhaps preface your question with the word shares or ADSs or notes, and that will just help us identify which category you fall into. My name is David Robinson. I'm a partner at Fladgate. We're solicitors to Argo, and we provide English law advice regarding its proposed restructuring. I'm joined by my partner, Jeremy Whiteson, by Argo CEO, Justin Nolan, and Jon Yorke, the retail advocate. Scott Beech, Argo's General Counsel, is also online. Jon, the retail advocate, acts as an independent representative of those shareholders and note holders that are not professional or institutional, otherwise known as retail holders. The retail advocate's role is to act as an intermediary between Argo and retail holders, not to provide them with legal advice. Jon will speak after I've summarized the restructuring plan. The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with information regarding the proposed plan and to give you an opportunity to raise questions on it. After we've spoken, we will try to answer your questions. Any questions which we're not able to answer during the meeting can always be addressed to Jon in his capacity as retail advocate using the email address which is in the explanatory statement found on the plan website. If there's any inconsistency between what we say in the meeting and any of the information on the plan website in the written documentation, particularly in the explanatory statement, that written information prevails over what we say. I'm just going to take you through the key points in the restructuring plan, explain the process, and then open this up to some questions. A restructuring plan is an English law procedure which allows a company in a difficult financial position to restructure its capital to enable it to keep trading. Under this procedure, the company proposes a restructuring plan, and if this receives the court's approval, its terms bind all creditors and/or shareholders, including those who do not consent to or vote to approve the proposal. With regards to the process we're in, Argo asked the court for permission to call meetings where plan participants, which are shareholders, note holders, and the secured lender Growler, to attend plan meetings to vote for or against the restructuring plan. This request was made at a court hearing known as the convening hearing. That was on the 5th of November. At this hearing, the court was not asked to decide whether the plan is fair or whether it would approve it. The court simply considered whether Argo had met the legal requirements to call the meetings with the plan participants, which the court confirmed it had done so. Argo then sent to plan participants detailed information regarding the restructuring plan and the effects it will have on their legal rights ahead of the plan meetings, which will be held on the 2nd of December. This detailed information, including details of how to vote, is contained in the explanatory statement, which is on the plan website. Following the plan meetings, there will be a second court hearing on the 8th of December where Argo will ask the court to approve the plan. The court will consider whether the plan is fair, especially considering the effect the plan will have on plan participants in comparison to the relevant alternative. The relevant alternative is the most likely scenario to occur if the plan is not sanctioned. In this case, that would be an administration of Argo leading to an orderly wind-down or liquidation. The court will also consider at the sanction hearing whether the company has fairly allocated the benefits generated or preserved by the plan. I'll cover this in more detail shortly. As you know, Argo is a blockchain technology company focused on large-scale mining of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Argo uses mining machines to solve complex cryptographic algorithms in the blockchain network. In exchange for verifying or solving such algorithms, Argo receives rewards and fees denominated in cryptocurrency. In summary, Argo provides computing power to the blockchain network in exchange for cryptocurrency assets on a significant scale. Argo is a public-limited company. It's listed on the London Stock Exchange and on the Nasdaq stock market. Argo has required continued third-party funding since December 2022 following a sustained period of low crypto asset prices and high power costs arising from events largely outside the group's control. In particular, the energy required for Argo's operations is considerable. Following Russia's invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, global energy prices soared. This increase in energy costs has had a significant impact on Argo's business, and its power costs represent, on average, about 50% of Argo's total costs in each of the last three years. From time to time, cryptocurrency undergoes what is known in the market as a crypto winter, a prolonged period of low cryptocurrency prices, low crypto assets, and negative market sentiment. Following the crypto bubble in 2021, the market experienced a significant crash, with Bitcoin losing 30% of its value by the end of the year. This began a crypto winter, which lasted until 2024. Since Argo's revenue comes from the sale of mined Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, this extended period of low prices had a significant impact on Argo's financial position. In April 2024, a Bitcoin halving took place, which reduced the reward for Bitcoin miners by 50%. The group's mining margin fell from $11.5 million being a 39% margin in 2024 to $1.2 million in 2025, while costs continued to rise. During this period, to ensure the business's survival, Argo disposed of the Helios Bitcoin mining facility in Dickens County, Texas, and its related operations. In connection with that, it entered into a loan agreement with Galaxy. The Helios transaction secured the company's short-term future, but underlying issues remained, which the board have been addressing ever since. Argo instructed its investment banker, Stifel, to undertake extensive marketing between September 2023 and June 2025 to find an interested party to invest in the business. Interest was, however, limited due to the various challenges, including the debt burden placed on the business. This process resulted in four proposals, including the proposal made by Growler, which was ultimately pursued. There was also an extensive investigation into potential insolvency and restructuring procedures in October 2024. Despite the extensive marketing process mentioned, by June 2025, Growler's proposal was the only viable option open to the company. Growler agreed to provide the necessary funding to Argo in exchange for Argo's commitment to implement the restructuring plan. This was urgently necessary in circumstances where the group had stopped paying some of its suppliers and creditors and had little cash remaining. Without the Growler facility, Argo would have been unable to pay its debts, which would have likely resulted in compulsory insolvency proceedings. Growler has confirmed that it will not provide further funding unless the restructuring plan is implemented. Accordingly, if the plan is not implemented, it is likely that Growler will demand repayment of its loan and enforce its security over Argo's assets. At that point, Argo will have no choice but to commence insolvency proceedings. The purpose of the plan is to restore the group to financial stability. If the plan is implemented in accordance with its terms, Growler will inject a further $3.5 million into the group. These funds will be utilized to meet the group's various costs payable to its critical unsecured creditors and other creditors to enable it to continue trading. If the plan is not implemented, Argo will cease trading. That is because Argo will run out of cash. Under the plan, the Growler facility will be converted into equity, and the related security will be released. The claims of note holders under the senior unsecured notes will be compromised and released in exchange for Argo equity. Growler will provide that $3.5 million by way of subscribing for new Argo equity. Growler will transfer to Argo the shares in Growler USCo, to which Growler will transfer Growler mining assets in exchange for newly issued Argo equity. As a result of these steps, Growler will own 87.5% of the enlarged share capital of Argo. Note holders will hold 10%, and existing shareholders will hold 2.5%. Under the plan, shareholders will keep the full entitlement to their shares, subject to dilution. Shareholders will retain all other benefits attached to their shares, for example, the entitlement to vote and to receive a dividend should one be declared. It's believed that dilution will not cause the economic value of the diluted shares to be less than their economic value in an administration or a liquidation of Argo, which, as I've mentioned before, is the relevant alternative. The effect of the plan on those shareholders holding equity interests through ADSs, i.e., Argo shares that are traded through Nasdaq, will be as follows. The current ratio of the ADSs to the ordinary shares is 1 to 10. However, the company has to maintain a trading price of the ADSs of more than $1 for more than 10 consecutive business days prior to 14th of January 2026, which is the date set by Nasdaq, in order to remain listed on Nasdaq. To facilitate that, i.e., remaining above the $1 threshold, we are planning to change the ratio of ADSs so that one ADS will represent 1,260 ordinary shares. After the ratio change, ADS holders may be left with a fractional entitlement to a new ADS. If this happens, the depository, JP Morgan & Chase, will aggregate and sell the fractional entitlements and distribute the sale proceeds on a pro-rata basis. If an ADS holder receives no new ADSs and no distribution of sale proceeds as a result of such exercise, then Argo will make available $1 in aggregate to that ADS holder for all their interests in new ADSs following their written request to Argo. Argo is not currently compliant with Nasdaq listing rules, but is taking active steps to remedy this by Nasdaq's deadline of January 14, 2026. Argo's financial modeling shows that the change to the ADS ratio will increase the share price on Nasdaq, such that it is able to regain compliance with the Nasdaq listing rules. It's currently anticipated that Argo will be able to retain its listing on Nasdaq following the court's approval of the restructuring plan and to meet the minimum trading price requirement prior to January 14, 2026. Argo has given notice to the FCA in the U.K. and to the London Stock Exchange of its intention to delist from the London Stock Exchange, subject to the sanction of the restructuring plan, so that on its implementation, the London listing will be canceled. In order to protect the interests of shareholders, Argo will establish a matched bargain facility with JP Jenkins and maintain such facility for six months. This is a facility which connects willing buyers of Argo's shares with willing sellers, creating a market in those shares despite the shares not being listed on a traditional stock exchange. Shareholders are reminded that they also retain the ability to convert their ordinary shares into ADSs, which can be traded on Nasdaq. Shareholders should contact their stock broker for further information as to how to achieve that. The senior unsecured notes, or baby bonds as they're colloquially known, will be fully equitized, and current note holders will receive equity interests in the company in the form of ADSs. In aggregate, note holders will hold 10% of the equity in the restructured company. Again, to the extent that a note holder has a fractional entitlement to new ADSs as a result of the equitization process, the aggregate of all fractional entitlements will be sold, and the sale proceeds distributed on a pro-rata basis to those note holders with a fractional entitlement, subject to deduction of depository transaction fees if applicable. If a note holder receives no new ADSs and no distribution of sale proceeds as a result of this exercise, Argo will make available the sum of $1 to that note holder for all their fractional interests in new ADSs following a written request from the note holder to the company. I refer you to the explanatory statement for a detailed explanation of how fractional entitlements will be dealt with. At the sanction hearing, the court will assess, among other things, if the company's proposed allocation of the benefits that are preserved or generated by the plan is fair. This assessment of fairness is complicated, and so I refer you to the analysis in Section 5 of Part 3, commencing on page 51 of the explanatory statement, and to Crowell Advisory's Plan Benefit Report at Appendix 9 of the statement that supports the company's analysis. You can find these documents on the plan website. Again, those references are Section 5 of Part 3, commencing on page 51, and Appendix 9. In summary, as per paragraph 5.5 of Section 5, Part 3 of the explanatory statement, a calculation was made to compare the financial benefits created by the restructuring, namely the difference between the day-one post-restructuring value of the company and the value of the company in the relevant alternative of insolvency. This difference is the value preserved by the restructuring or plan benefits. Argo has then sought to allocate those plan benefits in accordance with the contributions being made by plan participants. The contributions considered include the assets being contributed to the restructured company and the release of existing debts and other legal rights. A determination of the allocation of benefits referable to those contributions was then made and will be considered by the court in detail at the sanction hearing. The allocations were the subject of a negotiation between Argo and Growler. Subsequent to that negotiation, Crowell Advisory were engaged to prepare the plan benefits report. The plan benefits report includes a comprehensive analysis of the contributions and Crowell Advisory's conclusion regarding the fair allocation of the benefits of the plan between stakeholders. The company has considered this report in depth and has concluded that the offer being made to note holders and shareholders in the plan adequately meets the relevant criteria. The directors of Argo believe that the proposed allocation of the benefits generated or preserved by the plan is fair and represents the best possible outcome for plan participants and other stakeholders with a genuine economic interest in the company. It's part of the retail advocate's role to cast a critical eye over the fairness of the plan, and Jon will talk to that. Although this summary has taken some time, it is just that, a summary. Please do refer to the explanatory statement on the plan website, which sets out all the necessary information that you will need in order to make an informed assessment as to how to vote at the plan meetings on 2nd of December. Appended to the explanatory statement is the restructuring plan. If the plan is sanctioned by the court or around the date of the sanction hearing on 8th December, it is this document that is the operative legal document that determines how your legal rights will be affected. I'll now hand over to Jon Yorke, the retail advocate, to address you. Jon. Thank you, David. Good afternoon. My name is Jon Yorke, and I'm acting as a retail advocate in relation to the proposed restructuring plan. I'm a solicitor of some 39 years standing, and since 1997, I've worked extensively on schemes of arrangement, which were the forerunners to restructuring plans such as this one. I've acted as retail advocate on six other schemes of arrangement or restructuring plans involving retail investors or creditors. I've been engaged by the company to act as an independent retail advocate in order to liaise with and put forward the views of note holders and shareholders who are members of the public and may not understand the implementation of a restructuring plan, as well as institutional investors or note holders and shareholders who are in a position to take legal advice. I must make it clear that whilst I've been engaged by and I'm being paid by the company, I'm independent of it. My contract is available on the plan website and specifically provides for my independence, that I owe no duty to the company, and that I may draw conclusions that are adverse to the interests of the company when preparing my reports. I've set up an email address at jy@abadvocate.co.U.K., which is available on all the plan documents, and I have or will be responding to any emails sent to me by note holders, shareholders, or their advisors. I'm happy to deal with questions at this town hall meeting and by email if any retail investors or their advisors want to raise anything with me after the meeting. As part of my role, I'm obliged to attend the meeting of note holders and shareholders to be held on the 2nd of December and to prepare two reports setting out the views of the retail investors together with any issues they raise that are relevant to the matters being considered by the court. The first of these was prepared for the convening hearing on the 5th of November and is available on the plan website. I will be preparing a further report setting out any issues of fairness and any other matters that the court will consider at the sanction hearing on the 8th of December, and I will include any matters raised at this meeting that are relevant to the sanction hearing in my report together with any emails I receive after the meeting or have already received. Thank you, David. Okay, thank you. We've had a few pre-submitted questions, so we'll address those first. The first two relate to the number of new shares to be exchanged for each Argo bond. Note holders will have 10% of the enlarged equity, which is roughly 2.8 billion shares in the enlarged entity. The face value of the notes is $40 million, so ignoring the crude interest for this purpose, on the basis of $40 million worth of notes in issue, it means that each $1 of notes would receive roughly 72 ordinary shares. Ordinary shares rather than ADSs, this calculation is done on. Roughly 72 shares per $1 of notes. That's the first two questions. The next question was about the delisting from the London Stock Exchange, and will we be providing a purchase and sale facility for shareholders, or are your shares now virtually worthless, and are you close to going into administration? As I mentioned, the company will be providing a facility through JP Jenkins for six months post-delisting so that there is a trading facility available. Shareholders also have the ability to convert their ordinary shares into ADSs, and the company will shortly be publishing further information about how to do that. We will publish a regulatory news service announcement through the London Stock Exchange about that, but in short, your stock broker should be able to facilitate the conversion into ADSs. The second part of the question, are our shares now virtually worthless? The company's financial position is severe, and if the plan doesn't go ahead, as I've said, the most likely almost certain outcome is that the company would need to go into administration and/or liquidation. In that scenario, the likely outcome is that the secured creditor would take what value is there, leaving nothing left for the unsecured creditors, such as shareholders and note holders. If the plan doesn't go ahead, the shares would be worthless. If the plan goes ahead, the expectation is there will be value because Growler is putting money into the company so that it can survive and can grow, and there is a business there with a new balance sheet, and the hope is that the company will be able to then trade out and recover value for stakeholders. The next question was about what's going to happen to the shares of retail investors on the LSE after the proposed restructuring plan. I've covered that. The next question is, Growler's contributing non-energized assets. Can you define what that means? Do you have an itemized list of what this entails? There is an itemized list in the transfer agreement, which is appended to the back of the explanatory statements. That is there, so you can see that there. Look at the plan website. Justin, you've seen the assets, so perhaps you can talk to those a little. That might be helpful. Sure. The assets are transformers, switchgears, and mining machine boxes for Bitcoin mining machines. Okay. The next question is, has the company or its advisors conducted any formal analysis to determine whether the December 22 Helios sale to Galaxy constituted an undervalued transfer under applicable insolvency law? If so, what were the conclusions of that analysis, and were those findings being made available to creditors prior to the vote? I'll deal with the first bit. There's a second. There's a follow-on, so I'll deal with the first bit first. There has not been a formal analysis of that sale as an undervalue or being an undervalue. At the time of the sale that was conducted, the company was in a potentially insolvent position, and therefore the company was very alive to the issues that arise when conducting a transaction when potentially insolvent. Yes, an analysis was done as to whether things were being done at an undervalue or whether anybody was being given a preference under relevant insolvency law. More particularly, the company did have an independent valuation done by Houlihan Lokey at the time. The board was comfortable that the value that it got for Helios at the time was the appropriate value. With hindsight, that value may look lower than one might expect because since the sale, the value of data centers has skyrocketed. At the time the transaction was done, and with all the surrounding circumstances, the board were comfortable that it was the right transaction to do and was entered into on the correct basis. The second part of that question is, given the transaction falls within the relevant lookback period for avoidable transfer claims, has the company considered pursuing any recovery claims against Galaxy? If recovery claims have been considered, what's the estimated range of potential recoveries? For the reasons given in the first part of the answer, no, they haven't been considered because we don't consider that the transaction was at an undervalue. Next question, what's the make and model and TH of Growler's 4,225 miners being contributed? What's the electricity power cost in the Growler Tuscaloosa data center? That information should be in the schedule of the assets in the transfer agreement. But Justin, are you able to speak to that at all? There are two different sites. One has power costs of about $0.055, and the other is closer to $0.06. At those two sites, we have M60s and SK19s. Those are the make and model. Next question is, what's the options for holders of Argo Blockchain shares in an ISA? As you might know, when suspension takes effect in December, one cannot hold the shares in an ISA. Would Argo be floating a bank option soon? Can U.K. shareholders be assigned Argo shares in the U.S.? Will that still be trading? The question is right. Once the shares are delisted, usually they can't then be held in an ISA, and they have to be transferred out. There is no current intention to buy back shares. The money that Growler is putting into the company are going to be used to enhance the business rather than returning funds to shareholders. As I said earlier, there is the option to convert into ADSs, and for some shareholders, that would be a possibility. Otherwise, we've got the JP Jenkins facility as a fallback for U.K. holders. Next question, has Argo thought of launching tokens or coins to raise capital as a form of equity reserves? I think it's fair to say that Argo has considered all sorts of different options to reshape its balance sheet. That has been a process going on for the last two years plus, and I think every option under the sun has been considered. Nearly every option that the company considered founded on the same problem, which is the debt burden being carried by the company. The company had a number of interested parties and progressed discussions with them, and almost without fail, the problem became, how are we going to repay $40 million of debt in November 2026? That has been the sticking point. Whilst there are all sorts of options that look attractive superficially, that debt burden has been the millstone around the company's neck, which has prevented other deals happening. I do not know whether, Justin, whether you want to add anything to that, or is that just a fair summary? I think you handled it well. Okay. Next question, what were the terms and matters of the Growler funding that has already taken place per the proposed plan? Will the ongoing company not have any debt? Growler's provided a term loan of $7.5 million. That is almost all being drawn down now. It's interest-bearing. It will convert into equity if the plan is approved or sanctioned by the court. As regards ongoing debts, yes, the company will have some ongoing debt because it's got the Desjardins facility in Canada, which this plan does not, that debt is unaffected by this plan. It's obviously a much, much reduced debt burden going forward. There's a further question about ISAs, which we've already covered. Will LSE Argo shares be able to swap shares for Nasdaq Argo shares, or should we hold in anticipation for relisting on the LSE, or is the LSE listing completely finished? As I said, there will be the, and there is the ability to convert into ADSs. That can be done now, or it can be done post-transaction, and we will put out an announcement on that to explain how it works and the costs associated with it shortly. The reason for not having done that to date is we're just trying to agree the costs of that with the depository. Should you hold in anticipation of a relisting? That has not been discussed. I don't think it's on anyone's radar, so I think we can firmly say that that is not likely to happen. Next question, is there a willingness to increase value to the note holders, e.g., a warrant? How will Growler and Argo management teams be organized? And for the tax obligation that's being appealed, what's the timeline? So three questions there. Willingness to increase value to note holders? As you may have seen from the explanatory statement, Growler's initial proposal to the company was much more aggressive than the one that has been presented to you. We now have an 87.5%, 10%, 2.5% split. The original proposal was much tougher on both note holders and shareholders. I think note holders were going to be reduced to, was it 2% of the original proposal? I think so. Yeah, it's something like that. It's in the explanatory statement anyway. The company rejected that proposal, and in a renegotiation with Growler, we ended up where we are now. I think every group would like to see its allocation increased. If we increase note holders, we reduce either Growler or shareholders. If we increase shareholders, we reduce note holders or Growler, no one's going to be happy. The allocations we've ended up with have been based on, A, a negotiation, and B, following the guidelines set by case law in the U.K. as to how we allocate the benefits of the plan, as I said earlier. That's been the subject of not only lots of negotiation, but also a detailed report from Kroll on the terms of the plan and the allocation. That Kroll report is available to you on the plan website. Next question from the same person was, how will Growler and Argo management teams be organized? Justin, do you want to talk to that? Sorry, David. I'm having a little bit of technical difficulty. What was the question? Yeah, we can hear you and we can see you. How will Growler and Argo management teams be organized? Growler is contributing assets only. There are going to be no management coming over from Growler. Argo's management will continue to run the business. There may be a Growler representative on the Argo board, but in a non-exec capacity. For the tax obligations being appealed, what's the timeline for the decision? Scott, maybe that's one for you. This relates to Canada. Yeah, thanks. The tax allocations, the main ones being Canada with the CRA and Revenue Quebec, those are still underway and in dispute, and we don't have any firm expectation of when those will be fully resolved, but we're appealing those with the assistance of Ernst & Young. Thank you. Next question is, I'll read this out because it's quite long. The spirit of investing in senior debt is that it has a higher pecking order in restructuring than equity. In this restructuring, equity holders are receiving 2.5% of the new company and debt holders 10%. Debt holders are expected to receive an estimated very low recovery of $0.075 on the dollar. Equity holders should receive zero in most circumstances. Not very fair for a senior debt obligation when compared to equity. We propose that an additional 2% stake, total 12% of Nuco, be allocated to debt holders and that equity holders' stake be reduced to 0.5% or receive warrants. That seems to be fairer. As I said, no one's going to be happy with the allocations. We've tried to make it as fair as we can, and we've got an independent report from Kroll regarding that fairness. Sean, could I perhaps ask you to just talk a bit about that in terms of allocations and fairness? Yeah, sure. I mean, the court is the ultimate arbitrator of what is fair, and it will base its decision on the expert evidence that's been put forward. Certainly, I can represent your views to the court that there should be a different allocation, but it very much there's very little evidence. I've seen this in a number of cases before where there's always some unhappiness with the allocation of the assets, and the court will look at the expert evidence that's put before it or the evidence that's put before it and make a decision. I will certainly bring to the court's attention those representations that are made in relation to the allocations, and the court will make a decision at the end of the day. Thanks, Jon. We've got another question about whether Argo overpaid for Helios' site, how the price was decided. The price that Argo paid for the site was a market price at the time. I mean, Scott, you were involved in that. Anything further to add on it? No. It was market price, arm's length transaction at the time. That's as much as can be said there. Of course, a follow-up about the coins. Allow me to further explain. If you were to launch a coin or token, preferable as it'll allow access to more chains, if the Growler money is meant to improve the business of Argo, using it to launch a coin or token that provides the utility of being a financial vehicle, which in turn would allow Argo to charge fees on it, essentially transforming from a minor bank to a professional bank, for lack of better words to adequately communicate my idea, that may be a possibility for the business going forward. I don't think it's going to be a solution to its current distress. As I say, the company has considered all sorts of options and really is out of options bar Growler. The question about Growler owning 87.5% of Nuco and how many individuals to be on the board and how many will be independent of Growler. Justin and Maria will remain on the board. There will be one representative of Growler. The existing Argo team will retain control of Argo at board level. Question about energy costs as a key reason for the current situation in the opening remarks and in the investment commentary regarding what Growler is supplying. How much will the investment reduce those costs? Justin, do you have any comments at all on that? How much will Growler's investment reduce those costs? Yes. I think he is talking about the company's ongoing energy costs, whether they will be reduced as a result of access to Growler equipment. Energy costs will not be reduced via this transaction. What will be reduced is the company's obligation to service the debt. More of the cash you generate can be pumped back into the business rather than paying interest on the debt. Correct. The exahash are going from 1.4 to 2, our megawatts, which are very valuable. We're going from 15 MW to 30 MW. Next question is, why can't the company service $7.5 million debt allowing the note holders to get a much higher allocation? The company cannot handle that small amount of debt. Investors have to be concerned about the business model being proposed. The $7.5 million was put in for the purposes of the restructuring plan. It wasn't put in for supporting the ongoing trading of the business. The issue isn't so much its ability to service $7.5 million of indebtedness. It's the company's ability to service over $40 million of indebtedness, which is repayable in November next year. The company, having searched long and hard for a solution to how it would repay $40 million, wasn't able to find one bar Growler's proposal for the restructuring. The next comment is around, again, going back to the Helios, and Boatman argued that Argo's purchase of land in question had been overpaid for by a factor of 100 times. That was dealt with at the time. That was all scurrilous stuff on chat rooms, and we do not think there is any validity in the comments that Boatman made at the time. Another question about the management team, which we have already covered. Sorry. Next question, how exactly does the approval process work from here? Is it tied to a vote from existing equity and note holders, and what is required for the approval? We have planned meetings on the 2nd of December. There are three planned meetings, one for shareholders, one for note holders, and one for the secured lender. A simple majority can approve the plan in each meeting. We also have a 75% majority, my apologies, to approve the plan. We also have a shareholder general meeting to approve the Rule 9 waiver. That is the Rule 9 waiver of the takeover code, where the threshold is a simple majority. Those votes are essentially advisory because the court can choose, if it wishes, to approve the plan, even if there are votes against the plan at the planned meetings. If the court determines, in very broad terms, that the plan is fair, then it has the ability to sanction the plan, notwithstanding negative votes. The plan is conditional upon the Rule 9 waiver vote as well, which is outside the court's remit. If the shareholders vote down the Rule 9 waiver, then the company has the ability to go to the Takeover Panel and ask for a dispensation from Rule 9, i.e., to allow the transaction to go through without a Rule 9 waiver on the basis that the company is in financial distress. That is what the company will do if the plan is voted—sorry, if the Rule 9 waiver is not approved by shareholders. We do not know what the panel will say on that yet, but that is what we plan to do. I think I have covered all of the—sorry, there are a few more coming now. Will Argo management be taking a salary cut in the new setup? There have been no changes proposed by Growler to compensation for directors or management, either up or down. In view of the recent upturn in the value of Bitcoin, how do the current board envisage the future profitability of the company? The company's not going to give a profit forecast, but I think it can be assumed that Growler's putting quite a bit of money and assets into this vehicle, into this company, because it thinks there is a future in it. On the basis that the debt burden has been massively or will be massively reduced by the plan, and that Growler's putting money into the company to help the business, the board do believe that there is a future for this company. We'll go no further than that at this stage. There are three or four or more comments rather than questions which are fairly critical, not surprisingly, of the proposals. No solutions, etc., sell up, draw a line. The company does not want to be in this position. It really would rather be getting on with its business rather than spending all its time dealing with problems, of which there have been many. Some of them self-inflicted, others from third-party events. The company is where it is, and it is facing an insolvency situation. At the end of the day, it comes down to a very simple binary choice. Either the restructuring plan is approved, which allows the company to survive and gives a hope of value to note holders and shareholders, albeit much diluted. I know you're all suffering as a result, but there is some hope value there. The company goes into an administration liquidation process where the only winner in that process—and it will still be a loser—will be Growler because Growler will seek to recover its loan to the company. It is by no means certain that Growler would recover all of the sums that it has advanced to the company. That would mean that shareholders and note holders would receive nothing. The board are absolutely aware that this is an unpleasant position to be in. They are very conscious of their duties and are trying to do the best for the company. They recognize that it is not a good outcome for shareholders and note holders, but the outcome that is being proposed in the restructuring plan, in their view, is better than the alternative of liquidation. There are no further questions. I have not got anything yet. Okay. A couple more. CapEx expected of $25 million in 2026 and 2027. Please detail the expected CapEx and how it will be financed, i.e., issuing more equity or debt. Justin, do you want to talk to us at all? I'm not sure what CapEx they're referring to. Okay. Maybe Christian Arc can put that in the questions, and we'll come back to that. Are there any plans published as to how Argo will reduce its energy costs? There's nothing published about that at the moment. I mean, frankly, at the moment, the entire focus is on getting this restructuring plan through. Once the plan is through, then Justin and team can start addressing the things they want to do, which is actually running a business. This has been a massive distraction for them. I'm sure that is something that they want to address as soon as they possibly can. Yes. Our power costs are pretty good in Canada. I think the power cost discussion that came up about how we needed to reduce power costs was more in line with Helios and the Ukraine war and the spike in natural gas prices, which really caused power prices to go up quite quickly, and it took a while for those to come down. We are confident that after we emerge, if we are able to emerge, that our power costs are good and we can grow again. The CapEx number, Justin, comes from the pro forma presented by Stephen Kroll. I think that's quite a granular question. Perhaps what we'll do is respond to Christian by email on that one. We've had a chance to go back to the report. There's a further question. What's the new ADS shares' approximate value after restructuring plan is approved? That's what the market will determine. I can't say what the value will be post-transaction. As it is a requirement of Nasdaq that the company trades above a dollar, then the new ADS should be above that level. Remember, it's going to be representing a far larger number of shares. It'll be 2,160 shares rather than 10. No more questions? Give it 30 seconds for any more questions, and then we can close. Sean, is it just worth restating the ability to email you and for you to put points before the court? Yes. I think I said earlier that I've set up an email address, which is jy@abadvocate.co.uk, all one word. You're welcome to send me an email anytime after this meeting. I will deal with that email, and I will put any issues that you raise before the court at the hearing on the 8th of December. Thank you. Have no further questions. We will close—oh, sorry, I have one more. A few more. A few more. Okay. Someone else would like the answer to the CapEx question, which we will let everyone have, either through this platform or otherwise. We will let participants in this town hall know the answer to that. Yeah, that is—could you repeat the email address, please, Jon, for someone? It is jy@abadvocate.co.uk, all one word. Thank you. It is available on all the documentation. Or the plan website. If you search Kroll Argo, you can get to the plan website very easily. That is great, David. Thank you very much indeed. If you would like, I can jump on. We will shortly redirect those on the call to provide you with some feedback, and we will, of course, publish all these questions in due course. David, if there's nothing else, I will end the meeting. Thank you. Thank you very much indeed. We will now redirect investors on today's call. Thank you and good afternoon.