Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the D9 results presentation for the year ended 31st of December 2025. My name is James O'Halloran, and I'm joined by my colleagues, Marc Durka, Mike Osborne, and Mo Zaheer, who you'll be familiar with from last year's presentation. Firstly, I'll start by recognizing that 2025 was a challenging year. We took some difficult but necessary decisions in order to really simplify the portfolio, stabilize the balance sheet, and reset valuation assumptions. This now really marks a clear transition point with D9 now moving into the next phase of the managed wind down. That involves a firm focus on disciplined execution, orderly capital return, and maximizing value from the remaining portfolio. Before we move into the presentation, just to step back briefly at a very high level, the key focus through 2025 was about stabilization and delivery. During the year, the company was managing multiple priorities. We had leverage at HoldCo, a number of live realization processes, and a significant valuation change. Over the course of this year, the board and InfraRed have really prioritized getting a grip on reducing the financial risk, executing on that realization plan that we put in place, in the back end of 2024, and as well as updated valuations in a way that reflected the sort of current assumptions and market evidence that we had. As a result, the company is now in a materially different position to last year. Now moving into the presentation. Let me start with the sort of the headlines across the six key focus areas, moving left to right. Firstly, disciplined managed wind-down process with three major disposals completed in 2025 and a fourth added since the year-end. We've really seen meaningful progress on the realization plan, which has helped improve liquidity and certainty. The RCF is now fully repaid from those disposals generated during the year. And with that RCF fully repaid and canceled, the refinancing risk is fully removed from the fund. And the financial risk has obviously materially decreased in the fund as well, which is one of the key objectives of InfraRed and the board. Moving on to the next block. We've sought to simplify the capital structure, as I've mentioned, with the RCF eliminated. That now gives us a simpler and de-risked balance sheet and improved liquidity visibility and reduced complexity. And this, I guess, really marks the end of the completion of the balance sheet repair, which was a major milestone for InfraRed and the fund. Moving on to the next block, earn out and valuation. This has been updated to align to the latest market conditions that I mentioned earlier, and also market evidence, and that specifically refers to the Arqiva minority transactions that were announced sort of pre and post the year-end. Major enhancement initiatives are advancing at both Arqiva and Elio. Importantly, these are not included in the valuation or NAV as at the 31st of December year-end. We'll go into a lot more detail on Arqiva and Elio as we go through the presentation. Moving on to the next block. The capital returns are about to commence. You would have seen in the RNS that followed the results RNS this morning, that the surplus cash from Aqua Comms and Verne is being returned via the compulsory redemption mechanism that we put in place earlier this year. This mechanism is fully repeatable, so to future return the capital doesn't require any action from shareholders in the future as and when we return more capital. Finally, just to sort of summarize, we're entering that next phase of the managed wind down. Just to clarify, what does that exactly mean? That's a shift from the near-term execution, the work that's been done on the realization plan and stabilization phase into active management of the remaining portfolio. This could really help facilitate maximizing the value shareholders. We'll be obviously looking to drive the maximum value out of both of those assets, which Marc and Mike will come on to later on. Just moving on to the next slide, the significant developments in the year, I think this slide captures the changes and progresses we've overseen over the last 12 months. I think if you briefly just look back to the end of 2024 and the position we had there, the RCF was expiring. We had no real credible pathway to repayment or refinancing. We had restricted liquidity. We had multiple live sale processes that were either stalled or lacked any conviction on execution. We had the uncertainty on and complexity on Verne, and limited visibility on how we were going to get capital back to shareholders. If you then contrast that and fast-forward to where we find ourselves today, there's been material change. Arqiva valuation has been reset to nil, which we acknowledge has been a disappointing position for shareholders. It does reflect the challenge around the capital structure and in particular, the existence of the vendor loan note, as well as the market evidence I mentioned earlier from the observable transactions, and more broadly, a conservative outlook on the sort of broadcasting and utilities business, as well as the latest view on the future of broadcasting policy. The RCF, as I mentioned again, fully repaid and canceled, removing the fund refinancing risk and that avoids any sort of costly alternative debt solution that would have been required to put in place, as well as structural complexity. Good to have that behind us. Disposals have been completed and we'll come on to talk about those in a bit. Proceeds received and then the liquidity and certainty is improved. Verne has now been settled and that removes the sort of binary and elongated contingent position, and with value crystallized. I'll go into a fair bit of detail in a further slide on Verne and the rationale behind that. As I mentioned a couple of times already, capital returns have commenced via an orderly and structured framework with the compulsory redemption mechanism. What does this all signal? I think taken together as a clear phase shift, material uncertainty has been reduced. We've got greater flexibility on timing and execution. As I said, the deliberate focus now on active management of Arqiva and Elio to help deliver further shareholder value and ultimately return capital to shareholders in an orderly and controlled way. Turning now to the next slide and the realization plan. If we look at the left-hand side, what's been achieved during the year, well, we've completed the divestments at EMIC-1, SeaEdge, and Aqua Comms, and that's generated GBP 76 million in the year, repaid the RCF, and obviously brought the funding for net positive cash position for the first time. Subsequent to the year-end, we've settled the Verne earn-out and generated a further GBP 10 million of cash there. What's left? If you look on the right-hand side, we're now concentrated on the two core positions that remain for the next phase of the wind-down in Elio and Arqiva. I'll briefly just touch on those. On Elio, if we look back and reflect, we could have taken the easy option last year and sold the business. We saw genuine quality in Elio and a plausible prospect to achieve a materially better sale outcome than was being offered in the sale process. That kind of really set it apart from the other divestments that we were pursuing at that time. The business is performing well, and we're now making real tangible progress with the inorganic growth strategy. Again, Marc will come into a lot more detail around that in subsequent slides. On Arqiva, there's clearly challenges on the valuation currently, which I've set out. We've always signposted that Arqiva has a longer exit time, exit horizon for best value to be achieved, and that exit timing is really linked to external factors in policy and market conditions. Mike will cover that. Taken together, the realization plan with a lot behind us is now focused on the active management of the remaining assets, sequencing that execution carefully because that is important, and then maximizing outcomes for shareholders over time. Moving on to the next slide. I'd like to spend a moment on Verne just to explain how it's a good example of working to remove the complexity and uncertainty from the wind down, while balancing optimizing outcomes. When Verne was sold in 2024, the contingent earn-out was a part of the consideration, quite a sizable part. On the face of it looked large with an up to $135 million future payout. In reality, there was a few facts. It was very binary. It was tied to a narrow contractual perimeter, which was set by the previous manager's business plan at the point of sale, and it had strictly defined performance test mechanics. The D9, this meant there was a wide range of outcomes and a fairly long-dated timing on monetization of this. If we just briefly touch on valuations, as a reminder, this was marked at around GBP 4 million at the year-end 2024, and then subsequently written down to nil at the June 2025 interims. That approach really reflected the uncertainty attached to the payout and the limited visibility and information right D9 was entitled to at the time. How did we get ourselves comfortable around settling for GBP 10 million? Well, I think firstly and importantly worth flagging that we managed to negotiate access to additional information within the defined perimeter, and this allowed us to understand whether the earn-out had any chance of crystallizing. This access allowed us to assess the earn-out on a basis comparable to the rights that we would have had at the end of the earn-out period. We performed a very detailed and comprehensive commercial, legal, technical, financial due diligence exercise alongside data center experts in the space to really assess the earn-out achievability, and this took several months to conclude. The process clearly concluded that the earn-out was highly unlikely to pay out under the contractual mechanism in place, and this was driven by a few factors. Firstly, the narrow perimeter, which I obviously mentioned earlier, as well as there was a carve-out for any greenfield development projects from the earn-out perimeter. There were also significant operating constraints, particularly around power availability in Iceland on the perimeter sites. Finally, the buyer had very broad discretion over its operational and investment decisions. The result of all of that was that the 2026 run rate EBITDA threshold that would trigger the earn-out was highly likely to be met. In terms of outcomes for D9, as clearly set out, GBP 10 million cash settlement sum was negotiated. It helped accelerate and crystallize value versus the original timeline. It removes that residual complexity and execution risk. Just for Ardian, this helped them release capital reserved for the maximum earn-out, and that could be redeployed into the next phase of the Verne development. We saw the outcome as a pragmatic and mutually beneficial resolution for both parties. Just to summarize the end result really for shareholders, InfraRed and the board have converted a nil-valued, highly uncertain position into cash today that was highly unlikely to have led to value at maturity. This results in immediate distribution via the compulsory redemption mechanism later this month. I will pause there and pass on to Marc, who'll take you through the financials and Elio. Thank you, James. I'll walk you through the financials at a high level before moving then on to a description on Elio and Arqiva with Mike. To begin with, the financial overview. Net asset value as at 31 December 2025 was GBP 80.2 million, which equates to GBP 0.093 per share. At this stage of the wind-down, it's important to recognize that the NAV reflects the aggregate of cash available for distribution and the value of retained assets, noting that Arqiva has clearly been marked to nil, despite its potential future value, which we'll discuss further throughout the presentation. Post divestments, the portfolio value of remaining assets as at December 2025 was GBP 47.2 million, which comprised Elio and Verne at the time. Signed and completed divestments to date by the board of InfraRed now represent a total of GBP 86 million, following a very significant year through 2025 for those divestments. Needless to say, liquidity at the fund level has significantly benefited as a result of this disposal activity, with the majority of these proceeds soon to be repatriated to investors via the intended capital reduction mechanism later this month, which James mentioned. The cash component of the NAV reflects net remaining proceeds from completed divestments of GBP 33 million, post working capital requirements, and deleverage of the company balance sheet to expedite return of capital to shareholders. Lastly, of course, the loss per share is a function of movement in NAV per share, reflective of the completed disposals, and valuation adjustments, which I've already discussed. Moving on to the valuation bridge, this illustrates the components of the NAV reduction through the year. Moving left to right, the first two positive movements are in Elio and Verne, and clearly the major story here is Arqiva, which has been revalued to nil net of the vendor loan note from CPPIB, or the VLN, as we'll refer to it. On Elio, there's been a GBP 0.008 per share uplift in value due to growth and improvements in trading performance and management incentives. We'll note that in line with previous valuation, the Elio valuation remains an organic growth case, with no uplift yet assumed from the M&A strategy or debt. In addition to this, as James explained, you can see that we've had an uplift due to the realized settlement on Verne, which represents GBP 0.007 per share, due to the realized outcome of GBP 10 million versus a valuation of GBP 4 million at prior year-end. On Arqiva, as we're all well aware, this represents a highly levered position for D9, as we discussed at last year's results presentation, particularly given the VLN has a highly sensitive valuation as a result. The valuation movement to December follows, of course, the decision of Macquarie and IFM to sell their stakes at a valuation well below the VLN, at a level which we see as reflecting the value of future potential upside scenarios without current certainty on key policy decisions or refi terms. Other movements, to move to the last block, relate to HoldCo costs over the period, which make up the remaining delta and leave you with a NAV per share of GBP 0.093. To move on to the portfolio breakdown, Elio Networks to begin with, before we move on to Arqiva. I'll give you a brief update on trading performance and the M&A strategy. Elio delivered a strong performance in 2025, continuing with headline revenue growth of 7% and earnings growth of 3% throughout the year, despite continued price pressure in the Irish market. Elio's earnings resilience reflects continued operating cost discipline and an inherent ability to resist cost increases through ownership of its own network, as well as a continued focus on higher-margin enterprise-grade products, which attracted several new key customers, institutional customers, through the year. This performance compares favorably to many competitors who suffered from earnings compression through the year due to significant cost increases and price competition, supporting Elio's strong relative position against its peers. I think that leads us well into the value maximization approach, which we're taking on the M&A strategy. To provide an update there, as shareholders will recall, InfraRed and the board elected not to proceed, and James touched on this with the previous live sale process by D9, in favor of retaining Elio to optimize value for investors ahead of an exit. This was in contrast to other assets which the board and InfraRed deemed as appropriate to sell, given our assessment of value-add potential in the hands of D9 in particular, and the need to return capital to shareholders. For Elio, it was clear at the point of the prior sale effort that the business was subscale to attract greatest investor appetite, and that there was significant potential for inorganic growth in line with D9's initial investment thesis for Elio. Given that, the board and InfraRed worked with Elio management to determine an incremental M&A strategy, and this has since had significant progress in its implementation. This work has required several priority workstreams to be progressed in parallel, including a debt raise at the Elio level, market mapping, and multiple live discussions with potential acquisition targets. In terms of implementation, the repayment of the RCF was a critical milestone to enable debt funding to be raised at the Elio company level, which previously wouldn't have been permitted. This acquisition finance is now in place with the signing of a EUR 30 million debt package with AIB, and that support from an Irish pillar bank really provides strong endorsement of the potential value of that intended M&A strategy. In parallel with that, InfraRed's been working with Elio management and Irish advisors to map the market and prioritize target outreach. That's culminated in several live discussions to date, which are progressing towards Elio's first incremental acquisition, which is targeted for the second or third quarter of this year. Whilst we do fully intend to implement the strategy as expediently as possible, we're also proceeding with a phased approach, starting with more modest targets. That's of course in recognition of D9 investor risk appetite, while seeking to maximize value within the target realization timeframe. That's Elio, and I'll hand over to Mike who now go into more detail on Arqiva. Thanks, Marc. The crux with Arqiva, as has been referred previously, is the VLN really makes D9's position very sensitive to the view taken on the longer-term cash flows. The business in 2025 is actually performing broadly in line with expectations. Revenue's stable. The EBITDA reduction you can see if I'm looking to the bottom right of this slide, that's actually as expected as the business mix is gradually switching from broadcast to the lower-margin metering revenue, but it's still positive margin. Operations have been smooth, including a strong delivery on the current AMP smart meter installation. The fact remains that as at year-end, the company's equity valuation in Arqiva is now nil net of the VLN. What's driven that? That's primarily driven by the market data points that we've had, i.e., the two exits by Macquarie and IFM that we previously announced. Both of those parties have held for a long period and are arguably mostly those sellers, but there are two transactions. On the back of that, we've also taken a more conservative view of future cash flows in our own modeling, trying to be more consistent with those market data points, principally around the policy outcome on broadcast and also on the margins for the commercial businesses. The board and the Investment Manager believe this represents an appropriately prudent position for D9 to take. It's important to stress that this nil valuation is driven by the VLN. Arqiva itself is cash flow positive. The current performance is on track, and Arqiva is able to service its own debt at the Arqiva level. Having said that, if we go to the next slide, while the equity valuation is nil today, we still believe Arqiva has potential for material value realization for D9. The value is very sensitive to a small number of levers, for example, the policy outcomes on broadcast and some of the pricing in the commercial businesses. As sensitized in the cash flows, around the case, there are plausible upside scenarios, and in fact, only marginal improvements in some of the key value drivers would bring value back above the VLN level for D9. In addition to that, InfraRed continues to explore additional routes to value enhancement, so that might include smarter routes to realization and also exploring emerging opportunities for our extensive network of critical national infrastructure. Those are inherently harder to quantify at this stage and therefore not reflected in the valuation either. To reiterate, we believe Arqiva still represents a material value opportunity for D9. If anything, the two sale transactions we've had vindicate D9's belief more time was always going to be needed on this asset. We need to resolve the key uncertainties and improve the visibility for prospective buyers of this asset to give us the best chance of realizing positive value for D9, in particular, resolving the broadcast policy outcome, which is likely over the next two years. Now I'll hand back to James to conclude. Thank you, Mike, for that. To wrap up, I guess I'll finish where I started and sort of reinforce that 2025 was a very challenging year, but it was also a year where the company took some really tough decisions and delivered on some hard milestones. The balance sheet stabilized. The key realizations have been completed, and cash is soon to be returned to shareholders. Generally, the uncertainty has been materially reduced in the fund. That puts us really into the next phase of the managed wind down, which I've talked about previously, which involves the disciplined execution, orderly return of capital to shareholders, and the active value work in the remaining portfolio that Marc and Mike have touched on in Elio and Arqiva. Despite the continued volatility in the Arqiva valuation, the first phase, and that's the sort of the reset work, is largely done. We're now focused on converting what remains into shareholder returns in a disciplined and timely manner. I thank everyone, and we're happy to take any questions that anyone may have. We'll just move to virtual questions now. We've had a question in on Arqiva, and there are a couple of questions here. This question centers around what the plausible upside scenario and future value levers entail, and what work will the board and the Manager be doing to realize maximum value on Arqiva? Sure. Thanks, Mo. Well, I guess the first one is on the policy outcome. The company, with the board's input, is currently engaged with the Government's process to determine what its policy is on future broadcast, and that essentially goes to the longevity of the cash flows in the core broadcast business. That could just come straight back to the net present value of the business. The next is on the pricing in the commercial part of the broadcast business. We are working with the management team to make sure that we are responding appropriately to our competitors' pricing behavior and trying to keep our revenue as strong as we can. We are also moving the Company to be more focused on costs than it has been in the past, in a way to push margins up as far as we can. The other sort of major uncertainty that needs to be resolved, but with some variability around potential outcomes is on the long-term aspects of the capital structure at the Arqiva level. We're undertaking a strategic review of the capital structure with the board at present. `Thanks, Mike. A question on Elio. What is the basis of the increase in valuation in Elio in 2025 given EBITDA is unchanged? Were there comparable transactions in the market? Also, EUR 30 million debt available based on current business, is it based on current business or some of it assumes additional M&A business to be included in the bank's collateral? The valuation is fundamentally based on a discounted cash flow analysis. I think what we've seen throughout the year, notwithstanding last 12 months EBITDA, which did increase by 3% as I noted, is that there's improved trading performance, and recent wins for the business, which will improve earnings from next year onwards. That really improves the future cash flow expectations of Elio, which is reflected in the valuation you're seeing. It's not as a result of our view of necessarily a fundamental change in the valuation of these sorts of businesses or any significant comparables that we've attached to that. In terms of the debt, how that's been raised, it's effectively, and I think we've put this detail elsewhere, that's really a EUR 15 million committed facility and a EUR 15 million uncommitted, or accordion facility. That's been raised entirely on the basis of Elio's current balance sheet capacity. It's not reliant on, I suppose, earnings from future acquisitions to have raised that, which is clear through the fact that it's been raised to date, without those acquisitions having been taking place. That uses the latent balance sheet capacity, which Elio already had through its existing earnings and cash conversion. Thanks, Mark. A question on the net cash. Given net cash as of 31st December was GBP 13 million, GBP 10 million additionally comes from Verne, does it imply that after the GBP 13 million distribution, there'll be GBP 18 million cash remaining? What is the reason to hold cash at such a level rather than distributing? I think we've covered that in sort of previous discussions. It's essentially to manage working capital and liquidity over the next few years. We do not want to put ourselves into a sort of forced seller dynamic, where we have to dispose of an asset to keep operating. It's a prudent view at this point in time, to allow us to keep operating and maximize the value outcome for shareholders. Clearly, if things change over the short to medium term, then we can reassess that working capital requirement. Marc, probably for you again on Elio. Yeah. Can you provide more details on potential targets for Elio? Does the leverage facility provide enough capital for the enlarged business to be of greater interest to a much larger pool of buyers? Sure. Of course, we're in live discussions, as I mentioned, with a number of different parties, and we'll be disclosing to the market when we can how those conversations culminate, if and when, to a deal. As I said, we're targeting Q2, Q3, and we hope Q2 for that first acquisition. I won't go into detail on the actual parties, but to give perhaps slightly more color or reminder on the strategy, it's looking for businesses who have the same B2B connectivity book that Elio does today, bringing those businesses' customer base into the Elio network, and then overlaying Elio's best-in-cost operating model for this sector to provide the service to those customers. That's the way we deliver earnings accretion through that strategy. It's through overlaying Elio's higher margin business model against those customer books that we're buying. It's a very simple buy and build strategy. We're not seeking to diversify the business in any way. It's just growing its existing capability and leveraging that with a strong operating performance to take on new customers at an accelerated rate. Clearly, we have to be responsive to who in the market wants to sell. We're having a conversation with a range of different counterparties. I think there's definitely enough capital there to do, let's say, at least two deals. It will really depend on who the end targets are as to how many deals we do through that funding mechanism. We've got a very good relationship with AIB. I should also mention it's a previous lender to Elio, and they really like the business. We're working closely with them to determine the next acquisition targets. Thank you, Marc. The final question that we've had submitted so far, what is the expectation of run rate DGI9 operating expenses excluding management fees? Yeah. I think you can probably look at the final slide we presented in terms of what we've done over the last 18 months since coming on board. Clearly, our focus has been on repaying the RCF, executing on realizations, getting capital back to shareholders. I think now at this phase, the next phase, as we call it, is we're really focused on simplification of the D9 structure. We're starting to strike entities off, bring down costs, retender some of the contracts that we have in place for our service providers. I don't have a number for you that I can give you now, but our expectation is that that is a key focus over the course of this year, is to bring that down to something that is commensurate with the fund size and the requirements that's needed to operate that on an ongoing basis. Thanks, James. Marc, another one for you on Elio. What is the interest margin of the new debt facility? We can revert with the exact number. I think it's around 200 basis points. Thank you. I should mention, we haven't been forced to draw down on that yet. The majority of the facility is really an RCF, and we won't have to draw the first tranche for another few months. We're hoping that coincides with our ability to deploy that money and put it to work as soon as it's required to be drawn to mitigate any sort of costs on interest. Perfect. Thank you, Marc. That concludes all the questions that we've had. May I just hand over to James just to conclude? Yeah. Back to what I've said. Despite the challenging year, we feel like good progress has been made on a number of fronts. The RCF's repaid. Numerous divestments have been closed out. The Verne outcome is, we think, a positive outcome for all parties. We now move into this active management phase that I mentioned and simplification of the D9 structure and focus on value enhancement and further capital returns to shareholders. Brilliant. Thank you. With that, thank you to all attendees for joining. Any further questions you can submit to the company secretary. Email address is provided on the RNS that was sent out for registration for this, or you can email us directly as well. Our details are on all of the RNSs issued by the company. With that, thank you very much. Thank you, guys.