Bonjour. Good afternoon, and welcome to those in the room and those joining us online to this special meeting of Marsden Maritime Holdings shareholders. For those online, you are missing a fantastic scenic view of the Northport and a well-maintained lawn. I am Benoît Marcenac, Chair of Marsden Maritime Holdings. Before we begin proceedings, there are a few matters to cover. There is a single resolution to be considered today, the scheme resolution, regarding the consortium's acquisition of all those shares in Marsden Maritime, not already held by Northland Regional Council. All shareholders can vote on the resolution. Before that happens, I'll walk you through how the voting will work, including the different shareholder classes and voting thresholds that apply to each. The results will be announced on the NZX soon after the conclusion of the meeting. There will be an opportunity to ask questions later in the meeting before you vote on the resolution. Please hold any questions until we reach the Q&A section, and we will welcome both online and in-person questions. For those of you joining online, I will cover how to ask questions and vote shortly. For those of you in the room, bathrooms are located down the corridor adjacent to the door you entered on arrival this afternoon. In the very unlikely event of an emergency, please follow instructions from the team. The emergency exits are at the far end of this room on the north side and back through the entrance you came in. Our assembly point, sorry, is by the flagpole in the car park over there on the south side of this building. I am pleased to confirm that we have a quorum of more than five shareholders present, and therefore I declare this meeting open. Thank you for joining us for this important meeting where you, our shareholders, will consider and vote on the proposed scheme of arrangement. I would like to introduce the directors who are present today and thank them all for their work related to the scheme to get us where we are today: Tony Gibson, John Sproul, Gwyneth Macleod, Christine Pears, Jared Pitman. Thanks for your contribution this morning. We just came out of an intense board meeting, so thank you very much. The leadership team: our Chief Executive Rosie Mercer, our Chief Financial Officer Vidura Galpoththage, our Head of Operations and Property Carrie Williams. Where is she? Here, sorry. I will mention our Head of Development, Mark Forrester, although he's away on annual leave today. We are also joined today by our Legal Counsel, David Jones, and Angela Hansen from Heimsath Alexander Law. Our Transaction Advisor, Toby Grosser from Jarden, Mark Tappenden, and the team from Computershare over there, our share registrars. Back in the room somewhere, Brent Penrose and Albert John Paul de Leon from our Auditors EY. The scheme booklet, which was here as well, which contains the notice of meeting and the Independent Advisor's Report, has been circulated to all shareholders and is taken as read. I can confirm, sorry, that we have received valid proxies from 175 shareholders representing 35,186,976 votes. These will be counted towards the poll on today's resolution. Online questions. Thank you, Rosie, for being my clicker today. For those of you attending the meeting virtually, if you would like to submit a question, the Q&A function is always open, so please feel free to submit questions throughout the meeting. These will be addressed at the relevant time. Questions may be moderated or merged if we receive multiple questions on one topic. Voting today will be conducted by way of a poll. I will now open the online voting for the scheme resolution. If you are eligible to vote at this meeting, you will be able to cast your vote under the Vote tab. The resolutions will allow votes to be submitted. Also, you can change your vote up until the time I declare voting closed. Here is the agenda for today's meeting. We will begin with an overview of the scheme of arrangement. I will then provide some background to the scheme. You'll hear a summary of the independent advisor's report, which assesses the merits of the scheme, including the $5.60 cash consideration. Following that, I will outline the board's recommendation and the key reasons behind our support for the scheme. We'll also cover a timeline from today forward, both if the scheme is approved and if it is not. I will then explain the voting threshold before we open the floor for shareholder questions. Finally, we'll move to the formal resolution and vote. Let's start with the overview of the scheme. In February, Marsden Maritime announced it had signed the Scheme Implementation Agreement, or SIA, with a consortium comprising Port of Tauranga Limited, Northland Regional Council, and Ngāpuhi Investment Fund Limited, Tupu Tonu. Under the SIA, or Scheme Implementation Agreement, the consortium would acquire all MMH shares on issue other than those already held by Northland Regional Council via a scheme of arrangement. Under the scheme, shareholders would receive $ 5.60 per share in cash. This represents a 73% premium to Marsden Maritime's share price of $ 3.24 at market close on 24 February, the day before the scheme was announced. The scheme is subject to a number of conditions, including community consultation by Northland Regional Council under the Local Government Act 2002. This was satisfied on 22 April when Northland Regional Council confirmed its support for the scheme following that consultation. There is also approval by Marsden Maritime shareholders, which is what brings us at this meeting today. Finally, the granting of orders by the High Court of New Zealand, which happens in two stages. Firstly, the initial orders, which occurred on 1 May, allowing the special meeting to be convened. Secondly, the final orders approving the scheme if shareholders vote in favor of the scheme today. As I will cover later, the Takeovers Panel must also issue its statement of no objection. If the scheme proceeds, Marsden Maritime would be delisted from the NZX, and the consortium would hold all shares in Marsden Maritime through a holding company that will be called Northport Group Limited. The new ownership structure would be 50% allocated to Port of Tauranga Limited, 43% to Northland Regional Council, and 7% to Tupu Tonu. The Marsden Maritime Board unanimously supports the scheme and recommends that shareholders vote in favor. We believe the offer represents a compelling outcome for shareholders, and I will touch on this further later in the meeting. Now, we'll take a look at how we arrived at the meeting today. In August 2024, the consortium approached Marsden Maritime with an unsolicited, non-binding indicative proposal to acquire the shares in Marsden Maritime not already held by Northland Regional Council. In response, Marsden Maritime established an independent board subcommittee to consider the proposal and spent more than four months negotiating the terms with the consortium. The board also facilitated the consortium's due diligence and undertook a comprehensive process to satisfy itself that the scheme proposal was in the best interest of shareholders other than Northland Regional Council, whose shares are not the subject of the proposal. Of note, no dividend was paid for the half year to December 2024. This was a requirement of the Scheme Implementation Agreement, sorry, in order to preserve value in the company and protect the price per share, which will be paid to shareholders under the scheme. In signing the SIA, the Marsden Maritime Board concluded that the scheme represents a compelling option for shareholders and an opportunity to unlock value now. Elements of the scheme, including the benefits of a consolidation of Marsden Maritime and Northport, were considered as part of substantial works by Marsden Maritime's board to review the company's capital funding structure to ensure the delivery of its land use and development strategy. As a key pillar of our strategic roadmap, this had been signaled to all shareholders, including Northland Regional Council, at annual meetings since 2021. As part of the scheme process, with the approval of the Takeovers Panel, the D irectors appointed Grant Samuel and Associates Limited as the independent advisor. Its role was to analyze the merits of the scheme, including an assessment of the value of Marsden Maritime. In Grant Samuel's opinion, the full underlying value of Marsden Maritime shares is in the range of $ 5.06-$ 5.83 per share. This represents the value of 100% of the equity in Marsden Maritime and reflects the price a purchaser would pay for the entire company. The price scheme of $ 5.60 per share sits above the midpoint of this range, as you can see on this graph. Your directors are independent and free of conflicts. After careful assessment, we unanimously recommend that you vote in favor of the scheme. We consider that the scheme is the most attractive option for shareholders and believe the reasons for you to vote in favor outweigh the reasons for you to vote against. The scheme provides an opportunity to realize certain value for your shares now for 100% cash consideration. It's an all-cash payout that gives you full value upfront without uncertainty or delay. $ 5.60 per share is within the independent advisor's valuation range of $ 5.0-$ 5.83 per share. In fact, it's above the midpoint, which supports the view that the price is compelling. $ 5.60 per share also represents a material premium to pre-announcement trading. Before this proposal was announced, Marsden Maritime shares were trading at much lower levels. The offer represents a 73% premium to the last closing price of $ 3.24 on the day before the scheme was announced. There is a risk Marsden Maritime's share price could potentially fall to pre-announcement levels if the scheme is not implemented, removing the premium currently reflected in the market. Immediately after the scheme was announced, a large shareholder agreed to vote in favor of the offer. Port of Auckland, which owns nearly 19.9% of Marsden Maritime, agreed with the consortium to support the scheme. Its commitment reflects confidence in the value of the offer and strengthens the likelihood of the scheme succeeding. Additional support from corporate and institutional shareholders has been secured by the consortium. The three further shareholder voting agreements received from Salt Funds Management Limited, M.A. Jensen Limited, and ACC represent an additional 7.175% of Marsden Maritime shares agreed to be voted in favor of the scheme. No superior offer has emerged since the scheme was announced, and the directors do not believe that a better offer is likely to emerge. Finally, shareholders will not be required to pay any brokerage charges on the transfer of the shares to the consortium under the scheme. All transaction costs are covered. For all these reasons, the board firmly believes the scheme is in the best interest of shareholders. I'll quickly cover what will happen next depending on the outcome of today's vote. If the required vote thresholds are met today, and I will go through them in more detail shortly, the next step is for Marsden Maritime to provide the results of the voting at this meeting. Two, the Takeovers Panel will request a statement of no objection, which confirms that the panel has reviewed the scheme and has no objection to the High Court making final orders to approve the scheme. We'll send the statement of no objection along with the results of the vote to the High Court with an application for final orders. The indicative date for that hearing is 11 June 2025. If those final steps are satisfied, the scheme becomes binding, and we move into the implementation phase. On this one, the indicative timeline is as follows. Three working days after the court final order, shares will be suspended from trading on the NZX. We will have the record date expected on about the 19th of June 2025. All shareholders who hold shares at 5:00 P.M. On that date will then be paid the scheme price of $5.60 per share in cash on the implementation date. That's currently expected to be the 26th of June 2025. On the implementation date, it's intended Marsden Maritime will be delisted from the NZX. Please make sure that you compute the share as your correct bank account details if shareholders vote to approve the scheme today, of course. You can find more information about how to do this in the scheme booklet. Any change to these time frames will be announced to the NZX. If the scheme is not approved by shareholders or the court, Marsden Maritime will remain listed, and you will retain your shares. If that were to be the case, the board will continue to pursue the company's strategic objectives, including its ongoing review of Marsden Maritime's capital funding structure, work that is essential to delivering Marsden Maritime's land use and development strategy. Before we move to shareholder questions, I'd like to briefly cover the voting thresholds and classes. To proceed, the scheme requires approval under two thresholds. The first is that 75% or more of the votes cast in each interest class must be in favor. Additionally, more than 50% of all MMH shares entitled to vote must be voted in favor. The court has determined that there are three distinct interest classes for voting: Northland Regional Council, NRC, as a promoter of the scheme; Lindsay Mark Faithfull, as a director of Tupu Tonu; and all other shareholders. Each class must meet the 75% approval threshold independently. If the scheme is approved by shareholders and later approved by the court, it will become binding on all shareholders, including those who voted against it or did not vote at all. We will now open the floor for shareholder questions about the scheme. If you are in the room, please raise your hand, and I'll invite you to speak. We ask that you state your name before asking your question. We have Jackie here with a microphone so that everyone, including the ones online, can hear us. If you're joining us online, please use the Q&A function in the meeting platform to submit your question. A reminder that questions may be moderated or merged if we receive multiple questions on one topic. Are there any shareholder questions regarding the scheme? Vidura, if you have any questions online. There are two questions. I'll ask the questions for you. Hi, Bernard. There's a couple of questions through online. First question is from Grant Diggle, Proxy New Zealand Shareholders Association. NZSA notes the pressure on local bodies as regards funding and possible concerns as to whether NRC will have the capacity for future capital requirements. We also note, however, the inclusion of Port of Tauranga as a partner of NRC. The question is funding questions or funding pressures at a council level. Sorry. The question from NZSA is, is there the noting a concern whether local bodies have any pressures on funding future growth of MMH? I'm not sure I fully get the question. Are we talking about the future? Yeah. We are not private to the consortium and the Port of Tauranga discussions. That will be the chapter after today's event. I hope I understood the question. Yeah, that's the question's answer. Next question. There are two questions from the same person, Jonathan Brian Mitchell. First question. It's likely that POT and NRC have been in discussions over moving activities to Northport. That being the case, I feel that Port of Auckland as a related party has legal advice been taken on this. Thank you for this question. All I can answer, and I think it's pretty straightforward, is the fact that we are not privy to a consortium and Port of Tauranga discussions. I can't really say more about that. Thank you. Last question from, again, from Jonathan Brian Mitchell. It's a long question, so I'm going to try and simplify it. I'm listening. It's a question regarding the fair valuation of the price of shares. It's not similar to Napier Port or Southport. MMH has much more potential to take over Port of Auckland activities. He's listed out a few of those opportunities like the rail spur and the motorway upgrade. As shareholders, he would like to know, has this been considered in the valuation report? Look, on this one, thank you for the question. I will start by saying that the board is a very shareholder-centric body. Our job, our mission, is to look after shareholders. We've assessed the merit of the scheme based on our knowledge of the business and the company. There was a period of negotiation for us to reach a price which is well above what was initially offered to us. As part of the process, we had to appoint an independent advisor. As you have seen on the graphs before, we believe that the value where we land was backed, well, we do not believe, factually the value is backed by the independent advisory board. The conclusion has been made on the merits of the bid and the pricing. Once again, we have definitely looked after the shareholders' interest. The aim was to allow these shareholders to unlock the best value we think now. I hope it is clear. Yes, Jackie? Thank you. Michael Rutland, shareholder. Can you tell us how the board ensured independence of decision-making? The reason I ask is at the last meeting when we had a new director put on, it turned out that all of the directors had been recommended by Northland Regional Council. There was not actually a director on the board who was not recommended by NRC who are a promoter of the scheme. I'll answer you on this one because before having the privilege to chair MMH, which might be the record of the shortest tenure in the MMH history, I was part of the board nomination committee. Although the incoming directors had to go through a process which involved NRC, this panel also included two MMH directors, and consensus had to be reached to appoint directors. All I can say is that directors are not only independent, but maybe that's also very important, have nothing to gain financially in the conclusion of the scheme. Yes, sir. [Gordon], take a one-two point. Do any of the do any of our board members or yourself have any shares in the company? Not at all. And directly or indirectly? Not at all. Okay. Thank you. Straightforward. Yes, sir. Neil Campbell. I did remember the closing. Sorry. Sorry. A bit closer. Yeah. At the closing address from the previous chairman, Murray Jagger, his sentence read, can no one hear? No. Okay. He said, "Now that all the directors have been appointed by the Northland Regional Council, they need to remember the interests of the small shareholders." Correct. Yeah. That was actually falsely reported to the NZX as saying he needed that the small shareholders could only be represented by the shareholders association. Now, that's a private business. It's not their job to look after small shareholders. Basically, all of the decisions made have come directly from the regional council because every single director has been appointed by the regional council. The directors were ultimately appointed by NRC, but went through a rigorous process through a board nomination committee. All directors had to declare their independence so that all directors at any point in time would work for the best interest of the business, number one. Number two, equally. It's not one and two by order of importance. Number two, looking after the interest of all shareholders. I might be out of line, but we negotiated hard to get to the value of $ 5.60 for the benefit of all shareholders. Look, can I look ahead a few years? Most of the increased value of the new company is going to go directly to the Port of Tauranga because they get now 50% of all the rental properties, the biggest industrial area in single ownership in the country, and the marina, the whole out area. That's where the potential value is. The existing shareholders are getting nothing out of that at all. I could, I mean, I could have a chat around a coffee or a glass of wine with you on that for a long time. I guess this is more a matter of the consortium to discuss. I'm not privy to what has been agreed between them. As I said before, we've been approached through this unsolicited offer. What we have to keep in mind as well, just to add a bit of water to this explanation, is the fact that I talked before about the significant funding requirements for our vision to be realized. We knew that funding aside, this was going to take a long time. All I'm saying is that the value that can be unlocked for all shareholders is a value that can be unlocked now without having to wait for the X number of years that the exercise could have taken. I'm not sure if that answers you. That's very debatable, but obviously, you've made your mind up. It's debatable, but once again, what we negotiated, sir, eventually got backed by the independent values work. There's one more question online from the same person as before, Jonathan Brian Mitchell. He would like a follow-up question, which is the question is, what does our Chief Executive know about the moving of Port of Auckland activities to Northport? On this one, I can tell you straight away that if we talk about Rosie, Rosie Mercer, she's absolutely not private to this type of information. I will not comment further on that. Yes, sir. Hello. My name's Brian Robertson, and me and my wife, as far as the share price prior to the $5.60 offer, was way below value, way below. In fact, we've been trying to buy shares all the way since the last annual report. We only got a few handful here and there and whatever. All of a sudden, they come up with a scheme of $ 5.60, whereas you go back two, three years, 2021, and it was NZD 7. Its value is low at $ 5.60. I don't care about the independent review. That's it. Thank you for your question. I wouldn't be able to comment on the various movements of the stock exchange. All I can tell you, sir, is that the board acting independently after having appointed its subcommittee to look into the scheme more precisely assessed the merit of the scheme. This assessment was the lead to the negotiation which took place. We need to bear in mind that it took a while because, yeah, I talked to you about the four-month negotiations. All I'm saying is that the price of $5.60 is indeed well above the initial offer we got. Yeah, we assessed the merits of the scheme, then negotiated, and there is no link whatsoever between what we did and what was the outcome of the independent valuer. We just felt that the independent valuer's report backed our assessment. We believe that the $5.60 is a very compelling outcome for shareholders. That might not fully answer you, but that's really the process which took place. Madam? Sorry. There's one more question online, Benoit, from Paul and Gwyneth Scott. If the scheme is rejected, would the consortium increase their offer? I feel the future once a consortium is in ownership is huge and has not been factored into the offer price. If the no, the answer is no. Life will go on and MMH will remain a solely listed entity. Thank you. Madam? Madam? Thanks. My name's Eve Rutland. I'm just a shareholder. I was just wondering, there's three voting blocks. Do we voting classes, yeah? Yeah. Do we already know anything about the council and the other? Have they all gone over the margin? Is it just the shareholders that need to vote now? It is all shareholders which need to vote. As I indicated in my address, other than NRC, who supported the scheme right from the start, there were known voting outcomes amongst them, Port of Auckland, in favor of the scheme. If any of those blocks do not reach their targets, then if none—sorry, sorry. To put it even more simply, if one of these classes were not reaching the 75% threshold, that would not be a yes vote. Right. Thank you. you. Sir? Hi, Francis Warren. Could I just ask, if the company continued as it is at the moment, maybe you need funds, raising capital, whatever, would there be growth for us? And why should we move on with consortium and just retain the shareholders? That is a good question, sir. To the first part of your question, if, as I said before, I think we would need to look at options to fulfill the way we could get through the relevant funding requirements. How long would it take? I would need a very big crystal ball for that. I have no idea. It would be a matter of years, of course. To the second part of your question, when we got approached by the consortium, in the offer, there was no such possibility to retain the existing shareholders on board. That was not an option whatsoever as part of the offer we received. Why does the consortium think they can do better than running the company as it is, and the directors doing a really good job of it? You might have to ask them. You might have to ask the consortium. That is not something I could answer on behalf of the consortium. It must have been looked at. Once again, our role, I mean, there can be what we think. We are emotional and passionate individuals. However, our mission was to work for the merit and for the best interest of shareholders. We thought that unlocking this value of $ 5.60 per share now was in the best interest of shareholders. There are not many companies around like Marsden Maritime that has holdings in land, ports, retail, residential, boatyards. Show me another company that's like that. And it's undervalued. You are absolutely right, sir. We took that into account when we, as the board, assessed the merit of the scheme. I can say for sure that when the independent valuer did their work, without the two being linked, they did the same. All you talk about is true, but was taken into account in the overall assessment. You must think it's going to work miracles with splitting it up, sir. The shareholders are going to lose out. That's all I can say. No competing offer. There was no competing offer. What people recognize the value, they would have paid 80% or they don't. I think they probably do, but they would think about $5.60. Yes, sir. Last time I was here at the annual shareholders meeting, the future of this company was looking really bright, particularly with Northport's developments and future things. I'm involved with Marsden Point Oil Refinery, Canal Infrastructure. What property that the refinery is using belongs to the port company, like the wharfs or any land adjacent to those wharfs? Are they part of the port company? My other question is no, I don't think they are right now. Thank you very much for that. The railway line coming to Marsden, the branch line, is that going to be fast-tracked under this government's fast-track schemes? How soon is that going to happen compared to what they were talking at the annual shareholders meeting of 10 years? That could increase the value of this port quite highly if we can tie up with the main trunk line, Auckland Ports to here. The other issue is what's today's shareholding dollar value? Can you tell me that? Your offering is $5.60, aren't you? Yeah, the offer is $5.60 per share. Yeah, it's $5.54 today on the NZX. Yeah, $5.54, maybe $5.58 before, yes. Yeah. The value of $5.60 is pretty low compared to what we could have in 10 years' time if we hold, stay here. Getting rid of the public means there's no public input on what's going to happen here. The public needs to have that input. With due respect, sir. It shouldn't be left to the council and directors coming from the council. It should be the taxpayers and ratepayers of this country who are the shareholders now of the company. They need to stay there and keep control of what's happening to our port, which has got a big future. I'm an engineer by trade. When I heard what you were going to do with this port, it's the best thing for Northland since we've lost the refinery. That is going to come back shortly. Don't worry about that. I cannot talk on behalf of NRC, but with due respect, sir, we can't compare the $5.60 offer with what has been the share price over the last few days because obviously this share price rose to get closer to what was going to be the final offer. We would have to go a bit before. As I said before, just when the scheme, after the scheme was, the SIA was signed and the scheme was announced, the share was trading at $ 3.24. We still have this premium of 73% compared to that time. It could go higher. It could go lower. That's the stock exchange for you. Yes, madam. Excuse me, please. Good afternoon. My name is Sue Robertson, so I'm another shareholder. Just a query on the independent report around the Northport expansion that didn't get consent. Now, did they actually factor in the probable consent of that now, if this goes ahead? And the fact that it's on the fast track. I'm not sure I can. The overall real subject was obviously considered by everyone, including the independent valuer. I cannot tell you precisely what was the process in the, how could I say that, in the overall assessment. Yes, that was taken into account. Any other questions? What's the timeframe for the railway line coming in? Can we use your matrix? As I said, what is the timeframe for the railway line arriving here at Marsden Point? Because that's a big critical part of any increased value of this business. Sorry, excuse me, is that timeframe for what? The rail. The rail. It's hard to tell. We don't really know. All I can tell you is that there would have been, there will be a business case presented by KiwiRail to the government. However, as we know, when it comes to rail, that is a very political issue. The only thing we know is that there was a significant amount of land which got purchased by KiwiRail. Other than that, we have absolutely no idea on the timeline. Yes? There should not be any delay in getting railway sleepers and railway iron because I come from up Keri Keri Way and I can take you to numerous sites around there that have got heaps and heaps of sleepers, concrete sleepers, and kilometers of railway track. They could be brought here tomorrow and this railway line could be pushed through here. Within 12 months, you could probably have something happening. I agree with you, sir. Perhaps we could say the same thing about the road. Why does it take such a long time to build the motorway up here? Once again, it is not an answer that I could have for you. Unfortunately, I would love to. We're talking 20 km of railway line. Yeah. And we're talking about 25 km of motorway. And we're talking about years. Yeah, I share your maybe. All I can say is that I share your frustration, but I cannot fix that from where I stand. That railway line could be part of the main highway as well. It's recently come along. It's swapping area. It's looking at delays. 142 shipped to Causeway soon to fill the funding for the Hagsden Road. To do a rail bridge to Causeway, right to the past, which is right to Portland. Thank you. Highway going into a railing and take all that cut there and bring it down and pull it back forward west. Thank you, sir. If no more question, we'll move to the formal sorry. Yes, sir. Yeah, my name's Chris Ball, just a shareholder. With the Ngāpuhi buying into this latest setup, is that a trust? Do they pay tax on the profit they get from the port? I know it's an odd question, but hey, the country's going broke and not many people are paying tax. And that's 7.5% that may not be taxable. Sir, are you asking me? Yes. I don't have his answer. You would have to ask them. God help us. If no further questions, we'll now move to the formal resolution. Thank you, Rosie. The scheme resolution is as follows. That the scheme, the terms of which are described in the scheme booklet, be and is either approved. I guess there were a lot of questions, many more than what I was expecting. Any particular comments on the resolution? If no further question, I guess it is time to proceed with voting on the resolution. Voting will be conducted by way of a poll. For those of you in the room who have not yet voted, you can do so using your voting card. Your completed voting card will be collected after the poll is closed. For shareholders attending online, please ensure you cast your vote under the vote tab in the platform. You can change your vote at any time until I declare the poll closed. For clarity, my fellow directors and I intend to vote all proxies we have received in favor of the resolution as set out in the notice of meeting, unless otherwise directed. Please cast your votes. Would you get me a glass of water? I need it. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for having voted and thank you, Mark, for having collected the votes. I will close the voting online very shortly. Computershare. Sorry, voting papers, that's done. The results of this vote will be released to the stock exchange later today. Thank you. The voting online is now closed. Here are the results of the proxy votes we have received ahead of today's meeting. As of the proxy deadline, which was 2:00 P.M. on Tuesday, 27th of May, we had received valid proxy forms from 175 shareholders representing 85.20% of the total shares. Of those proxies received, 98.43% have been cast in favor of the scheme resolution and 0.66% against the scheme. All votes cast today, both in person and online, will now be collected and counted along with the proxies already received. The poll will be independently scrutineered by Marsden Maritime Holdings auditor EY. The verified results will be announced to the NZX platform later today. For those attending in person, you are welcome to stay and join us for drinks. I would like to go to maybe a bit more of an emotional part of the meeting and to take a moment to extend my sincere thanks. First, to the directors, past and present, thank you for your leadership of Marsden Maritime Holdings. What we have achieved together over the years extends well beyond the scheme. Your work in overseeing the company, including establishing the strategy and the land use and development framework and master plan, has ensured Marsden Maritime Holdings is well positioned for the future and will continue delivering for the Northland economy. Additionally, securing the relationship agreement with Patuharakeke and creating the conditions that enabled the management team to drive top-line revenue and EBIT growth year on year for the past three years, despite a challenging economic environment, reflects the strength of your leadership. If this scheme does proceed, this will be the last formal meeting of directors with our shareholders present. I wish to pay tribute to the directors for the role they've played in guiding this company. On a personal note, I feel very privileged to have led our board since December. Although a short tenure, we had an incredibly productive time. While professionally dealing with all the steps within the rigorous scheme process, we never lost our focus on pursuing our strategic initiatives, looking after shareholders, and all our team members whom I would like to thank for all their hard work. To our management team, namely Rosie Mercer, our CEO, and Vidura Galpoththage, our CFO, thank you on behalf of the whole board for the commitment and professionalism you have brought into this process. Your leadership has been exceptional and is deeply appreciated. Finally, a thank you to the advisors who have helped us bring this scheme to shareholders. Your insights and contribution have been invaluable. Heimsath Alexander, our legal advisors, Montarne, our transaction advisors, Sherson Willis, and Nick Porter. Finally, thank you to shareholders who have attended today, both in person and online. It is important that all shareholders have their say on decisions like this. This is a significant moment for Marsden Maritime Holdings. As you've heard, the board believes the scheme represents a compelling outcome. We now close the meeting. Naamihi, merci, and thank you very much.