Any questions, please submit them at the Q&A section at the bottom of your screen. With that, Roland, I will let you take over. Thank you, Aashi, and thank you everyone who's listening today about Innventure. As Aashi mentioned, I'm Roland Austrup, I'm Chief Growth Officer. I think what I'm going to do today is talk first about who Innventure is, what our business model is, then talk about the portfolio companies that we have today. We know that there's a lot of interest in the third company we created, Accelsius, which is involved in data center cooling. We'll spend a little bit of time talking about that in more detail. With that, you can all read the disclaimers on your own. What Innventure is we are a technology commercialization company. We commercialize industrial B2B technologies that address major unmet market needs. We do that by working with multinational corporations. We focus exclusively on working with multinational corporations that have deep R&D budgets that, as part of their R&D program, will look to develop solutions for unmet market needs that they or their customers have that they can't find a solution for in the marketplace. Important thing to understand about that is we're not looking for incremental businesses. We're looking for businesses that address major unmet market needs and make substantive improvements in business processes. We're trying to create companies that can achieve an enterprise value of greater than $1 billion. We have a very proprietary downselect process. It's a four-stage process where we will evaluate the unmet market need. We will quantify the size of that unmet market need. We'll then go into an assessment of the technology, its TRL level, its ability to scale. We then go into a financial qualification, which really means we're looking to ensure that anything that we create has an economic motivator to compel adoption. If a customer does not have an economic motivator, they tend not to adopt new technology solutions. We also look for our multinational partner to be either an initial client or a channel to the marketplace to help compel adoption. To date, we've launched four companies, which you can see here. First company we created was PureCycle Technologies. It's now a public company on Nasdaq. We took it public in 2021 at about a $1.2 billion valuation. It's well above that today. Second company we created is AeroFlexx, which is sustainable packaging. Both of those technologies came from Procter & Gamble. Procter & Gamble obviously does not want to be in plastics recycling, nor in packaging, but they had a very strong interest in making sure their product went into more sustainable packaging, and that's what motivated them to find solutions to address polypropylene plastic and to create a better packaging product that combined the best attributes of a flexible package with a rigid bottle. The third company, which again, there's a lot of market interest in today, is Accelsius, which is direct to chip two-phase cooling, that the company that we collaborated with to launch that was Nokia. The latest company we launched, which was in late 2024, just after we went public, is Refinity. We collaborated with Dow on that one to get a license to a technology that they were quite interested in that came from a Finnish research lab, VTT, which takes mixed plastic waste in order to create feedstock for the products that Dow, LyondellBasell, and BASF make. Really, we're looking to create the monomers that they need as feedstock for their core business. Today, the three companies that are in our portfolio are AeroFlexx, Accelsius, and Refinity. Accelsius and Refinity, we have majority control of and consolidate their financials. AeroFlexx, we own 37% of, and we account for that on our balance sheet as opposed to consolidating their financials. It's important to know that we are at an inflection point today at Innventure. For those that have been following us, you know we went public in late 2024. In 2025, we financed most of our businesses off of our balance sheet. We had to absorb the cost of going public. As we entered into 2026, we saw real inflection points happening. We saw over $50 million in bookings from our operating companies, predominantly from Accelsius. We saw a commercial ramp there. We do expect Accelsius, we've given guidance on that. We do expect them to hit cash flow breakeven by year-end. AeroFlexx and Refinity have hit commercial and technical inflection points. I'll go into more detail in a few minutes, but as some of you may know, AeroFlexx landed Aveda, which is Prestige Beauty, as a major customer for our 2027 global launch, and for which we've already had POs on that. It's not like it's waiting till 2027. Refinity, of course, hit a major technical inflection point, demonstrating that their fluidized bed process can produce product at high yield with minimum waste or byproduct. As well, today, the other inflection point is that we got through the process of going public and becoming shelf eligible or an S-3 eligible issuer. We have a shelf live. Because of that, we've been able to backfill the infrastructure needed to manage a public company. In year one, we had a lot of external support that we needed from accounting and legal. Our G&A has materially come down at the topco level, and our board has moved to a more independent board. A real inflection point, really reflecting our maturation from an initial issuer to now a shelf-eligible or S-3-eligible issuer in the marketplace. I want to touch quickly on the opportunities we have. This is really the core of our business, what we look at. This is the Innventure story. This is the ore body we look at. It's the multinational research, which is about $1.5 trillion annually of research from the top 2,000 companies. That's where we look for transformative technologies. We're not looking for entrepreneurs. We're looking at large multinational companies that have already invested tens of millions of dollars to create a technology solution to an unmet market need. The best way to visualize it is on this slide here. Typically, if you're in venture investing or early-stage investing, startup companies have to go through that first J curve of growth, where they're creating the technology, they're validating the technology, they're taking it from a TRL of 0 and building it up. They're identifying the market need for that technology, and it's time and money. People call that the valley of death or some other acronym like that, where companies have to spend a lot of money and time, and it takes them to the brink sometimes. Multinationals don't have that problem. They have deep budgets, and they have deep market data. They can invest in technologies without facing those pressures. We tend to come in at that bottom stage there. When the technology's developed, it has a patent portfolio, and then we're looking more at scaling and execution risk. It's bringing it to market. We tend to think of Innventure as a company that has much later-stage risk profiles, not venture-stage risk profiles. We have all of the upside of an early-stage company because when we start a company, we start it from zero. We're not investing in someone else's business. We're starting it, running it, and operating it ourselves. I think I'll skip over this slide now so we can spend more time on the portfolio companies. I'll start with Accelsius because obviously that's a company that everyone has great interest in, with the tailwind around the convergence of high-performance compute and AI. This is a business that we scaled very quickly. I mentioned earlier that we created PureCycle in 2015, took it public in 2021. This is a business we started in May of 2022. This is only four years ago that we started this business, and already in less than four years, we saw it reach a valuation of $665 million post-money after the investment by Johnson Controls and Legrand in October and January of 2025 and 2026 respectively. You can see that this company has grown significantly in a very short period of time. For those of you that don't know what the technology is, it's direct chip two-phase cooling. The two-phase means that we are not using water and pumping it through that chip, and getting rid of the heat by heating the water. Rather, what we're doing is we're putting a dielectric fluid, a refrigerant through that loop. The heat from the chip causes that fluid to turn into a vapor, and it's that molecular change that captures significantly more heat than single-phase water can capture. That's one of the most significant reasons that this is the next-generation technology. The capacity to capture heat from water is limited to probably 1,500-1,800 W per socket, where we're able to remove about 4,500 W per socket. It's a much more effective way to get rid of the heat as power rack densities are increasing. I'll talk a little bit more about that here. I already talked about some of that. What is the solution? What is the reason that this is important? The main reason this is important is for most of the history of data centers to date, power rack densities weren't that high. It was really only when we got into high-performance compute and AI that power rack density started exploding with GPU chips. It used to be that power rack densities were 15 kW- 20 kW per rack. We're now at that 150 kW per rack, 200 kW per rack, and we're already seeing projections of going over a megawatt per rack. That's really what you have to build towards. That exceeds the capacity to cool with air anymore. I mentioned earlier that we always look for an economic reason. Here, we have more than an economic reason. We have an absolute necessity for high-performance compute data centers to move to liquid cooling. Their choices are single-phase water or two-phase. They cannot use air. That's really what's driving movement now, and a lot of the early movers are the greenfield developments, the ones that are focused on high-performance compute and AI. The legacy data centers will probably be the latter ones to move. Even they're going to want to adopt our solution for the economic reasons, and that's what we show at the bottom of the slide here. If you look at air cooling, we have about a 59% 10-year total cost of ownership savings compared to air cooling. The reason for that is that right now, air cooling About 40% of the energy bill of a data center is just to blow air. It's not to process data, it's to cool chips by blowing air. When you move to a direct-to-chip cooling solution, you no longer have to do that. That cost can be used to process more data. When you don't have to have those heat sinks or air pockets between your servers and your racks, you can densify a rack. A data center becomes far more profitable because you can densify it with more racks, and you can use the energy that was used to cool to process more data. A data center can become far more profitable by shifting to a liquid cooling solution. Compared to single-phase water, you're also seeing a significant advantage economically for going to two-phase cooling. You're seeing a five-year total cost of ownership savings of up to 17%, and you're seeing a 35% OpEx savings using two-phase versus single-phase water. The OpEx savings come from a number of places. In the first place, when you're using water, you have to pump more. With two-phase, you don't really have to have pumps other than micro pumps as backup, because what happens when a refrigerant vaporizes is the buoyancy of vapor allows it to rise up to the heat exchanger. You don't have to pump it up. It rises up. Then once you expel the heat and the refrigerant turns back into a liquid, gravity brings it back down the loop. You kind of have a perpetual thermosiphon in operation. There's much less energy needed to affect the system, so to speak. You also can have facility water temperatures with two-phase that are 7 degrees Celsius higher than with single-phase water. What happens because of that is your chillers aren't operating as much. You have an OpEx savings because your chillers aren't operating in the background as much, less wear and tear and less energy usage to operate those. The third area where you have a significant OpEx savings is when you have leaks. If you have leaks with water, you're going to destroy server equipment. If you have leaks with a refrigerant, it's going to vaporize instantly, and you're not going to have any damage to the electrical equipment. Tremendous reasons to move to two-phase. I think we're at that adoption cycle right now, the industry's asking the question: When do we have to make the switch? Once a data center's made the decision to go to liquid cooling and they've invested in the gray area of a data center, that's kind of in the facility infrastructure, the chillers, the heat exchangers. If they're going to go liquid, you don't have to make any further investment to switch from water to two-phase. Once you've made the infrastructure investment to go to liquid, there is no additional cost to go from one to the other. The industry's at a state now where there's a robust supplier of single-phase water. It's already being referenced in as a design, even though it's quickly being realized that the industry will have to migrate to two-phase because of the limitations of water in capturing heat and some of the problems of water. The question is when do they make the shift? When do they have to make the shift? People have been thinking up until now that, well, we can probably push this out a year or so. What's happened recently, we heard this coming out of the last event in Cannes, is that now you're seeing a lot of the pushback, the community pushback to water, of water usage, which is causing people to say, "We need to move more away from water and towards two-phase because of the pushback on water." I mentioned earlier that we can operate at facility water temperatures that are seven degrees higher Celsius. What that means is there's less evaporation of water happening from the chillers, that's where most of the water loss happens. It's in the evaporation of the chillers, not actually with single-phase water pumping water over the IT or the chips. There's not a lot of water in that system. The water is mainly in the chillers. When you can operate at a higher facility water temperature, you're going to evaporate much less water. Depending upon location, there's sort of a 20%-70% savings in water, that's a significant concern today based on the community pushback. A lot of reasons to move to two-phase. Again, the need or the limit of heat removal of water that is solved by two-phase, the economic benefit of going to two-phase, the sustainability benefit of going to two-phase because you're not using as much water. Those all add up to reasons that we think the industry's going to start adopting much more quickly. The reason it really hasn't adopted to date so far is there are only two suppliers of direct-to-chip cooling, ourselves and one other company called ZutaCore. What's interesting to note is that both companies are receiving strong interest from investors, Johnson Controls and Legrand coming into us, Carrier and a couple of others backing ZutaCore. We're really seeing we're at the early stages of this industry transformation or adoption into two-phase. Strong tailwind to Accelsius. We're an early mover. Speed to market is going to be important. We're seeing the momentum in our business. We saw in Q1. Here's a timeline of what's happened since 2025. We unveiled our two-phase cooling reference design in September of 2025. In October, Johnson Controls announced their initial investment in Accelsius of $25 million. We then introduced our NeuCool MR250, which is our next generation's multi-rack 250 kW solution. In November, we announced that our pipeline has grown. In the first year, we were doing a lot of proof-of-concept sales, and we're now seeing us migrating towards quotes that are production quotes, large production quotes. We've got a lot of activity in the marketplace right now. Shortly after that, we did announce our first deployment. We have a purchase agreement, a binding purchase agreement with DarkNX. They're a NeoCloud developer based in Ontario, which is where I happen to be based. I've actually met the principals of the company, for a data center campus that they're building in Ontario, Canada. They've adopted JCI Chillers and Accelsius's NeuCool technology as the liquid cooling solution for that data center. We then completed our Series B financing. Johnson Controls added to their investment another $10 million, and Legrand came in with $30 million. Important to note for those, these were not from the venture arms. These were strategic balance sheet investments. These are strategic investments by those companies who intend to work very closely with us on go-to-market strategies. We can't talk about that today. That would be MNPI. It's important to note that both Johnson Controls and Legrand made their investments for strategic reasons, not financial reasons into the company. I'll touch on AeroFlexx briefly now. AeroFlexx also hit a commercial inflection point. AeroFlexx was launched in 2018, takes a little bit, packaging has a longer ramp typically. Typically, I call it a long par 5. It's pretty linear on how to get there, but what you have to do is there's a lot of people in packaging that don't want to be first, but they want to be first to be second to adopt the new packaging solution. What AeroFlexx has, which is very important, is a packaging solution that combines the best attributes of a flexible package with the best attributes of a rigid package. It has a total addressable market of about $400 billion and growing because we're seeing new sectors that we didn't even know we had a market for. Think of anything that has some viscosity to it. Dish soap, body wash, shampoos, stock concentrates, condiments like ketchup, mayonnaise, mustards, industrial fluids, gear oils, motor oils. These are all addressable markets for AeroFlexx. Again, about a $400 billion market. Again, very strong reasons for industry to want to adopt the AeroFlexx package. One is sustainability. We eliminate 50%-70% of plastic that would typically go into a rigid bottle, and we can save up to 85% virgin plastic because we can use up to 50% recycled content for AeroFlexx packaging. There's a strong economic benefit because you're consolidating your supply chain. You no longer need separate cap, label, and bottle. You don't have to store all of those things. You just get a thin film, which has everything into it. The design is in the label. The valve is in that tear-off top that you see at the top there. You just simply tear it, you squeeze, it self-seals. Tremendous economic advantages in AeroFlexx. They've hit a major commercial inflection point, with Aveda, but they also have footprints in every other sector of home care, personal care, and industrial fluids. They have about a $30 million pipeline right now with about a third of that in final negotiations. We do think they're in their commercial ramp now. Refinity, lastly, we just started that company lately. About a $400 billion market for them. $350 billion is to companies like Dow, LyondellBasell, and BASF. Right now, they get their monomers for their products by taking fossil fuels and putting them through steam crackers to extract the monomers. What we're able to do is to take mixed plastic waste and put it through a fluidized bed process, which I won't get into technical terms here just to leave time for Q&A. What we do is we extract those monomers back out, we avoid the steam cracker, and it can go right back into the commercial production of the polymers that chemical companies create. We also have a path to create feedstock for sustainable aviation fuel and other high-value lubricants, which is about a $50 billion market. We do anticipate completing engineering for their first 10 kt plant, which we expect to announce later this year with a targeted startup in 2028. We are working on an offtake right now for the entirety of that plant, which can produce about $10 million revenue per year. We think with that, we may be able to get project financing as opposed to having to use equity to finance that plant. With that's the high version of the business. We're in a pretty good cash position from the raise we've done. You've seen that in our earnings releases. We have about $55 million in consolidated cash on hand right now, so we're pretty well funded, and we're now an S3 eligible issuer with good access to capital. I'll stop there at Aashi and let you turn it over to Q&A. Thank you so much for the presentation, Roland. I would like to thank everybody for listening. If you have any questions, please submit them at the Q&A section, at the bottom of your screen. Roland, I will start with a few questions that we've already got. When comparing the liquid cooling to the phase switch discussed, are you finding recent announcements of water recycling to be headwind to your solution? I'm not finding water solutions to be a headwind. We're not hearing that at all. There are ways around the water problem. You could not use potable water. That's another way to get around them. You can use wastewater. The real issue is not water recycling as a headwind. It's that water cannot capture as much heat as vapor. The only way you can capture heat from water is by heating the water and then getting the water out, pushing the water to the secondary or to the heat exchanger, where it captures the water, and the water cools down, and you push it back through. The more heat you have to remove, the faster you have to do that, and you're going to create downstream effects that are negative. You're going to create corrosion in the cold plates. What vapor does, it's the molecular change itself, and I'm not a scientist, I'm not going to try to explain it, but it's the molecular change that captures the heat. The heat affects the molecular change, so it captures far more heat than just heating up water. Right. Can we talk a little bit about the finances? How should investors think about the future ownership dilution as subsidiaries raise outside capital? Just as a follow-up, what milestones would likely trigger independent fundraising at AeroFlexx and Refinity? We're already doing the fundraising at AeroFlexx and Refinity now, what you need are the inflection points that will compel an investor to want to invest. You'll hear more about the AeroFlexx one as we talk in our next earnings call. Certainly we are seeing strong interest now both from bankers and from late-stage VC investors, so growth equity investors in AeroFlexx because they've hit that commercial inflection point. Not just the one with Aveda. We didn't announce the name of it, but we did announce that we have a multi-year, multi-million, multi-SKU agreement with a consumer products company for home care and personal care. Recently we did announce a co-man relationship, that was one of our recent press releases, which is related to that. It's to fulfill that agreement. Those are the types of KPIs you need to see to get growth equity financing. In the case of Refinity, we're also doing the same thing, and that was based on a technical milestone. We were able to demonstrate that the process works. Now we're moving to financing to go towards the 10 kt plan. In terms of funding, I think what's important to note is in our first year, we had a lot of dilution because we were funding our companies. They hadn't hit those KPIs where we could do those financings on their balance sheet. We were supporting all of our companies, plus the cost of being public in the first year, where it was much more expensive for us because we were relying on external service providers, to make sure that we could do our accounting on time and to the standard of a public company. We had higher legal and accounting costs in year one. As we announced on our previous earnings call, our G&A has come down materially. We've now hit those points where we can fund our companies off of their balance sheets. Anticipated dilution at parent company, on an annual basis, in our opinion, is probably in the high single digit now to fund our top co-expenses. That's important. It's also important to realize, even from a capital allocation standpoint, we also realize it makes more sense to fund those businesses, AeroFlexx and Refinity, on their balance sheet because Accelsius has a higher It seems to be the closest to value recognition today. Right. It makes sense not to dilute your ownership in that. Again, any money we raise at top co today is permanent dilution. Whereas if we raise money for AeroFlexx on its balance sheet or Refinity on its balance sheet, the dilution is only to those companies, not the future companies we create. Today, and until we're evergreen, meaning we can upstream enough cash to fund the creation of all of our new businesses, it makes more sense to fund our operating companies off of their balance sheet and only fund off of our top co balance sheet if necessary to maintain majority control and the ability to consolidate. That's why we made that shift in Q1 of this year. I think investors have generally seen that that's a positive sign. Definitely. The stock's been up 70% since the beginning of the year, definitely a good sign and all the good news that's come with Accelsius. Is the ultimate goal to IPO sell, or is it to continue holding these businesses? If there is an exit strategy, what happens if you take exit out of Accelsius? What happens to Innventure then? Sure. The default position and the reason Innventure went public is because we didn't want to be forced to take companies public early in order to give shareholders a rate of return. Our view was we want to own companies for the long- term. Our view was always we wanted to be a high-growth operating conglomerate, much like a Danaher or a Roper or a Constellation for the businesses that we create. However, every company's going to have a natural exit point at some point in time. You have to do those on a one-off basis. I'll give you some hypotheticals. If Innventure has an operating conglomerate valuation, but on a standalone basis, Accelsius would have a much higher valuation as a technology company in the marketplace. For us to reward our shareholders and to recognize shareholder value, it would make sense for us to take that company public. On the other hand, if we saw an offer like Ecolab gave CoolIT, you'd have to consider it. You'd have to say, "What's in the best interest of both the operating company and shareholders?" If one of those events were to happen, for example, if we were to sell a business, and we did announce this in our last call, our objective is to hold enough cash to fund our business model for three to five years. That could be $250 million to $350 million. If we sold the company for multiple billions of dollars, the excess capital we would be distributing out to our shareholders. Our business is not to hoard capital, it's to make sure we have enough surplus to run our business and a buffer to run our business. If we can't reinvest the capital and get a better rate than our investors can, we have a fiduciary responsibility to share those gains and distribute them out to our shareholders. Thank you so much, Roland. That's really helpful. We are at time, so thank you for spending your day with us today. I would like to thank everybody in the audience for spending time with us today. Thank you so much, everybody. Thank you. Thank you as well.