Please note this event is being recorded. I would now like to turn the conference over to Tripp Sullivan of Investor Relations. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning. Welcome to the Chicago Atlantic Real Estate Finance conference call to review the company's results. On the call today will be Peter Sack, Co-Chief Executive Officer; David Kite, Chief Operating Officer; and Phil Silverman, Chief Financial Officer. Our results were released this morning in our earnings press release, which can be found on the Investor Relations section of our website, along with our supplemental filed with the SEC. A live audio webcast of this call is being made available today. For those who listen to the replay of this webcast, we remind you that the remarks made herein are as of today and will not be updated subsequent to this call. During this call, certain comments and statements we make may be deemed forward-looking statements within the meaning prescribed by the Securities Law, including statements related to the future performance of our portfolio, our pipeline of potential loans, and other investments, future dividends, and financing activities. All forward-looking statements represent Chicago Atlantic's judgment as of the date of this conference call and are subject to risks and uncertainties that can cause actual results to differ materially from our current expectations. Investors are urged to carefully review various disclosures made by the company, including the risk and other information disclosed in the company's filings with the SEC. We also will discuss certain non-GAAP measures, including but not limited to distributable earnings. Definitions of these non-GAAP measures and reconciliations to the most comparable GAAP measures are included in our filings with the SEC. I'll now turn the call over to Peter Sack. Please go ahead. Thank you, Tripp. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to open this call with a brief discussion of industry developments, accomplishments in Q4, and our outlook as we begin the year. The U.S. cannabis industry turns the year on muted notes. The failure of Florida's Adult Use Ballot Initiative, lack of prioritization of federal cannabis reform, and pricing pressure in some markets have contributed to cannabis equity values and implied valuation multiples reaching near record lows. Against this backdrop, Chicago Atlantic executed a tremendous fourth quarter. Our results underscore the continued success of a strategy that places credit and collateral first, adds value to our borrowers collaboratively, and is driven by a leading team of industry experts, originators, and underwriters. We aim to create a differentiated and low-leverage risk-return profile that is insulated from cannabis equity volatility and outperforms our industry-agnostic mortgage REIT peers. Two data points which underscore these achievements now more than four years since inception. From November 4th, 2024, the eve of the November election, to March 6, 2025, REFI stock price increased from $15.13 to $16.15 per share, or 6.7%. We announced two dividends, while MSOS, the ETF which generally tracks U.S. cannabis operators, declined by 61%. The second, and perhaps more important metric, our analysis suggests that benchmarked since inception on a total return basis, assuming dividend reinvestment, REFI is the number three top-performing exchange-listed mortgage REIT. We aim to be number one. Amid industry and economic uncertainty, we focus on deploying capital with consumer and product-focused operators in limited-license jurisdictions at low-leverage profiles and supporting fundamentally sound growth initiatives. We deployed $90.7 million in gross originations in Q4 in nine investments spanning Ohio, Nevada, Illinois, Florida, Pennsylvania, Missouri, and Minnesota, among others. Diversification remains strong across 30 portfolio companies. During the year, we increased our senior secured credit facility to $110 million and closed on a $50 million unsecured term loan at attractive pricing, of which we deployed nearly half net of repayments in the fourth quarter. We delivered $2.06 per share in dividends to our shareholders in 2024. The cannabis pipeline across the Chicago Atlantic platform now stands at approximately $490 million, and we have current liquidity of approximately $67 million to fund deployment. Before I pass the mic to David Kite, my fellow Managing Partner and Chief Operating Officer, I'd like to highlight a significant achievement for which he is primarily responsible. In Q1 2025, the administrative agent completed key milestones in the foreclosure on select operating assets of loan number nine, which has been on non-accrual for some time. Members of the administrative agent were successfully affiliated with the Pennsylvania Department of Health as principals, giving them full operational control of the assets, and we hope that through operational and balance sheet restructuring, we may restore this loan to accrual status this year. Defaults, workouts, and restructurings are inevitable byproducts of direct lending. It is an area in which, despite a low default rate, we have considerable expertise, and we hope to show definitively in 2025 that we can execute for the benefit of our shareholders. David, thank you for the effort, and why don't you take it from here? Thank you, Peter. Appreciate the kind words, but it definitely was a team effort that allowed us to successfully execute on our rights and remedies for that loan. As of December 31, our loan portfolio principal totaled $410 million across 30 portfolio companies, with a weighted average yield to maturity of 17.2%. That's down from 18.3% at September 30 due primarily to the 50 basis point decrease in the prime rate across our floating rate portfolio and the originations Peter mentioned earlier, whose yields were modestly below our historical averages. Gross originations during the quarter were $90.7 million of principal funding, of which $52.6 million and $38.1 million was funded to new borrowers and existing borrowers, respectively. At year-end 2023, approximately 24% of our loan portfolio, based on outstanding principal, was insulated from the risks of declining interest rate, which we define as comprised of fixed-rate loans and floating-rate loans with floors greater than or equal to the prevailing prime rate. As of December 31, 2024, this percentage had increased to nearly 68%. The other 32% of the portfolio that remains floating is not exposed to interest rate caps at current rate levels. Similar to our outlook last quarter, there is still uncertainty surrounding tax policy, the economy, tariffs, inflation, and the direction that the Federal Reserve will take on interest rates. We believe we have made the right decisions to limit the impact of interest rate declines and benefit should interest rates rise by adjusting the mix of floating and fixed-rate loans and negotiating higher floors. Total leverage equaled 34% of book equity at year-end, compared with 24% at December 31, 2023. Our debt service coverage ratio on a consolidated basis for the year ended December 31, 2024, was approximately 5.5 to 1, compared with a requirement of 1.35 to 1. As of December 31, we had $55 million outstanding on our senior secured credit facility and had fully drawn down $50 million on our unsecured term loan. As of today, we have $38.5 million outstanding on the senior credit facility and $71.5 million of available borrowing capacity. I'll now turn it over to Phil. Thanks, David. Our net interest income of $14.1 million for the fourth quarter represented a 2.7% decrease from $14.5 million during the third quarter. The decrease was partially attributable to the 50 basis point decrease in the prime rate during the three months ended December 31st, 2024, as well as the timing of deployment of the proceeds from our unsecured notes, which closed in October 2024. For the year-end of December 31st, 2024, we recognize gross interest income from non-recurring prepayment and make-whole fees, exit fees, and structuring fees of $3.2 million, compared to $3.5 million during the prior year ended December 31st, 2023. Interest expense for the fourth quarter increased by approximately $0.4 million. The increase was driven by the interest expense on our newly closed unsecured term notes, which bear interest at a fixed rate of 9%. The full balance of the notes was advanced at closing, and the proceeds were used to temporarily repay borrowings on our revolving loan. Accordingly, weighted average borrowings on our revolving loan decreased to $23.3 million from $76.4 million during the third quarter. This partially offset the increase in interest expense from the unsecured notes. Total operating expenses, excluding management and incentive fees and the provision for credit losses, increased quarter over quarter by approximately $250,000, attributable to expense reimbursements to our manager. Our base management and incentive fees for fiscal year 2024 were $8.1 million, compared to $8.8 million in the prior year, driven by the change in core earnings as defined in our management agreement. Our CECL reserve as of December 31st, 2024, was approximately $4.3 million, compared with $4.1 million and $5.0 million as of September 30 and December 31st, 2023, respectively. On a relative size basis, our reserve for expected credit losses represents 1.1% of outstanding principal of our loans held for investment. Our portfolio, on a weighted average basis, had real estate coverage of 1.1x as of December 31st, compared to 1.2 x as of September 30. Our loans are secured by various forms of other collateral in addition to real estate, which contribute to overall credit quality. On a risk-rating basis, credit quality has remained strong. Approximately 91% of the portfolio at carrying value is risk-rated three or better as of December 31st, 2024, compared to 89% and 88% as of September 30 and December 31st, 2023, respectively. Loan number nine remains the only loan in our portfolio on non-accrual status and is included in risk rating four, carrying a reserve for credit losses of approximately $1.2 million. During 2024, we raised approximately $38.4 million of net proceeds from issuances of common stock through our ATM program. The weighted average selling price, net of commissions, of $15.63, represents a premium to our December 31st book value of approximately 5.4%. Distributable earnings per weighted average share on a basic and fully diluted basis was approximately $0.47 and $0.46 for the fourth quarter, and $2.08 and $2.03 for fiscal year. In January, we distributed the regular fourth quarter dividend of $0.47 per common share, as well as a special dividend of $0.18 per common share relating to undistributed taxable income for tax year 2024, both of which were declared by our board in December. For fiscal year 2024, we paid total dividends of $2.06, amounting to a payout ratio of approximately 99% of our basic distributable earnings of $2.08. Our book value was $14.83 and $14.94 per common share as of December 31st, 2024, and 2023, respectively. The decrease in book value is primarily attributable to dividends paid in excess of our GAAP net income. On a fully diluted basis, there were approximately 21.2 million common shares outstanding as of December 31st, 2024. Lastly, I'd like to highlight the guidance we shared for 2025. Similar to last year, we are expecting to maintain a dividend payout ratio based on our basic distributable earnings per share of 90%-100% for the year. If our taxable income requires additional distributions in excess of the regular quarterly dividend in order to meet our taxable income distribution requirement, we would expect to meet that through a special distribution in Q4 2025. Operator, we're now ready to take questions. Thank you. We will now begin the question and answer session. To ask a question, you may press star, then one on your touch-tone phone. If you're using a speakerphone, please pick up your handset before pressing the keys. If at any time your question has been addressed and you would like to withdraw your question, please press star, then two. At this time, we will pause momentarily to assemble our roster. The first question will come from Crispin Love with Piper Sandler. Please go ahead. Thank you, and good morning, everyone. First, can you talk about demand for loans and leverage expectations? You had a good amount of activity in the fourth quarter. On the origination side, you added the unsecured term loan and leverage increase, but still remains pretty low. Given the $500 million pipeline, or nearly $500 million pipeline, would you expect to take leverage up further in the near term to fund loans or utilize the ATM, and just how is demand overall from the borrowing landscape? I'd say on market demand, in a compressed equity valuation environment, the profile of demand has changed, but from the type of projects and the type of initiatives that were being funded four years ago. I think that's been offset. The change of that profile has been more than offset by just the maturation of the industry and the much larger size of the industry today than it was four years ago. We don't expect to increase leverage in the near term beyond that which is already approved under our senior secured facility and its accordion feature. Okay, great. Thank you for that. Then just an update on credit quality, how it's performing, your expectations. You mentioned you have just the one loan on non-accrual, but the environment here does remain uncertain. Curious on your thoughts on credit and health of your borrowers currently. Then just digging a little deeper into loan number nine over the near term, what's the goal there? Is it a sale? Curious what you're looking to do with that asset. I'd say overall credit quality hasn't changed significantly quarter over quarter. I think that's reflected in the risk rating figures, where you certainly have movement between our buckets of risk rating figures every quarter, as one would expect. Overall, not a significant change in posture. I'll let David speak to the loan number nine and progress there. Sure. While we have taken operational control of the assets and the operations there, there had been a cease and desist order on the dispensaries and the cultivation. We are currently working diligently to remedy all of the deficiencies and remove the cease and desist order, which we expect to be done soon. We will get the dispensaries up and operational, as well as the cultivation, creating value for the assets. At that point, we will decide what to do. Okay, great. Just one last question from me. Can you share your latest thoughts on scheduling your views there? I believe you said last quarter you would expect it to occur in 2025, but just curious on any updates. Thank you. I think the whole industry is looking for greater data points out of the Trump administration on where their posture leans. Unfortunately, every day that goes by without those data points and those indications should push back one's expectations for when real progress occurs. Our posture is to invest, as always, to invest, assuming a catalyst such as rescheduling never occurs. That is going to continue to be our posture until there is greater certainty otherwise, much greater certainty otherwise. I guess I'll thank you all for taking my questions. Appreciate it. The next question will come from Pablo Zuanic with Zuanic & Associates. Please go ahead. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Look, my question regarding industry context has to do with the way most companies are dealing with 280E. As you know, they've taken a more aggressive stance. They're letting the long-term liabilities or uncertain tax benefits increase on the balance sheet. On the other hand, they are provisioning as normal corporations, right? Their cash flows are improving, and they seem to be in much better shape in that sense. I'm trying to think from your perspective, yes, they have more cash, and they are probably able to serve their debts better. On the other hand, they have this increasing debt with IRS, right? How do you think about that? Is this good from your perspective or negative, or is it just a neutral factor? Thank you. I think it's an unavoidable factor. We consider unpaid tax liabilities to be a form of indebtedness, and it's a strong factor in our underwriting process and how we view the leverage profile of our borrowers. We factor it in and control this risk by aiming to create limitations on the amount of unpaid tax liabilities that may be accrued on the balance sheet over the course of our loan. We do that through requirements that taxes be paid and/or through leverage covenants or DSCR covenants that factor in that tax liability. Right. Okay. That's helpful. Thank you. Just to follow up, when we try to think in terms of the shape of the industry versus the shape of the companies, I could make the argument that, yes, there's more deflation out there. There's revenue per store erosion, particularly in some states like Illinois, because there's more licenses being issued. Those are both negative for the industry. On the other hand, the companies seem to be focusing more on cash flow, on cutting costs, improving profitability. I'm just trying to think from your perspective, when you put all that together, is the industry you're looking at, the borrowers you're looking at, on average, in better shape or worse shape than before? It's a challenging question because we don't have to invest in, we don't have to invest in, quote-unquote, "the industry as a whole." We invest in individual operators. We're certainly seeing the ability to find strong operators with strong growth projections that are still underlevered. As long as we can maintain a sufficient pipeline to deploy our capital in very accretive transactions, what's happening in one state or another state doesn't necessarily impact us if we're still finding really attractive accretive opportunities. It's a difficult question to answer in a general manner. All right. Thank you. Just two more quickly. You have $67 million left of liquidity. I understand you do not give guidance, but should we assume that that would be probably fully utilized in 2025 in terms of deployment? We aim to be fully deployed with sufficient liquidity buffer. All right. Last one, if you can just provide an update on New York. I mean, that's been a good program for you, and there's obviously more stores opening, so I'm sure there's more demand for that facility. If you can provide any color on that. Thank you. That's it. We've been extremely encouraged by progress that New York regulators and New York operators have made in the last year of opening stores, of cracking down on illegal operators, and processors and cultivators, creating stronger portfolios of products that consumers want that combats the black market. This falls back on what we think are some of the key factors that lead to a successful market and allow a legal market to outcompete an illegal market. That is access to dispensaries in close proximity. That is a strong product portfolio of products that are better than what's available in the illicit market and available more consistently. Crackdowns on illegal operators are also important. I think that's the least important of the three. We've been extremely encouraged. That's great. Thank you. The next question will come from Chris Muller with Citizens Capital Markets. Please go ahead. Hey, guys. Thanks for taking the questions. I'm on for Aaron today. I guess picking up on a prior question, the chances of Schedule III or other type of reform looking bleak in the near term, would you say that your borrowers are generally able to operate in the status quo? Does any type of reform factor into your underwriting? Yes to the first question. To the second question, the answer is no. We underwrite assuming that rescheduling does not occur because it's simply difficult to project. That has been the case of our approach to investing in this industry from the get-go, that we underwrite assuming that significant state-based market reforms or federal reforms do not occur. When they do occur, that's a positive catalyst for our operators and for ourselves. We think that's the appropriate stance to take when making responsible debt investments. That's been the absolutely correct stance the last couple of years. I applaud you guys on that. I guess my other question is on the dividend. Can you talk about how the board thinks about increasing the base dividend versus paying the special? This is the third year in a row that you guys have paid the special. I'm just curious on the thought process there. We want our investors to view the regular dividend as having significant cushion to performance. We evaluate our dividend decisions every quarter and have discussions surrounding it. We ultimately want our investors to view the regular dividend as having a strong margin of safety. Got it. Very helpful. Thanks for taking the question. Our next question comes from Aaron Gray with Alliance Global Partners. Please go ahead. Hi, good morning. Thank you for the question. Listen, we just want to circle back on the pipeline. I believe you alluded to how the profile has changed a bit. So close to 500. Just wanted to talk a little bit around that. Is it maybe a little bit less now in terms of expansion of existing you guys have in the deck, a little bit more of a reference to M&A? Can you talk about maybe how that profile has changed? Is it still primarily focused around single-state operators, potentially looking more at multi-state operators? Just any color in terms of some of that commentary you provided that would be helpful. Thank you. I think we are leveraging our originations team, which we think is the largest in the industry, that focuses on building relationships in the markets that we're most excited about. Building those relationships over the time span of months and years, such that when that operator is pursuing a growth initiative and has a capital need, we're their first call. I think particularly in the fourth quarter, our originations has been driven by idiosyncratic growth projects, idiosyncratic growth initiatives, M&A opportunities, individual projects that are difficult to categorize within a specific market trend or a specific market need, with the exception perhaps of Ohio, whose transition to adult use and execution of dispensary construction we continue to support. Okay, great. Thank you for that color there. A second one for me, obviously, just in terms of broader industry dynamics, a lot of people are talking about the debt maturities coming in 2026. I just want to have more broadly, does that potentially present any opportunities for you to come in as one of the options in some type of refinancing? Just more broadly, how you're thinking about some of the loans in your portfolio that could be coming to maturity this year? Thank you. We aim to be the lender of choice and to add value to our existing borrowers and to borrowers that we'd like to work with in the future so that when maturities arise, we can be the relationship of choice and be a lead in those transactions. We would love to support the industry as those maturities come due. That being said, I think the "maturity wall" is described in catastrophic terms that it does not really merit. I think that a maturity does not mean that the existing lenders necessarily do not want to be a part of a new loan facility. There could be repricings. There could be changings of loan terms. That does not necessarily mean that capital is leaving the industry and has to be replaced by someone. I do think the market will work through much of these loan maturities in normal course. We would love to be a part of that. That is helpful color there. I will jump back into the queue. Thank you. With no further questions, this concludes our question-and-answer session. I would like to turn the conference back over to Peter Sack for any closing remarks. Thank you for taking the time. To our investors, thank you for the support. We look forward to reporting on Q1 shortly. The conference has now concluded. Thank you for attending today's presentation. You may now disconnect.