Good day ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the fourth quarter 2010 Mistras Group Inc. earnings conference call. [Operator instructions.] I would now like to turn your presentation over to Sotirios Vahaviolos. Please proceed.

Good morning to all. Welcome to the Mistras Group earnings conference call to discuss our recent company performance. Again, my name is Sotirios Vahaviolos. I am the founder, chairman, and chief executive officer of Mistras. Joining me today is Pete Peterik, the CFO of record for fiscal 2010, who is transitioning out of his role after we file the annual report, as well as Frank Joyce, our new company chief financial officer, who joined our team last month. Working together, we are assured of financial continuity as Pete passes the baton to his successor. The purpose of today’s conference call is to discuss our recently released financial results for the company’s fourth fiscal quarter and annual results that ended May 31, 2010. Our primary objective of this call is to provide you with a clear understanding of our performance and prospects. This discussion is intended to supplement our quarterly earnings release and our filings with the Security & Exchange Commission. Pete will begin will a brief disclaimer about the information we are providing today and Frank will follow with a summary review of our financial results. I will then follow Frank with remarks and observations about our performance, marketing activity, and prospects. We will then answer any questions you may have. With that, Pete, let me turn it over to you.

Thank you Sotirios, first I want to remind everyone that our discussions during this conference call will include forward-looking statements. Actual results could differ materially from those projected and factors that could cause actual results to differ are discussed in the prospectus for our IPO dated October 7, 2009, in our reports on Form 10-Q and Form 8-K. Also, the discussions during this conference call will include certain financial measures that were not prepared in accordance with U.S. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Reconciliations of these non-U.S. GAAP financial measures to the most directly comparable U.S. GAAP financial measures can be found in the company’s current reports on Form 8-K, dated August 10 and 11, 2010. These reports are available on our website at www.mistrasgroup.com, in the Investors, SEC Filings, and Reports section and on the website of the Securities & Exchange Commission. Now I’ll turn the call over to Frank, who will present our financial results.

Thank you Sotirios and Pete. For the fourth quarter, revenues were $79.8 million as compared to $55.9 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. The increase of $23.9 million, or 43%, was the result of significant growth in all of our segments, led by our services segment, which had a 45% increase in revenues for the fiscal fourth quarter. For fiscal 2010, our consolidated revenues grew by 30% to $272.1 million, again led by services, which grew by 36%. Our fourth quarter gross profit was $25.1 million, representing a 39% increase over the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. Our gross profit margin, which is calculated as a percentage of revenues, was 31.4% in the fourth quarter versus 32.2% in the fourth quarter of 2009. The gross profit margin for all of fiscal 2010 was 30.4% versus 33.1% in the prior fiscal year. Our fiscal 2010 fourth quarter operating income was $8.2 million, compared to $4.3 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. Operating income for all of fiscal 2010 was $20.3 million, representing a 37% increase from fiscal 2009. SG&A for the fourth quarter of 2010 represented 18% of revenues as compared to 20% of revenues in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. For the fiscal years 2010 and 2009, SG&A expenses represented 20% and 22%, respectively, of revenues. SG&A decreased as a percentage of revenue in fiscal 2010 despite an increase in stock comp expense of $2.5 million. Net income attributable to Mistras Group was $4.9 million in the fourth quarter, compared to $1.5 million in the fourth quarter of fiscal 2009. Diluted earnings per share were $0.18 versus a loss of $2.48 per share for last year’s fourth quarter. You may recall that last year’s EPS calculation included the impact of preferred stock accretion, which essentially…

Thanks Frank and Pete. I want to especially thank Pete for your past service to Mistras. Now I would like to share with you our perspective, a commentary as to our recent performance and overall business, both as to this most recent fiscal year and for the future. Once again, I would like to start by reminding you that Mistras is a unique business model of technology-enabled asset protection solutions for the world’s aging industrial and public infrastructure. Our model is to be that of a single-source provider employing industry leading products, services, and software. Our approach emphasizes the outsourcing of services by our customers to Mistras, where we perform daily inspection and plant maintenance on what we refer to either as “run and maintain” or an “evergreen” contract. This model reduces our dependence on capital projects business, which when they occur results in incremental revenues for Mistras. We’re very pleased with our fiscal 2010 revenue and adjusted EBITA growth. Achieving double-digit growth is both categories. Our fiscal year revenue growth of 30%, a corresponding CAGR of 31% over the last four years, as well as 11 consecutive fiscal years with double digit revenue growth, is a testament to our business model. Our fiscal year 2010 organic growth of 18% was consistent with our average organic growth over the last four years and is quite remarkable given the state of the economy. It is also noteworthy to report that for the fourth quarter in fiscal 2010 we achieved record revenues which were 43% greater than the fourth quarter of 2009. We’re also pleased with the 25% increase in our adjusted EBITA in fiscal 2010 to $39 million, generating a CAGR of 33% over the last four years. This increase in adjusted EBITA was a result of higher volumes and leveraging…

[Operator instructions.] Your first question comes from the line of William Stein with Credit Suisse. Please proceed. William Stein – Credit Suisse: The bridge contract that you mentioned, Sotirios, have you ever participated as a general contractor in this fashion before, and if you can comment on the margins in that kind of business and how long you think it might take to achieve that? I think you mentioned $33 million in revenue?

No, $3.4 million. I wish it was $33 million.

Okay. Got it. And margins on that kind of business and whether you’ve participated as a general contractor the way you say you are in this business?

Well, typically we do not really discuss margins, but I will make the statement that it is higher than the service margins.

Okay, and then the follow up is regarding acquisitions. You mentioned two of them that closed after the quarter I believe? Have you done any others since the fiscal second quarter of 2010? I think we’ve – pre-IPO there were a lot and then it felt like perhaps there hadn’t been any since -

Last year for the record we did two acquisitions in July of last year and we made one small acquisition which really was another engineering company that had [unintelligible] the services we required. That was in the November December time frame.

And none in the second half.

Not the second half.

And the guidance for fiscal ’11 includes acquisitions that – I was confused by this point. It sounded like you were saying that it includes acquisitions that are being contemplated. Is that right?

This is Frank. I think the best way to look at the guidance is the lower end of the range is organic growth and the top end of the range includes acquisitions. So if you’re looking for guidance on just the organic growth -

What I’m trying to get at is does the guidance include acquisitions that were done recently, or that have not been completed yet but you anticipate?

It’s a small acquisition that was recently completed that is in the guidance.

And not others that might be completed?

There would be a small number of acquisitions that would be consistent with our pattern. There’s nothing very large that would be anticipated.

Your next question comes from the line of Scott Levine of JP Morgan. Please proceed.

You mentioned that 25 evergreen contracts were added in fiscal 2010. Could you talk about – were the additions ratable throughout the year, or did you see building momentum as the year ended? And maybe if you can provide some color, you mentioned in the oil and gas business some positive earnings reports out of the majors. Anecdotally, what types of spending behavior and patterns have you seen? Are things picking up on the margin as we exited fiscal ’10 and move into 2011?

Well, the refineries, the project’s we’ve got in the refineries, it was distributed evenly throughout the year actually. There was no really specific month that we had a lot more than other months. That’s the one answer on this. As far as – the only thing we can say that the pressure on price in the refinery market is really since the beginning of the year. Last year we had a lot of pressure but not this year.

Okay, so it sounds like things have kind of stabilized on the pricing front and your expectation is that that will remain the case throughout 2011.

That’s right. And we also need to understand that we’re really doing the run and maintain, which means that our services are really necessary, so we don’t depend on capital projects, so therefore there’s not going to be a lot of changes in our mixture of business.

Got it. And then without asking for guidance within guidance for 2011, can you provide maybe a little bit of color around both seasonality and maybe mix of services versus products and systems in international? Is your expectation that 2011 would be generally consistent with 2010 or do you anticipate any changes either in mix or seasonality?

I think the seasonality will always exist.

Okay, and do you expect a mix, a higher mix of products and systems in international to drive some margin expansion in 2011, or do you expect the mix to be consistent with 2010?

I think it will be consistent with 2010.

Your next question comes from the line of Matt Duncan with Stevens. Please proceed. Matt Duncan – Stevens Inc.: The first question I’ve got, I want to try to get a little clarity on the guidance here. It sounds like, if I’m understanding you correctly, the right way to look at the guidance is the business you own today including the small acquisitions that you’ve made is sort of the low end to the mid-point of both the revenue and EBITA guidance, and at the mid-point to the high end would be assume acquisitions that have not yet closed. Is that the right way to think about it?

We agree on that a hundred percent.

That’s a fair way to look at it.

That’s the way.

And then when you look at your margin assumptions that are baked into that guidance are you assuming that you will get much gross margin increase in ’11 or are you really looking more at SG&A leverage driving the bottom line?

If you notice in my remarks I mention five key points, and would like to stick to them.

Okay. And then the last thing I’ve got here and I’ll jump back in queue, it looks to us like refiner profits are up, refiner utilization rates are up, and theoretically that should be good for you guys, especially if you layer in the concerns around plant assets in the wake of the BP oil spill. I’m just curious are you seeing any change in underlying demand for your services at this point as you look out at FY11?

Not really. We basically we might have more business because of the more evergreen’s that we’ve got but we do not see anything abnormal.

So that would be upside then if that happens?

That’s right.

Your next question comes from the line of Fred Buonocore of CJS Securities. Please proceed. Fred Buonocore – CJS Securities : Sotirios, on the last call you talked about some clients managing turnarounds differently and the scope and length of time on some of these projects being shorter and leaving you guys underutilized on your workforce. What have you seen through the fourth quarter in regards to that?

We really did not see what we saw last year. We saw a lot less. Maybe there was some small changes but they were really minimal to discuss. There was no comparison to the previous, third quarter let’s say.

So in other words that’s a pressure that eased substantially.

It looks like basically – keep in mind that also there’s always the need for inspection, because you can’t delay it too long, so therefore things are going to really be less and less as they were in the third quarter.

And then my second question relates to acquisitions given that that is a key point, or a key aspect to the higher end of your guidance as Matt just pointed out. Can you talk a little bit about the acquisition environment and where you’d be seeking these kinds of transactions and maybe how close you are on some that you may be handicapping with a high probability in terms of getting into that high end of your guidance?

First I would like to really mention that we made acquisitions for two reasons. One is geography and the second one is basically obtaining certified employees. I can guarantee you, no matter what the market is there, I could not find 600 and 620 certified employees that I needed last year if I did not make this small acquisition. So for us it’s also the acquisitions are very helpful in really getting more certified employees. It’s very, extremely important to us. The market for acquisition is always there, especially if you cooperate with a lot of the small companies. We have really – we are very friendly to small companies and they are very friendly to us because we use them as our contractors and that’s how we evaluate their capabilities and that’s all I can say for the present.

Your next question comes from the line of Matt Tucker with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed. Matt Tucker – KeyBanc Capital Markets: Just sorry to belabor the point. Just one more question on guidance. I promise that’s it. Should we view, then, the top end of the guidance range in terms of acquisitions as you would need to make acquisitions in order to have the resources to get to that top end?

There’s no question about it. I would need the acquisitions to make the top end. Again, remember that we’re always talking about very small acquisitions.

Sure, would you expect that you would need to make a similar level of acquisitions next year that you did in the past year in order to meet your guidance? Or at least the mid to upper end?

Well, I think the only thing I can say basically is we always think about a one-third acquisitions and two-thirds organic.

Okay, that’s helpful. And then your revenue guidance suggests strong growth year over year but a little slower than the past two years. In light of, as you mentioned, some early signs of recovery in your largest end market, could you just help us put that implied little bit slower growth in the context of your overall end market outlook?

Well we have not seen really the [unintelligible] to help the large turnarounds that we used to see two three years ago, so therefore we need to be cautious and conservative.

That makes sense. Just one final question and I’ll jump back in the queue. It looks like your products and systems segment year over year growth really jumped up in the fourth quarter. Was there anything to lead you to believe that was a bit of a fluctuation or do you think you’re seeing more of a sustainable inflection in demand for that segment?

There are actually two reasons. Number one, of course, the economy for capital equipment improved in the fourth quarter. That’s one. The second one is that we have really done a lot of projects where we instead of selling equipment we sell solutions to the customers. And so we hope to see that continue in the first quarter and beyond.

Your next question comes from the line of Richard Eastman with RW Baird. Please proceed. Richard Eastman – Robert W. Baird: From an acquisition standpoint, these two small ones, the one in Washington and France, can you just give us an annualized revenue number for the combined acquisitions?

About $8 million.

$8 million would be – okay. And then a question on margins. Sotirios you mentioned that you – the target is 75 to 100 basis point margin improvement year over year. Is that a comment on the services margin or is that a comment on the overall operating margin that you put up for the full year? Just what is that referencing?

The biggest factor might be the services, but it’s also overall. It’s also in products. We can see improvements in products as well as international. We expect more improvements international.

So against 7.5% consolidated EBIT margin you’d look for that 75 to 100?

Yes, that’s it exactly.

And then perhaps Frank could you just provide us with an estimated fiscal ’11 D&A number as well as a stock comp number?

Yes. For – bear with me.

Sure. Sotirios, maybe just last question, promise. Last year when we entered fiscal ’10 I think you had pretty good visibility on a number of incremental evergreen contracts. I think you talked about securing maybe 25 during the year. But I think we entered the year with some decent visibility on some larger pieces of business that would phase in. Are we in the same situation today as we enter fiscal ’11, where we’ve got visibility on X amount of incremental revenue from evergreen contracts, which will begin to phase in during fiscal ’11? Is there some visibility there?

Well, obviously it is and there’s a lot of marketing strategy. I can make the statement in the first quarter we already have some new evergreen contracts. But I don’t really give a guidance how many I get a year, for competitive reasons.

But you obviously, on the low end of your revenue guidance, and that 10% organic growth rate, there’s some portion of that that is an annualized contract that would – is already booked that would be flowing in.

Definitely.

Yeah. We’re not just waiting on an improvement in maintenance budgets and that type of thing?

Oh no, absolutely not. The procurement is really six months to one year, especially on the large evergreen contracts. It’s not something that happens overnight. We plan that for a long time.

I’ve got an answer to part of your question. Stock comp for next year is in the range of about $4.2 million. D&A I don’t have handy and we’ll have to get back to you.

[Operator instructions.] Your next question is a follow up question from the line of Matt Duncan with Stevens. Please proceed.

Just a couple of very small housekeeping questions to help us out on the guidance. Your share count was down quite a bit this quarter. I’m assuming that’s just stock options that went out of the money. What share count do we need to think about using as we model EPS for 2011? And then also tax rate was about 35% this quarter or a little bit lower than I think had been expected. You were around 38% for the year. I think the guidance previously had been about a 42% tax rate. Is that still the number to use for FY11, or has that changed?

Going forward I would use a tax rate of about 40%. We had some 1048 reversals for tax years that rolled off this year as well as some valuation allowances for state taxes that we’re able to use. So 40% going forward is a number that I would use. In terms of share count, it’s always hard. It depends on stock price, but I think as guidance I would probably use the diluted number for the fourth quarter, which is about 26.8.

Your next question is a follow up question from the line of Matt Tucker with KeyBanc Capital Markets. Please proceed.

I was just hoping you could comment on how much of your business do you compete on the basis of price in the current environment? Is it mostly price-based in the services segment, and less so in products and systems? And have you seen any change in that over the past few months?

First of all let’s make a very clear point. We’re not really winning orders because of the price. That’s not the most important element, especially when you have a big offshore contract, where the customer depends on you to be their inspection department. So obviously we are not looking, when we get a contract, for how much more did we make this quarter or the next quarter. We’re looking over the three year period and see how much we can offer besides really doing routine work what other type of work we can do and what we can offer this customer. So therefore I would really say that price is not really the most important factor. Obviously the customers will always try to undercut the price and everything else, but at the end of the day we will walk away from evergreens that are not really meeting our pricing structure and we have done that in the past and we will do it in the future.

[Operator instructions.]

I’d just like to mention that the D&A number that was asked before, while we don’t give guidance on that specifically, it’s going to be in the range of about $15.5 million for 2011.

We have a follow up question from the line of Scott Levine with JP Morgan. Please proceed.

One clarification. I think you indicated that the low end of your guidance for 2011 would be more a function of organic growth and the higher end would reflect new acquisitions they haven’t yet made. Does the lower end also assume the rollover effect of the August acquisitions that you mentioned on the call as well, or not?

Yes.

It does. Okay. And then maybe as a follow up, I think Sotirios you indicated on recent earnings calls that the pace of spending from the government with regard to the bridge business maybe hadn’t been as robust as you’d hoped or expected. Can you just talk maybe a little bit about any changes, positive or otherwise, you may be seeing with regard to the spending patterns and behavior of your government customers in particular?

Well, basically we have seen really money for research as we are now the recipient, as we’ve announced at the beginning of the year, we were the recipient of $6.9 million from the National Institute of Standards and Technology contract. We have not seen the government really spending money. We have seen the departments of transportation, because besides the one in California we had wins in Virginia, we had wins in Florida, all of these really, the people who paid us was the Department of Transportation as it would be in California, the Department of Transportation of Florida, Department of Transportation – VDOT, which is Virginia Department of Transportation. So we have not seen – the government has announced money but I don’t think we have seen anything in that market segment. And we still know that we have one third of our bridges, as the government says, that are structurally deficient.

Okay, so it doesn’t sound like you’re terribly encouraged that that is going to change any time soon, no?

Well, you know, I have not seen money. I have not seen really the government really spending money in this area for online monitoring, especially, or health monitoring, and I have not seen the government helping the local departments of transportation. Maybe it will change in the future.

Okay, I guess we’ll continue to monitor. Thanks.

You have a question from the line of Jeff Allen with Silvercrest. Please proceed. Jeff Allen – Silvercrest: Do you guys have the intangible amortization that flowed through the income statement for the quarter and the full year?

I’ve got a D&A number. I don’t know if just amortization is readily available. I think we’re going to have to get back to you on that.

We’re currently showing no more questions in queue at this time. I would like to turn the call over to Mr. Sotirios Vahaviolos for closing remarks.