Good morning. My name is Wes, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Constellation Brands Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2011 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] I will turn the conference over to Patty Yahn-Urlaub, Vice President of Investor Relations. Please go ahead, ma'am.

Thank you, Wes. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Constellation's Fourth Quarter and Fiscal Year End 2011 Conference Call. I'm here this morning with Rob Sands, our President and Chief Executive Officer; and Bob Ryder, our Chief Financial Officer. This call complements our news release, which has been furnished to the SEC. During this call, we may discuss financial estimation on a GAAP, comparable, organic and constant currency basis. However, discussions will generally focus on comparable financial results. Reconciliations between the most directly comparable GAAP measure and these and other non-GAAP financial measures are included in the news release or otherwise available on the company's website at www.cbrands.com under the Investor section. Please also be aware that we may make forward-looking statements during this call. While those statements represent our best estimates and expectations, actual results could differ materially from our estimates and expectations. For a detailed list of risk factors that may impact the company's estimates, please refer to the news release in Constellation's SEC filing. And now, I'd like to turn the call over to Rob.

Thanks, Patty. Good morning, and welcome to our call. We recently completed a year of significant accomplishments as we delivered against a number of key strategic goals and business initiatives. I would like to take a minute to highlight some of these accomplishments. We sold the majority of our U.K. and Australian business to the CHAMP Private Equity for approximately $220 million. This transaction represented another transformational step in the execution of our strategy as this business was no longer aligned with our strategic imperatives. We utilized the proceeds from this transaction in combination with strong free cash flow to reduce debt by almost $600 million. This also enabled a decrease in our leverage ratio to the mid-3x range, a level we have not achieved since May 2006. We generated free cash flow of $530 million for the year, and we are targeting, for fiscal 2012, free cash flow to be in the range of $600 million to $650 million. We have obviously made significant progress from our ongoing focus in this area. These strong free cash flow results essentially enabled us to fund an accelerated stock buyback transaction while continuing to reduce debt. We are approaching the final leg of Project Fusion, which was designed to create an integrated technology platform and develop world-class systems to support our business. Our Fusion initiatives have reached major milestones within the past year, and the work being done within this program is helping Constellation become more connected as one company, improving efficiencies and achieving cost savings across our business. Lastly, we have strengthened the core foundation of our U.S. business to the implementation of our U.S. distributor initiative, which is also one of the primary catalysts driving profitable, organic growth. Presently, this program gives five distributors the rights to sell Constellation's portfolio…

Thanks, Rob. Good morning, everyone. From a historical perspective, Constellation recorded highest-ever reported in comparable basis EPS results and highest-ever free cash flow result. We also exceeded the EPS and free cash flow guidance provided at the beginning of the year. From an operational perspective, our U.S. depletion trends improved considerably from the previous year, and in fact, grew in line with the overall U.S. wine and spirits market. Our focus brands, the brand against which we want our sales force and the distributors sales force to concentrate their efforts, grew depletion depth 3x the overall market. On the beer side, Crown gained volume and dollar market share and grew EBIT for the first time since the JV formation. We sold our Australian and U.K. business, which was the last major portfolio move to premiumize the business. This follows the 2008 sale of our Value Wine business, the 2009 sale of our Value Spirits brands and the 2010 sale of our U.K. Cider business. From a free cash flow perspective, we delivered an all-time high by a large measure. Inventory investments were reduced dramatically. Payments for interest and restructuring were reduced, and capital spending was down. We believe all these are sustainable within our current portfolio of businesses. In addition, we significantly reduced taxes paid during the year. This lower level of tax payment is expected to continue for the next couple of years. We utilized our free cash flow and proceeds from asset sales to buy back shares in a highly accretive fashion, and we reduced our comparable basis EBITDA leverage ratio by a half a point to about 3.6x. Putting these items I just outlined aside, higher promotional spending and SG&A contributed to our fiscal 2011 comparable EBIT decreasing almost 3%. The increase in promotional spending was in…

[Operator Instructions] Our first question comes from Kaumil Gajrawala of UBS.

As we think about the difference between shipments and depletions or the guidance of flat revenue growth on flat to marginal EBIT growth, can you give us a read on where maybe the flex points would be in SG&A or somewhere else where there might be some leverage if trends are any better or any worse than expected?

Well, Kaumil, the guidance is really what the guidance is. As far as the flattish EBIT growth in the guidance for next year, it is strictly a function of overlapping this year's shipment and depletion in balance. The underlying business, as I think that we reported, remained pretty strong. You look at the focus brands in particular, which constitute the majority of our profitability, are growing -- grew last year in the 10% range from a depletion point of view. So as far as flex points go, we'll be watching all lines of the P&L very carefully to ensure that we generate the results that we've guided to.

Maybe another way is there's probably some corporate expenses related to the divestitures that will get pulled out of SG&A. Would any benefits from that just be offset by negative leverage or something?

It's all figured into the guidance. We don't expect SG&A to go up much in fiscal '12. It will be relatively flattish.

Okay. Got it. And then as you think between debt reduction and buyback, is there a target cap structure at which there's less benefit to reducing debt beyond that point?

Yes. I mean, to optimize our lag, we should probably have an EBITDA leverage ratio in between three and four. So we'll probably be in that -- that will be the ideal range. That's not saying we wouldn't go lower than that if we felt that, for a temporary period of time, that made the most sense.

Okay, got it. And then last question on Crown. Are there any particular regions of the country that are disproportionately benefiting or contributing to the improvements at Crown? I'm trying to get a little bit of a read on if there's regions of the country where the economy is improving at a different pace than what would be happening on average nationally.

Yes, I would say, not really. I mean Texas has been a fairly strong market for us even through the recession, largely because of the oil interest in Texas. The economy there has not been as badly hit as other places, but in general it's a fairly across-the-board kind of thing.

We'd expect better growth in the geographies where we’re launching the Victoria brand, which we expect big things from. It did quite well when we did the test market in Chicago. So we expect that to grow in those geographies, one of which is Texas. Other than that, there's probably puts and takes.

Your next question comes from Judy Hong of Goldman Sachs.

First on the U.S. Wine business. So in the fourth quarter, can you give us the wine depletion number? I know you gave us the wine and spirits together, but just the total U.S. wine depletion number, and then also the focus brands that are just wine brands?

Yes. So depletions in the fourth quarter were low-single digit and below the total year. So the total year was about 30% depletion growth. So they were below that but still within the low-single digit range. And the focus brands were fairly consistent with what they invest for the year.

Okay. So high-single digit level?

Yes. And the focus brands are much higher than that, obviously.

Okay. And then, Rob, as you think about the health of the Wine business, and I think you've talked about generally being pleased with the health of the business. But it sounds like maybe the promotional activity remains intense. You're taking select price increases in some of the markets in wine. So I'm just trying to understand how you think about your ability to really pace your wine sales growth in line with the category growth. Does it really hinge upon the competitive dynamics getting more rational? Is there a risk that you really have to step up more spending to drive that improved depletion growth as you get into fiscal '12?

So what I said, Judy, was that we expect in 2012 to grow our depletions in line with the market growth. And we expect the market growth to be somewhat similar to what it was last year. So we, in other words, expect our depletion growth to be similar to what it was last year. Now, this is not premised on any significant or material change in the marketplace. Meaning, we are not premising our depletion growth this year on the fact that promotional activity will decrease or increase. We expect it to remain fairly constant and very similar to last year.

Okay. So is the softening trend that we're seeing in the food store data, is that more limited to that channel, and that other channels, the depletion trends are actually a little bit better than -- and your share performance is better than what you see in the food store channel?

In some cases, yes, and in some cases, no. Clearly, the mass merchandise channel is probably our strongest channel where we’re, I would say, significantly outperforming the market. And when I say mass merchandise, I'm talking about [indiscernible] mass merchandise, the Targets, the Calpians [ph] the Wal-Marts. We're doing extremely well in that particular channel. The on-premises remains a tough channel, and we're not planning on it getting much better. It's probably flattish at this stage. IRI is about 30% of the market. You see how that channel performed. We probably outperformed in liquor store states, the IRI channel. But all that said, what's really going on here is -- last year, we promoted extremely heavily in the first half of the year and then pulled back fairly dramatically on our promotional activity in the second half of the year. And you can see that in the IRI. It's plain and simple. As we move in to this year, we are smoothing our promotional activity quite considerably versus what we did last year. Okay? So you're probably going to see that because we were overlapping the very strong promotional activity in the first half of the year last year, and we're not going to do it the same way this year, we're actually smoothing it out more, you'll see IRI weakness during the first half as we overlap that strong promotional activity. And then, as we choose to promote more heavily during the year, eventually, you’ll see that reflected in IRI-type data. So I expect the IRI to be fairly volatile.

Okay. And then on the Crown JV, it looks like your guidance implies margin compression as you step up spending. So I guess it also implies that you're not planning to really look at pricing as a lever to get more margin. Is that correct?

Yes, so we talked about this in the third quarter. Crown's top line is moving quite well. We're actually in quite a good position pricing-wise. Crown really doesn't anticipate taking a lot of I'll call it front-line pricing, meaning just flat-out price increases. What they do anticipate doing is reducing promotion spending, which will end up -- you'll see it in IRI. You’ll end up with a higher net sales per case. The wide majority of that promotion savings will be reinvested in media and marketing, right? So you won't see much of that reduced promotion spending flow to the bottom line. However, the increase, the net increase in promotion and marketing in '12 over '11 is due to the JV partners’ agreement to ramp up that spending. And so Crown will be spending in absolute dollars more in FY '12 than it did in FY '11. You will see that flowing through their P&L.

Okay. And is that kind of a one-time incremental spending? Or is there some year-over-year increase obligation that Crown needs to take every year from a spending perspective?

No. Essentially, it is an increase in fiscal '12 over fiscal '11. That increase will remain through the eternity of the JV.

Your next question comes from Lauren Torres of HSBC.

Just actually trying to understand also your earnings growth guidance for this year. I'm just thinking about the pieces here. Obviously, I do understand the impact of the distributor inventory levels being high. But knowing that you're taking some pricing, maybe promotional activity won’t be that high generally for the industry this year, and depletions may still grow at this low-single digit rate. I'm just thinking about all that combined, why can't we see some better earnings growth? I don't know if your guidance here is just conservative at this point or there's other issues that we're not really thinking about in that mix.

There's one factor that you left out, which is you will see higher promotional expense this year versus last year. And the reason for that is you got to remember, we promote against depletions. And while shipments are fairly flat because of the overlap of the inventory build during the distributor transition, depletions are growing and therefore you'll see promotion growing. Now on a depletion basis, promotional expense per case won't really change very significantly. Okay? But if you're looking at the P&L, which is really based on shipments and not depletions, you're going to see promo grow as depletions grow. So that is what is going to offset what would apparently generate more EBIT growth this year, if you were only looking at the factors that you mentioned. So that's really what's going on here.

So let me augment that a little bit. Rob explained the big piece, which is basically, sales are going to be flattish. Sales are going to be flattish and EBIT will be slightly up for the North American wine business and it's due to the overlap of the inventory increase in fiscal '11. The other two pieces, remember, are Crown EBIT we’re forecasting to be down year-over-year because of the incremental marketing spend that I just described, and the Australia Europe business. Those profits are no longer there. So they have EBIT of about $15 million in fiscal '11 that -- they aren't there in fiscal '12. So they're the big three pieces.

That's about $0.03 or $0.04 on the CWAE Australia and Europe EBIT loss, by the way.

Okay. And also too with respect to U.S. consumer trends. Rob, I know you mentioned on-premise still being tough and not really expecting an improvement this year. With that said though, are you seeing as far as just take-home consumption, increased frequency of purchases, maybe trading up? Is the U.S. consumer you're seeing firming up a bit or we're really not seeing that yet?

I think that we have already seen the U.S. consumer firm up. I don't think that we're anticipating a big change in consumer behavior during our FY '12, so calendar year '11 and the beginning of calendar year '12. What we have seen is the consumer is definitely back, is definitely purchasing. We see very good growth in the Wine business in particular. The only negative -- there's really two negatives that we see, which is the consumer still remains extremely price-sensitive and is looking for a deal. And therefore, promotional activity remains robust. So the consumer is there and the consumer is purchasing, but the consumer really wants a deal. And number two, interestingly enough, the consumer is really taking advantage of the fact that there are deals out there, and we see a lot of trading up going on in the business because we see a lot of good promotional activity at some of the higher price points. So a good example is sort of wines between sort of $15 and $25 where the consumer is definitely taking advantage of the fact that you're seeing a lot of wines that we're selling above $20 pre-recession, now selling below $20. And therefore, they’re trading up to those wines from either the Super Premium or Ultra Premium category or they're trading from Super to Ultra or Ultra to Luxury. So you may recall, Super Premium, when we talk about that, that's $8 to $12. When we talk about Ultra Premium, it's $12 to $15. When we talk about Luxury, it's over $15. So we're seeing a lot of trade up activity driven by promotional activity in that regard. On-premise remains flattish. I don't see that changing that much either. I mean it could move to slightly up. And that's just going to take time, and it's going to be very closely tied to unemployment, and we all have our own opinion on where that's going to go. But I think everybody largely predicts that, as a trailing indicator, that unemployment will continue to be slow to rebound. There's other factors in the marketplace but I think they're going to keep sort of consumer behavior the same. I think that everybody has concerns about inflationary pressures as we go into this year. We don't expect it to really affect our business the way that it might affect others because it's very linked to gas and oil prices. And that isn't really a big, big factor in our cost of goods sold or that kind of thing. But I think it's going to be a negative -- continue to be a negative headwind relative to the consumer. So you get some positive headwind with the consumer or some positive wins with the consumer on the one hand offset with some headwinds related to inflationary pressure. So this all sort of reads to me that we're going to see a similar consumer environment to what we saw last year.

Okay. And if I could just ask lastly on Crown. You mentioned that incremental marketing investment. Is that really behind Victoria and the Modelo Especial or are you putting any more money behind the Corona brand?

Yes. We're putting more money behind the Corona brand. I mean, Crown is the strongest major beer company in the United States today, probably by a wide margin. The brands are performing very well as we come out of the recession. Corona has rebounded. Modelo Especial is probably the strongest major beer brand or significant beer brand of any beer brand in the country. And Crown is going to put more spending behind brand building and maintaining the strength of what are already very, very strong brands. And we are completely behind that and anticipate that for the long-term, it's going to be a very, very solid investment.

Our next question comes from Vivien Azer of Citigroup.

My first question has to do with the pricing that you guys are going to be taking. It seems like maybe we're already seeing a little bit in the scanner data. And I was wondering if you could comment on whether the price increases you're taking are in line with what you're seeing with your competitors. Are you more or less pricing relative to the category?

Our pricing that we take – we’ve got systems and processes in place to make sure that it's in line with our competitors and that we're not getting out of whack with competitors. But remember, almost all of our pricing is in our non-focus and nonstrategic brand, which, you also have to remember, constitute a very large percentage of our business, not from a profit perspective but from a volume perspective. So we may take some pricing on things like dessert wines, sparkling wine, value products that are relatively large from a volume perspective but relatively small from a margin perspective. So it impacts our overall numbers quite considerably. That's why we have now added information about our focus brands and how those focus brands are doing from a depletion perspective. So that it's easier to separate sort of what's going on with the nonstrategic part of our portfolio versus the more strategic part of our portfolio or the strategic part of our portfolio. Really those 17 brands which we highlighted. Hopefully, that's going to be helpful to you.

No, definitely, it is. In terms of the nonstrategic brands in the portfolio, is there room to kind of clean it up, help you guys maybe better execute against the focus brand strategy?

Well, that's what we're doing in a sense. But they are profitable. And so, we're very carefully balancing with those brands, margin and volume. What we're not particularly concerned with is market share or volume per se because they're nonstrategic. So, we have to balance volume and margin on those brands very carefully. On the focus brands, we're very concerned with brand building. And the strength of those brands, both from a market share and volume metric point of view. On the other hand, even on those brands, like in any business, we want to make sure that we maintain their integrity from a margin perspective as well. So it's always a balance.

Got it. And my last question has to do with ad spending. I know you guys will disclose it when you put out your K. But can you give us a sense of what your ad spending was in the year?

When you say ad, do you mean specifically on like targeted media or what we call marketing?

It's the advertising. The advertising line that you guys break out as part of SG&A.

Outside of the beer business, we don't do a ton of advertising in the Wine business. Most of what we call marketing is on-premise. Now the Crown guys do, do quite a bit but that's not in our P&L.

Your next question comes from Dara Mohsenian of Morgan Stanley.

Can you discuss if your beer depletion results in the quarter came in relatively in line with your expectations prior to the quarter, or if there was any upside? And so far, in March and April post this quarter, have you seen any deceleration in the convenience channel with the higher gas prices or is momentum continuing?

Yes, I mean, it's a little early and that’s a pretty specific question, Dara. But I think in general, beer depletions are pretty much going in line with what our expectations are for the year. And as you know, we’re approaching, or at least the Mexican Beer business, the piece which is Cinco de Mayo, we’re kind of walking them, we kind of own that holiday. And that kind of kicks off the key beer selling seasons, and we are focused that we'll be doing a lot of our marketing spend in the second and third quarters, as we mentioned. You'll see a lot of our stuff on Major League Baseball. You'll see some new commercials, which have already started. And we're anticipating having relatively heavy marketing spend for the NFL season as well. So that's where you'll see our focus, and that's where most of the beer sales occur.

Okay. Have you seen any slowdown in convenience with the higher gas prices? Is that a big concern?

The convenience channel has actually come back a bit. But it could be affected by gas prices, it could be. And in our convenience channel, we do have a new – well, this year will be there for a full year, the 24-ounce Modelo Especial can. So that might be helping our results year-over-year as well.

Okay, that's helpful. And then, Rob, can you just give us an update on where acquisitions fit into your cash flow priorities? Obviously, you've outlined debt paydown and repurchases but I'm just wondering where acquisitions fit in at this point.

It's not terribly different than it has been in the past. Acquisitions are hard to predict because the opportunities have to be there, and they need to be very strategic, and they need to meet our financial criteria. And so we can't really predict when those types of acquisitions will present themselves. Clearly, our debt is down to levels and will get down to even lower levels where it shouldn’t be a concern relative to our making selective acquisitions. But those acquisitions have to be available and have to make sense for us. And lastly, until there are any, debt paydown will continue to be a priority for us. And obviously, with respect to the multi-year stock buyback that we announced, we will be evaluating the market and evaluating whether it makes sense to buy back stock as we move forward. So we’ve got a good mix of things that we can use cash for at this stage. And cash utilization strategy clearly is something that we're thinking about, given our very strong cash flow performance last year and our even stronger predicted cash flow performance this year and the fact that we expect a fairly strong level of cash flow generation going forward.

Your next question comes from Reza Vahabzadeh [Barclays Capital]

So on the issue of the balance sheet, given your share repurchase program, would you anticipate continuing to reduce net leverage after FY '12 and getting below three turns or would you anticipate basically staying at those leverage levels? I'm just trying to find out what the ultimate net leverage goal is.

Yes, the answer to your question is it depends. If we don't find it appropriate to utilize cash in any other way, we will continue to reduce debt levels beyond FY '12. On the other hand, if opportunities present themselves that we think make sense or we determine to take advantage of our stock repurchase program, that will impede the rate at which we will continue to pay down debt. But absent a significant transaction, regardless of other activities, debt will continue to be paid down. I'm not going to make predictions beyond FY '12, but it is inconceivable that debt will continue to be paid down beyond '12.

Yes, this is like our favorite business issue, I guess, what to do with our cash. Good place to be.

Right. Well, it's a fair amount of free cash flow so it's a big question, I guess.

Sure.

And then as far as operating results for the fourth quarter, were they in line with your expectations for North America Wines as well as Crown Imports at the beginning of the quarter?

Yes. I'd say they're probably in line to slightly better than we anticipated. I'd say that the better mostly came from the Beer business and actually from the Australia U.K. business. They both performed a little better than we anticipated at the end of the third quarter. The U.S. Wine business was pretty much in line with what we thought.

Your next question comes from Mark Swartzberg of Stifel, Nicolaus. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Rob, also talking a bit here about the U.S. Wine outlook. Could you talk a little bit more about the focus on the focus brands? The 9.6% we saw for the year, how was that in the quarter? And as you think about fiscal '12, what kind of assumption are you making about how that trend performs versus the overall portfolio trend?

Fourth quarter, the performance of the focus brands was very similar to the whole year. Okay? So high-single digit. On the depletion trends on the focus brands for the fourth quarter, we expect to see focus brands will continue to grow at a similar rate for next year as well. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Okay, great. And as we try to think about the mass merchants having seemingly particularly strong growth in the quarter, how does that affect your product mix? Is that a good thing, a bad thing, an indifferent thing? I presume that the focus there is with your focus brands. But if that's the kind of right assumption, if you will, thinking out for the balance of the year, if that channel does better than your overall channel mix, how does that affect your mix, your product mix?

I think it's not an enormous impact. The on-premise channel generally has a better mix of product, meaning a higher-priced, higher-margin product. So that's not a huge part of the business. So the big thing we focus on from a mix perspective is the focus brands because these are our largest scale products, with the best gross margin and ROIC profile. So from a mix perspective, we really try to focus on that. From a channel perspective, outside of that on-premise that [indiscernible] commented on on-premise, we're kind of agnostic as to -- we make the same money generally by channel. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Okay, fair enough. And then just on the pricing commentary from the prepared remarks and here in the Q&A, can you flesh that out a little bit more for us? Is it fair to think you're taking pricing really across the portfolio of different percentage levels? Or what's the detail I might have missed there?

No, I specifically said, we're taking pricing on value and specialty products. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Got it, value and specialty.

Specialty products are products like dessert wines, social wine, sparkling wine and things like that.

None of them are in -- I don't think any of them are – one of them, maybe -- in our focused wine.

But largely on nonstrategic specialty and value product. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: And is the thought there that it helps encourage folks to trade up while also improving profitability in those particular products or is it more cost [indiscernible]?

No, we're just balancing margin and volume. And being strategic as to where we think we can take some pricing or reduce promotion and where we don't. That's basically it.

Yes, it's dissimilar, Mark. I think I know where you're going. What the beer guys are doing with the sub-premium pricing versus the premium pricing. Just because of the sheer SKU count in wine versus beer, I don't think we approach the Wine business, "Let's price this and they're going to move up to this category." There's kind of too many SKUs to do that. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Okay, great. And then just finally here, as we think about GM for U.S. wine or North America wine as we look out -- I guess two final question. What is your view about the kind of cost per case outlook you'll be facing over the next 12 months versus the last 12 and grapes obviously being a factor there? And then be -- I mean how are you thinking about GM overall? Obviously, the quarter was strong in the GM, some of that was just the sheer scale of the volume versus the cost base. But how are you thinking about the GM trend for North America wine over the next 12 months?

I guess a couple of things. The fourth quarter gross margin trend, I wouldn't get overly ingratiated with because of the year-over-year overlap and the fact that inventories were taken down in last year's fourth quarter. Okay? But that being said, in fiscal '11, the extensive harvest ’08 red vintage flowed through the P&L, so that increased our grape costs in fiscal '11, which tended to reduce our gross profit margin. That vintage is now behind us. So we don't anticipate increased grape cost per ton. Gross margin, we are focused on improving our gross margin in a number of ways. We have quite a few initiatives that we'll bring you through at the investor conference of how we're reducing our operating costs and how we’re approaching that quite differently, plus the focus brands, which you saw are growing faster than the rest of the category, tends to have a better gross margin profile. That will help us, and the U.S. consumer is trading up. You can see that in IRI and that also helps our gross margin profile. So trading up, our focus on reducing operating costs should all -- and reducing grape costs should all benefit our North American gross profit margin going forward. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: That’s great. And if I could just change topics for you, Bob. It's nice to see this tax rate having the benefits it is and you're saying it's kind of a multiyear phenomenon. If we kind of try to zero in on one of the things driving that improvement, which is simply these capital losses on the international wine sales, can you put some parameters over the kind of cumulative loss you think is deductible? Does it exceed $1 billion? And how deductible is it and what piece of deductibility might you get versus that capital loss?

Yes. I addressed a lot of this in my scripts. But I think what we said was, this gets a little confusing. From an effective tax rate perspective, meaning just the P&L tax rate, okay? All of that hit in the fourth quarter of 2011, and we called it noncomparable. Now from a cash perspective, in that noncomparable P&L benefit in the fourth quarter, it's just shy of $200 million. We said that, that $200 million number will be a positive cash in the bank in FY '11, FY '12 and FY '13. $30 million of it hit in FY '11, the remainder is about 50% in FY '12, 50% in FY '13. That's our current best guess. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Got it. And you think that's the extent of the benefit from all the losses, the accumulated capital losses whether it was this latest sale or does that include the other sales that preceded that?

Right now, that's all we're anticipating. It’s about that $200 million cash benefit. Remember, that $200 million is an after-tax number, right. So the loss, you have to tax effect that. Mark Swartzberg - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc.: Okay. And if there is upside to that number, just kind of the potential upside of 10%, 40%, are we pretty close knowing where you are with...

Right now, we're really focused at putting the $200 million in the bank. So as new information comes forward on anything additional, we'll talk about it at that time.

Your next question comes from Christine Farkas of Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Just quickly in the fourth quarter, you were helpful with respect to the $29 million of incremental profits that came from the step up in volumes, if you will, or the year-over-year timing. Could you help us with what the impact was on the revenue? And did you tell us what the shipment growth was in the quarter, not just for the year?

Yes, on the revenue side, Christine -- we said this last year, in the fourth quarter, it's about $60 million or $70 million of reduced revenue in fiscal '10 that we are overlapping. And that equivalized to, I think, $0.05 to $0.07 of EPS -- $0.07 to $0.09 of EPS, sorry.

Would I then look at your incremental $29 million on top of the revenue lap to give us an implication of what the margins were on those products sold, because that seems pretty high?

I don't know. That's pretty detailed. There's a lot of moving parts. So what I think, Christine, maybe you should give Patty or Bob Czudak a call.

Okay. And then on the shipments, your press release was helpful and gave us some shipments for the year, about 3½% in North America. Given the overlap, would you have the shipment growth in the fourth quarter?

Again, that's relatively detailed. The shipment growth in the fourth quarter would have been impacted by that $60 million to $70 million of overlap in the prior year. And we’ve given you the additional disclosures in the press release, but the one thing you have to be aware of when you look at shipment versus depletions, although the growth rate in both look similar, it's kind of a coincidence because you have to think about what the underlying absolute number is. And because in fiscal '11, shipments exceeded depletions, they don't necessarily work in concert. You have to really think through that.

Okay. I’ll follow up. And then just finally, you already touched on your views about acquisitions. But I'm just wondering, given your last transaction in Spirits with a net sale, how do you position yourself or how would you view yourself with respect to your Spirits portfolio. Is there room for acquisitions down the road?

Yes, I think that there is room for acquisitions down the road. Again, they have to serve a purpose. They have to be strategic, they have to contribute to our overall profitable organic growth imperative. There is room, but it's very hard to predict when acquisition opportunities will present themselves that make sense for us.

Our next question comes from Carlos LaBoy of Crédit Suisse. Carlos LaBoy - Crédit Suisse AG: Two questions. The first one on wine promotional spending, can you expand on that? I know you've spoken at length about it today. But if can you give us some more insight on the size, scope, timing, nature of this promotional spending for 2012. And walk us through how this goes through the P&L. Does it put pressure on pricing, as we go forward?

Sure. So we're expecting promotional spending levels rate per case basis, based on depletions, to be roughly similar to 2011 is the basic answer to your question. And just remember that promotion flows through the P&L as a reduction of gross sales and is, therefore, between the gross sales and the net sales line on the P&L. So you don't see it in net sales, you see it -- it's reflected in net sales but it reduces gross sales. Carlos LaBoy - Crédit Suisse AG: Okay. And just to clarify, is it flat relative to '11 or up relative to '11?

I’d said that it is relatively flat to '11 on a per case basis...

Or absolute dollars.

Okay, or absolute dollars for that matter, as Bob just pointed out. Carlos LaBoy - Crédit Suisse AG: Okay, and on Crown, what's the EBIT growth scenario for Crown looking out beyond 2012 if this reinvestment rate and spending behind the brand stays high? Do you expect it to remain high given the stage of development where these growth brands are or do you expect that we’ll see earnings growth out of Crown at least in line with revenue growth beyond this year?

The way the joint venture works, Carlos, is a lot of things are contractual. The Crown EBIT growth this year was a bit anomalous because of the increase in marketing spend. We don't anticipate any more increases in marketing or promotion spend, in the future. But the EBIT growth generally will go in line with what volume and pricing does. So if they continue to perform as well in the marketplace as they are now, yes, I'd anticipate EBIT growth.

Your final question comes from Neal Rudowitz of JPMorgan. Neal Rudowitz - JP Morgan Chase & Co: I'll just ask one question at this point. Can you just give us an update on the level of inventory at your distributors? It seems like the average inventory days would have to be higher relative to where they were when you started the transition. So is that the case? And if so, how much higher and is that sustainable going forward?

Yes. Our distributors carry, on average, about 60 to 90 days of inventory, and through the distributor transition, we added about five to 10 days, but we're within the 60 to 90 days on average that I mentioned. Neal Rudowitz - JP Morgan Chase & Co: So you started out lower then or just at the lower end of that average, I guess, before the transition?

I'm sorry, say that again. Neal Rudowitz - JP Morgan Chase & Co: So you started out at a lower than average level or at the low end of the range before the transition then? If you're still within the range now after a year and a half, is that correct?

Yes, it's a wide range though. I guess you could characterize it that way.

And that will be the end of our Q&A session for today's conference. I will turn the conference back to you, Mr. Rob Sands, for any further remarks.