Good day, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the Second Quarter 2012 TransDigm Group Incorporated Earnings Conference Call. My name is Colby, and I will be your operator for today. [Operator Instructions] And as a reminder, this call is being recorded for replay purposes. I would now like to turn the call over to Ms. Liza Sabol, Investor Relations. Please proceed, ma'am.

Thank you. I would like to thank all of you that have called in today, and welcome you to TransDigm's Fiscal 2012 Second Quarter Earnings Conference Call. With me on the call this morning are TransDigm's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Nick Howley; President and Chief Operating Officer, Ray Laubenthal; and our Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, Greg Rufus. A replay of today's broadcast will be available for the next 2 weeks. Replay information is contained in this morning's press release and on our website at transdigm.com. Before we begin, the company would like to remind you that statements made during this call, which are not historical in fact, are forward-looking statements. For further information about important factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in the forward-looking statements, please refer to the company's latest filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. These filings are available through the Investors section of our website or through the Securities and Exchange Commission's website at sec.gov. The company would also like to advise you that during the course of the call, we will be referring to EBITDA, specifically EBITDA As Defined, adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share, all of which are non-GAAP financial measures. Please see the tables and related footnotes in the earnings release for a presentation of the most directly comparable GAAP measures and a reconciliation of EBITDA and EBITDA As Defined, adjusted net income and adjusted earnings per share to those measures. With that, let me turn the call over to Nick.

Good morning, and thanks for calling in to hear about our company again. I'd like to start with some comments about our consistent strategy, the acquisition of AmSafe, our current sense of the status of the aerospace market as it applies to our business and a few miscellaneous items. To reiterate, we believe our business model is unique in the industry, both in its consistency and its ability to sustain and create intrinsic shareholder value through all phases of the aerospace cycle. To summarize some of the reasons why we believe this, and you can look at Page 4 of the slides, about 90% of our net sales are generated by proprietary products, and around 3/4 of our net sales come from products for which we are the sole source provider. About 60% of our revenue and a much higher percent of our EBITDA comes from aftermarket sales. Aftermarket revenues have historically produced a higher gross margin and have provided relative stability in the downturns. Because of our uniquely high EBITDA margins, typically about 50% of revenues and relatively low capital expenditure requirements, typically less than 2% of revenue, TransDigm's year in, year out generated very strong free cash flow. We pay close attention to our capital structure and view it as another means to create shareholder value. As you know, we have in the past and continue to be willing to lever up when we either see good opportunities or view our leverage as sub-optimum for value creation. We typically begin to delever pretty quickly. We have a well-proven, value-based operating strategy focused around what we refer to as our 3 value drivers: new business development, continual cost improvement and value-based pricing. We stick to these concepts as the core of our operating management methods. This consistent approach has…

Thanks, Nick. We had a busy second quarter and a good first half. We continued our consistent disciplined approach to value creation with our recent acquisition in our existing businesses. We started the quarter with a sprint by AmSafe. This was a good example of how we can move quickly. In December, we became aware of the potential sale of AmSafe. We immediately attended the management meeting and assembled a due diligence team. And in a short period, we visited their major operating sites in Phoenix, Elkhart, Anaheim, Erie, Bridport in the U.K., Kunshan in China and Sri Lanka. We conducted due diligence on their major customers and determined the strength of their proprietary products. The resulting data from our due diligence confirmed our originally assessment that AmSafe was a good fit with TransDigm and on February 15, we closed the deal. Again, this was a good example of our consistent acquisition strategy and of how we can move quickly and efficiently when a potential acquisition meets our stringent criteria. Once we took ownership of AmSafe, we immediately launched our disciplined value-equation process. To date, in less than 90 days, we've restructured the AmSafe spares pricing, initiated several plant consolidation and tightened up the cost structure with significant headcount reduction. We're now working to organize this business into our proven product line operational structure. Overall, the transition activities are progressing well. On our other recent acquisitions, Schneller and Harco, they're also progressing well. Schneller's Kent, Ohio building expansion is well underway, and we're on track to close their Florida facility and consolidate it with the Kent operations next quarter. We have installed a new President at Schneller, and we have moved our experienced Sales and Marketing Director from our Avtech Tyee Group to be the Director of Sales and Marketing…

Thanks, Ray, and good morning to everyone. I hope everyone had an opportunity to read our press release, which was issued this morning. In typical TransDigm fashion, the current quarter in comparison to the prior year are significantly impacted by recent acquisitions and financing activities. Let me remind you that we acquired Schneller in the fourth quarter in September or August of 2011, Harco in December in the first quarter of fiscal year '12 and AmSafe in February in our second quarter just closed. In addition, we financed the AmSafe acquisition with a new $500 million term loan, and we used $250 million of cash during the quarter to complete it. Before I begin, please reference Slide 7 for our quarterly financial results. Our second quarter net sales were $423.5 million, up $119.2 million or 39.2% from the prior year. There are 2 significant explanations for this large increase. The first is the collective impact of the acquisitions of Schneller, Harco and AmSafe. These acquisitions contributed $73.8 million of additional sales versus the prior period or almost 2/3 of the increase in sales. Not to be overshadowed by the impact of our recent acquisitions, our organic growth was 14.9% greater than the prior year. All market channels contributed to this growth as follows: $30.5 million from Commercial OEM, and this included the retroactive contract adjustment of approximately $6 million; $6.4 million from the commercial aftermarket sales; and $8.5 million from defense sales, driven primarily by OEM shipments. Reported gross profit was $236 million or 55.7% of sales. The reported gross profit margin increased by approximately 4 percentage points versus the prior year. Collectively, our gross profit percentage on our core business increased by approximately 2 margin points due to the following: the strength of our proprietary products and continued productivity…

Thank you, Greg. [Operator Instructions] Operator, we are now ready to open the line.

[Operator Instructions] Your first question comes from the line of Robert Spingarn with Credit Suisse. Julie Yates - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: This is Julie. So with 15% organic growth in the first half of the year, what's the total organic growth you're assuming in the full year revenue guidance? And has that changed from what you were assuming in the prior guidance?

Just with the sense, it's up a little bit. It hasn't changed dramatically.

Yes, and it's probably up a little. I just -- I don't have the number in my head, Julie. This is Nick Howley. But the Commercial OEM's up a little bit. Defense is up a little bit, and commercial aftermarket is about the same. So a little bit. Julie Yates - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay, but it looks like it might decelerate a little bit in the back half of the year, maybe be high single digits, low double digits. Does that sound about right?

No. I just don't have the number in my head. Greg, do you?

Yes, we have the second half when you look at it on this basis excluding some of the acquisitions of being more in the high teens...

Yes, yes, yes. You're right. You're right, Julie. Julie Yates - Crédit Suisse AG, Research Division: Okay, okay, and then just a housekeeping for Greg. What was the interest expense you're embedding in your full year guidance number?

Well, the interest in depreciation and amortization combined, Julie, was $0.26 per share. I don't have the absolute number in front of me right now.

Your next question comes from the line of Mr. Carter Copeland with Barclays.

Just a couple of quick ones. Nick, I wondered if you might talk to what's driving the military strength if you can see anything in the kind of granular data of whether or not it's helicopters or what's going on that it keeps surprising us?

Yes, yes, first, Carter, I don't think we're the only one it's surprising. If you look across the product lines, it's fairly broadly doing better. I would say in specifics, a couple of things that do jump out is the helicopters are continuing to do better. That's helicopter maintenance, spare parts, all that -- upgrades, all that sort of thing. And we saw a couple of decent F-35 shipments here too in this quarter. Those are probably the 2 things that might stick out other than just generally it's not dropping as much as we thought.

Okay. Great, and the second relates to just M&A. I know you said the pipeline was a little light, but I wondered if you might comment on the types of deals you're seeing out there. If you're seeing any impact from sort of looming tax changes, and whether or not that's got sellers interested or not or what kind of deals are out there? Are there anything new or are you working the same list? Any detail would be helpful.

Yes, I can't talk anything specific, of course. Let me take your questions in the order you asked them, Carter. I -- we do the tax change pitch all the time for people. We'll see to try to get them to sell. I honestly can say we haven't got a lot of biting on that. People listen, but they don't seem to move much on it. We had the same thing in 2010, so I can't take much comfort in that. I would say on the deals we are seeing, I would say the type of things we're seeing right now are typically the smaller type of things that we traditionally saw. That being said, as you know, particularly bigger things can just pop up on you quickly. I mean we're tracking them, but we don't know of anything right now that's popping up.

Your next question comes from the line of David Strauss with UBS.

Thanks for the additional color around adjusted EBITDA margins by business or by the base business. That's where my question is. You talked about 50% adjusted EBITDA margins for the base business with McKechnie and 51% for the full year. Can you give us an idea, Nick, of maybe the spread between the base in McKechnie, how McKechnie is tracking relative to that 50%, 51% number.

No, we really don't disclose that. But what I wanted to do is that I wanted to give you that number so you can get a pretty good sense. McKechnie is a decent-sized business, and the base businesses were somewhere around 50% before we bought it. So you can do the math and see it's got to be doing pretty well, right? Or you couldn't -- McKechnie is in the 50%, 51%.

Yes, sure. I assume...

We don't -- specifically, we don't disclose them.

Well frankly, we don't even add up. There's no such thing as a McKechnie. We don't even add that total up, David. I mean, we've incorporated corporate into our corporate headquarters. We have 3 units, and we don't get any management benefits for it, but we know -- it's moving up, and that was Nick's point that it was doing good.

Yes, maybe that's the best way to say. It's not an identifiable entity anymore.

Okay, and then on the AmSafe, you bought the business, it was 25% EBITDA margins. Now it sounds like it's 30%, so moving up there. Can you talk about where that 5% is coming from? And then also where does it stand on an EBIT basis? I think you had talked about the ability to kind of stretch out the amortization period. Where does it stand on an EBIT basis?

Well, let me deal with -- on the EBIT, Greg, you can address. I think we -- on the tax, we gave you an indication of how much tax benefit we get in this 7.5-month period. On the move in the margin, it's the normal stuff. We own the business, and we start to give in, and we start to -- we brought the cost down, we've adjusted the cost structure already, we're starting some consolidations of some plants, we're adjusting the pricing. It's the whole range of things that we do when we buy a business. And it's starting to kick in.

David, in our guidance, and I don't know if this will help your confuse you, but total depreciation and amortization for AmSafe on an annualized basis will be just a little over $15 million now that we've settled through everything. I don't know if this -- that helps you or not.

Yes, that's this year, or that's a full year run rate?

That's a full year run rate.

Okay, okay, now that helps. And then last one for me. What's the latest thinking on what to do with the ground vehicle business?

Yes, if we -- as I've said before, that doesn't fit with us particularly. It's just a question of whether we think we can get a price that makes sense to us. And we're sort of going through the process now of trying to sort that out.

Your next question comes from the line of Noah Poponak with Goldman Sachs.

Just on the commercial aftermarket, I recognize you didn't change the full year target. But it sounded like you made a few incrementally cautious comments there, what you said on inventory de-stocking in Europe. Maybe there's a few other incremental positives that you just didn't mention. Traffic's been pretty strong. Year-to-date load factor is still high. So just very simply, would you say on the margin you feel better, worse or the same about commercial aftermarket today versus the last time you spoke to us, and why?

Yes, I think I'd have to say we feel about the same. We reconfirmed the same numbers on our guidance. On the downside, we get some anecdotal evidence, as I said, of some inventory adjustments and frankly, some more kind of hammering in from the European airlines. That's on the downside. On the upside, as I said, the bookings for the quarter were pretty good. So we sort of look at the 2 of them and parse them out, and we don't have a crystal ball and say that feels about the same to us.

Okay, that's helpful. Can you tell us -- and I know you don't like to get very granular on pricing, but can you say what the core aftermarket volume growth, so total aftermarket exclusive of price in the quarter, was that positive or negative?

You mean do we get positive price?

No, I'm asking did you grow aftermarket exclusive of price just on volume?

Well, we don't -- I'm not going to get -- just frankly, I'm not going to get back into that. I'm not going to get back into figuring out the price from the real volume.

Okay, yes. No, I mean, I was -- I know you don't want to do that, which is why I was trying to ask just...

Which is why you asked it a different way.

And it still didn't work. That's all right.

One of these days, it will work.

Maybe I'll try one more then. Just the likelihood that in your view that we see more of these retroactive contract adjustments in the remainder of 2012? I know that can be lumpy.

Yes, let me say I don't know. There's none hanging fire that I know of that will drop in the second half. That being said, we get a lot of LTAs around the ranch, and there's frequently some kind of disputes going on. But I don't know of any right now that I expect to drop in the second half. I would say, as I pointed out, we had this Eaton litigation resolution. It's in our favor with a, not a huge, but a decent award in our favor. There's enough kind of a smoke around that, that we don't -- we're not going to book it yet, but that could clear out in the second half of the year. The smoke could clear, and we could have a positive booking.

The next question comes from the line of Gautam Khanna with Cowen Inc.

I wanted to explore the aftermarket comment. You said bookings -- last quarter, I think you said the book to bill was basically EBIT one, but this quarter it's running ahead. So was there something kind of late in the quarter that picked up? And if so, where were you seeing that strength?

Yes, I don't -- let me just look at the last quarter. I don't remember what the last quarter numbers were, but I think that sounds about right. I just don't remember.

I think you said orders were up or about in line with sales but here, we're seeing that they're running ahead. A few months in, so was that a month...

Yes, I mean the bookings -- as I said, the booking in the second quarter were good. So we're up. We ran ahead of the shipments. We ran ahead of the previous quarter, and we're up above our shipping level on a year-to-date basis. I don't know that I can -- or I mean, excuse me, let me restate that. I can't attribute that to any one thing, but it makes us feel better rather than worse. I would say that to draw much conclusion off a quarter of bookings, it's hard to draw a lot off of that. But it's better to be up than down.

I mean, was there any commonality to the product?

No, I can't say there was. We have a lot of different products, and I can't say -- I can't tell you that I could focus it in on fuel systems or interiors or anything like that.

Okay. And then on the contract adjustments, could you give us more color on kind of what this was related to? You mentioned there were 2 of them, 2 different contracts...

Could you speak up? I couldn't hear the question.

On the contract adjustments, I think you mentioned there were 2 of them that totaled the $6 million or $5.5 million. Were they different from what you saw last quarter? Were these different contracts? Just a little more color on them?

Yes, what they are, what both of them are, there's a bunch of details that doesn't make all that much difference. Essentially, they are settlements of scope differences on the 787 contracts.

Okay. And will that...

Each one has some different wrinkles in the exact details. But at the end of the day, their economic impacts have changes in scope as we run through the development process.

Got it. And that's what they were last quarter as well?

And this quarter.

They're both independent.

Yes, they're independent, by the way. It's not the same contract. They're independent product lines.

But on the 787.

Yes.

Your next question comes from the line of Rama Bondada with Royal Bank of Canada.

So kind of going back to Dave's question earlier. When we think about McKechnie, where are we at in the integration time line there in terms of operational integration, pricing changes that you guys normally implement with your newly acquired companies?

Ray, why don't you just speak to the integration activities?

Yes, I can speak to that. Yes, and integration activity was -- this is Ray Laubenthal. The big moves there were to combine our Avtech facility and the Tyee facility, and the Electromech business with McKechnie had multiple units that were being shut down and moved to Mexico. And both of those physical moves have occurred. A lot of activity combining plants, moving plants and so forth. But after you put 2 plants together, there's a settling out period and so forth. And we expect -- and those businesses are settling out as we expect. The temps that we hired to help with the moves and so forth are let go. But the new people hired at the new locations got to come up the learning curve. So the physical pieces, I think that's gone a little bit better than we expected, but that's gone well and that's done for the most part. With the other value creation, the pricing and so forth, we follow the same playbook as we do with every acquisition we buy, and that has moved along as we expected in the commercial aftermarket. And as the OEM LTA contracts expire, we'll work on those as those come up, and there's a few of those to expire in the coming years.

So what's the average length of those LTAs that's not...

Typically in this industry, at least for our products, the LTAs average between 3 and 5 years.

Okay. So it'll be a rolling event that will be occurring over the next couple of years or so?

Correct.

Okay. And then kind of looking out over the next couple of years, when we think about margins and assuming and obviously, this is a theoretical, so we know that you guys are going to continue doing acquisitions. But if you weren't doing any acquisitions, how quickly do you think you could get back to that 45%, 46% EBIT margins that you guys had before McKechnie?

So I don't know what the -- this is Nick. We're conversing with the EBITDA margins, and I think we're about there.

Okay. So even including AmSafe and Harco and Schneller...

No, no, no. Excuse me, excluding those. In the base business with McKechnie, we're about there.

Okay.

On the other ones, I would say I -- we'll give a forecast for next year out when we give it, but I would expect the margins would start to move back up.

So normally, just because I guess your integration time line with companies, would it be 1 year or 2 years if -- I mean every company's different.

We don't -- yes, they're -- all of them are different. We model them over 3 to 5 years. Frequently, we can exceed that.

Ladies and gentlemen, your next question comes from the line of Mr. Joe Nadol with JPMorgan. Seth M. Seifman - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Actually, it's Seth Seifman on for Joe this morning. A question about margins. The performance in the quarter in the base business was quite strong despite an adverse mix shift. I wonder either on a sequential basis or year-on-year if you can quantify the adverse, the margin headwind that came from mix at all or even ballpark?

We can't quantify that exactly. What we can make -- as I've told you before, it's unusual for a mix shift period-to-period to move it more than a point or 2. Seth M. Seifman - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Right. And as we look out for the rest of the year, you're obviously looking for improvement in the margin and the base business despite the fact that mix could get a little bit tougher with the strong growth in OE. Is there any one particular thing you would point to that's driving that, or it's just a combination of the stuff you usually do?

You mean driving the margin increase or driving the mix change? Seth M. Seifman - JP Morgan Chase & Co, Research Division: Driving the margin improvement...

Just the normal stuff. The normal -- we work on the price, we work on the cost every quarter and every year. But there's nothing unusual on that.

Given the operation, it's rare for one event to move margins 1 point. It's just usually going with the tide of everything going on.

Your next question comes from the line of Myles Walton with Deutsche Bank.

Just the -- I guess follow-up on the margin mix for a second. The EBITDA margin year-on-year, 48% on an adjusted basis. And if I -- thanks for the walk on the gross margin perspective. If I layer that over on to the EBITDA comparison, EBITDA As Adjusted, I'm getting to like a point of dilution from the acquisitions roughly offset by the favorable contract still ending up at about the same EBITDA As Defined margin year-on-year despite the mix. So is there any other thing to think about in terms of what was driving that to get that performance?

Myles, I walked you through the EBITDA As Defined, not the gross profit. Was there some confusion?

Slide 7 walked through the gross profit year-on-year.

Keep going the prior year, year on year. We're just bridging the current year, within it. We don't...

Yes, yes, yes.

[indiscernible] prior year and then just with all the acquisitions.

You don't have to answer that, Greg. No, Myles, you're asking reconciling versus the prior year?

Yes.

And what we tried to do is give you color for this year because with all the acquisitions, I mean, you could imagine all the puts and takes that go on. So we were just trying to give you color on the current year margin at EBITDA and I wanted to give you a little color on gross profit because we dilute a little more in SG&A with the acquisitions.

Let me also add there, Myles, the other -- the thing I was trying to do was to show you if we throw McKechnie into the base, the base is now back at or above where it was before we bought it.

Yes. Yes. No, it's more striking to me in terms of just trying to back into the mix apparently not really working against you this quarter and I'm just kind of curious if there's anything we're missing in terms of try to back out to see just what that mix impact may have been.

Yes, I think it is working against us this quarter, which is another way of saying the 50% EBITDA -- or for the quarter, excuse, I talked about year-to-date sorry.

But versus second quarter last year, the mix is working against us.

Yes.

Our OEM growth was substantial versus our aftermarket.

Yes, right.

So I guess on the Slide 7 where it say core business contributed 2 margin points, it seems like the favorable item was about 1.5 points, and then I guess unfavorable versus aftermarket, it had a negative arrow, but I'm just not sure that it actually played out that negatively.

The $6 million, you could do the math on that. That's only about 0.5 margin point there. Given that the aftermarket OEM mix in the quarter was between what 1% and 2%, it was in that range.

Okay, okay. The other question was on cash per quarter. I think maybe it's just rounding, but last quarter you were talking about $80 million a quarter. And I thought I heard $90 million to $100 million, so is that taxes?

No, one, we own another business that we didn't have before, and the other is we tend to be a little conservative on it.

Your next question comes from the line of J. B. Groh with D.A. Davidson. J. B. Groh - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Sort of playing off of Myles' question. How should we think about sort of the -- I know you don't want to give specifics, but the margin differential between aftermarket and OE, I mean I know you're not going to give numbers, but I'm sure it varies by company some -- you're essentially selling a 0 margin to OE and getting massive margins on aftermarket, and then there's a continuum. So with the way the mix was, it seems like there's not that huge gap that maybe we thought that it was. Is that fair?

There's a pretty big gap.

A big gap.

Yes. J. B. Groh - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Okay, okay. And then on the -- just a housekeeping item on the contract adjustments, no expenses related to that, right?

That's correct. J. B. Groh - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: And then is there any -- I guess you wouldn't have contemplated contract adjustments in the guidance.

No. And as Nick said, I mean, these are the 2 we know about and we don't see anything in the horizon to put in the guidance for the second half. J. B. Groh - D.A. Davidson & Co., Research Division: Okay.

And we didn't have it in the original guidance if that was the question.

Our next question comes from the line of Eric Hugel with Stephens.

When we think about AmSafe, I guess relative to other acquisitions you've done in the past, sort of given the very high sort of aftermarket content, should we think about sort of the margin sort of expansion sort of again sort of accelerating much faster than some -- than prior -- that other acquisitions?

I would not. There's some portions of the business that down drag a little, too. That's why I think I said I don't know that this business gets to the average.

I know it might not get to the average, but let's say the recovery, your ability to implement pricing is much quicker because it's such higher aftermarket?

Yes. I get your point, but I think we think about these on a 3- to 5-year basis when we sort of give you a sense of what we can do when we buy them, and I think about it the same way and hopefully, you'll be conservative.

Okay, fair enough. And in terms of the intangible amortization, because you have that sort of the put and the take of some of the businesses running off, sort of what should we be thinking of in terms of the run rate on a go-forward basis somewhere in the, say, $11 million to $12 million range so we get a full year, a full quarter of AmSafe in there.

When we give our guidance out because -- we'll give you a clearer picture because the amortization I gave you or I gave David, I know it does include like backlog amortization and stuff, which is at a more rapid rate. And I just don't have what after the rapid amortization what the run rate is right now. That will come when we do our guidance for next year.

Your next question comes from the line of Michael Ciarmoli with KeyBanc.

Nick, maybe just to go back to Noah's question, if I look at your commentary from these results with revenue sequentially flat in commercial aftermarket. Last 2 quarters, you talked about them being sequentially flat. So that's 3 quarters in a row of aftermarket sequentially flat. I'm assuming you get a little bit of bump there with 787 and 747 provisioning. So again maybe getting back to that core business, I'm also assuming over the past 9 months there's been some pricing. So it would seem like volumes are under a bit of pressure, I guess?

Well, let me -- a couple of things. One, we have no provisioning in there. As you know, that's -- we could get some provisioning, and I hope we do. But someday we'll get it, but we have none in the second half. So that -- so I just take issue with that. We're just -- we're not going to back into the pricing this way. So I'm not going to comment on what the real volume is. But I will say I'll just remind you again, the 25% year-over-year growth the year before was, in our judgment, not a sustainable number. So at some point, you're going to give some of that back.

Yes, yes. No doubt, okay. What about -- I mean, are you seeing anything from any of the string of bankruptcies out there that -- I know you talked about some of the cautious comments and some of the more positive comments. I mean, anything else that would be creating a sequentially flat environment for you guys?

Other than just general economic concern, I don't know of anything systematic. The positive is the bookings picked up. Now again, I don't want to over play that, but surely that's a better fact than if they went the other direction.

Our next question comes from the line of Carter Leake with BB&T Capital Markets. F. Carter Leake - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: You gave us sequential commercial aftermarket. Any chance of getting that for Commercial OEM and defense as well sequential?

What did we give -- we gave the -- what did we give, Greg? We gave the quarters? Have we given that?

I don't know. I thought we did.

Yes, I thought we did. Obviously we don't have it here.

We don't have them all memorized, sorry. We thought we gave it, but we didn't, I guess. F. Carter Leake - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: Okay, biz jet OEM, any color on that? What's driving it? Where are you seeing it? What platform?

In what? Was that biz jet?

Biz jet OEM.

Yes, I mean the same story on biz jets that everybody sees. The top of the market is doing better than the bottom of the market. That's the Gulfstream, big Canada air kind of stuff. F. Carter Leake - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: Moving to the Eaton settlement. I think the public number we see there is around $8.5 million. Is that correct, what the award is?

Yes, that was offset by a counterclaim, so it's more in the $7 million, $7.5 million range. As I said to start off, there's a couple things there. The big issue there was intellectual property, and we've prevailed completely on that and have all our intellectual property back with an order. The dollar claim, that's going to jostle around. We got some more ongoing prejudgment interest claims. There's an argument about the fees, how much of the back fees do they owe us. And on the other hand, they may appeal some of it. So I don't exactly know where that sorts out. F. Carter Leake - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: And where is Eaton right now as far as a customer? Are they still a current customer?

Well, yes. They're a current customer. They're not in our top 10. I mean, they're a good customer, but they're not one of our big customers. F. Carter Leake - BB&T Capital Markets, Research Division: Because their counterclaim sort of speaks to underperformance, et cetera, but you don't see -- you see them continuing as a customer relationship.

Yes, yes.

At this time, there are no further questions in queue, so I will return the call to management for any closing remarks.

Thank you. I'd like to thank you, all, for participating on this morning's call, and I'd like to let you know that we expect to file our second quarter 10-Q sometime tomorrow.

Thank you for your participation in today's conference. This concludes the presentation. You may now disconnect. Good day.