Good morning. My name is Anita, and I will be your conference operator today. At this time, I would like to welcome everyone to the Graphic Packaging Holding Company Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2010 Earnings Conference Call. [Operator Instructions] Thank you. I would now like to turn the call over to Mr. Brad Ankerholz, Vice President and Treasurer. Please go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Anita, and welcome, everybody, to the Graphic Packaging Holding Company's Fourth Quarter and Full Year 2010 Earnings Call. Commenting on the results this morning are going to be David Scheible, the company’s President and CEO; and Dan Blount, our Senior Vice President and CFO. To help you follow along with today's call, we have provided a slide presentation, which can be accessed by clicking on the Q4 earnings webcast link on our Investor Relations section of our website at graphicpkg.com. I would like to remind everyone that statements of our expectations in this call constitute forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such statements, including but not limited to, statements relating to fiber and other raw material prices, consumer demand and pricing trends, capital expenditures, cash pension contributions and pension expense, depreciation and amortization, interest expense, debt and leverage reduction, performance improvements and cost reduction initiatives, including the closure of facilities, are based on currently available information and are subject to various risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially from the company's present expectations. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, the company's substantial amount of debt, inflation of and volatility in raw material and energy costs, cutbacks in consumer spending that could effect the demand for the company's products, continuing pressure for lower cost products and the company's ability to implement its business strategies, including productivity initiatives and cost reduction plans. Undue reliance should not be placed on such forward-looking statements, as such statements speak only as of the date on which they are made and the company undertakes no obligation to update such statements. Additional information regarding these and other risks is contained in the company's periodic filings with the SEC. And now David, I'll turn it over to you.

Thanks, Brad. We're very pleased with our fourth quarter performance and full year results. For the quarter, adjusted earnings per share were $0.06 compared to $0.03 in the prior year period, while full year 2010 adjusted earnings per share were $0.22 versus $0.03 for the full year 2009. Volume was positive in both the fourth quarter and for the full year. We've seen a steady increase in some of our key leading indicators over the last two quarters and as a result, sales in the fourth quarter increased a healthy 3.4%. The primary drivers were higher volumes and pricing. While the overall operating environment remained challenging throughout 2010, we improved our operating margin and exceeded our EBITDA and cash flow targets by optimizing our converting in-mill assets and increasing productivity throughout the supply chain. In the fourth quarter, we generated over $169 million in operating cash flow, and our adjusted EBITDA margin increased 50 basis points to over 13%. For full year 2010, operating cash flow exceeded $338 million and our adjusted EBITDA margin improved over 40 basis points to 14%. Our full year net debt reduction result was $210 million, ahead of our original target range of $180 million to $200 million. With the economy slowly improving, volumes beginning to pick up, pricing moving higher, we believe there is momentum heading into 2011. Our mills had another very strong quarter. We produced more prime tons of paperboard, and we sold those additional tons generating higher profitability and lower year-end inventories. Board production per day was up nearly 2% on a year-over-year basis in the fourth quarter. We took five days of scheduled cold outage downtime in our West Monroe facility and almost four days of scheduled maintenance at our Macon facility. So comparing the fourth quarter on a year-over-year…

Thank you, David. Good morning, everyone. Fourth quarter financial performance reflects the continuing trend of improved margins and strong cash generation. In addition, this quarter we saw a healthy increase in the top line driven by both volume and pricing. These fourth quarter trends provide us with positive momentum for 2011. Let's take a look at a few 2010 highlights. The best way to measure bottom line improvement is to strip out the one-time integration charges. Doing this, we see adjusted net income improved to $74.2 million or $0.22 per share from $10.4 million or $0.03 per share in 2009. 2010 adjusted EBITDA at $574 million represents a $18 million increase and a 40 basis point improvement in margins over 2009. Net leverage ratio improved to 4.3x from 4.8x as we reduced net debt by $210 million. With those highlights in mind, I'll provide some more specifics on our operational and segment performance for both fourth quarter and full year. As a reminder, when I refer to EBITDA and EBITDA margin in my discussion, I'm referring to results adjusted to produce comparable financial reporting. The adjustments primarily relate to prior year nonrecurring integration charges. The attachments to the earnings release and the slide presentation appendix provide the calculations of the non-GAAP measures. Both of these sources are posted on the company's website. Now for those of you following along on the slides, I am now on Page 10. Starting with revenue, fourth quarter net sales were just over $1 billion, which is 3.4% better than the prior year. Volume gains accounted for 1% of the overall sales improvement. Looking at volume by segment, Paperboard Packaging experienced a pickup in demand that produced a 1.6% sales increase. Flexible Packaging continued to experience demand challenges for multi-wall bags in the construction end…

[Operator Instructions] And you do have a question from the line of Ghansham Panjabi with Robert W. Baird.

It's actually Matt Wooten sitting in for Ghansham today. Is it fair to assume that price cost spread will remain negative through the first half of 2011 but then turn positive in the second half given the time lag of price increases?

I think that that's probably a reasonable assumption, but I don't think you're going to find that the spread is all that great, and I think what you'll find in the first quarter, is there's probably going to be a negative spread but in the second quarter we'll start bridging that.

And then secondly, it appears as if some of your competitors are expanding to other products, container board I guess for one, corrugated for another. Have you guys been able to increase market share as a result?

Well, I don't want to comment on what competitors are doing with their core strategies. What I would say is that we've been able to successfully compete in this business regardless of what our competitors have focused on. And you saw our growth was up, the industry was down a little bit. I'd say it's a combination of customer growth and some share around the fringes.

And then finally, the resegmenting of the Flexible Packaging segment, can we take that to indicate that there are furthering restructuring opportunities there, perhaps in SG&A?

I think that you can take that as a -- we put it under common management because there's a lot of similarities in those two businesses, and we've determined that it's more appropriate for it to be managed by one executive.

And in fact, some of those businesses make -- the film actually ends up in the multi-wall sector. So in many ways, they sort of sell internally to each other. So it just makes a whole lot more sense to do, make sure the integration and synergy opportunities or cost reduction opportunities I guess is a better phrase, are optimal, and that's why we've done it.

Just to be clear, you can see from our announcement we are reducing costs in that segment, and we think that putting it under common management will facilitate that further.

And then I guess one last question, and it's of a regulatory nature. Does Graphic see any impact from the new rule from the EPA that sets the standards for hazardous air pollutants for the boilers?

You're talking about the EPA macro that came out last night?

That's right.

Look, it just came out last night, so we've just started to assess the new rule. What I would tell you is that what we saw in there was certainly more favorable than the initial EPA ruling. A number of changes that were made there will certainly benefit our smaller boilers in our recycled board. As you know, we're placing our entire boiler system in Macon by 2013. So obviously that boiler system will be regulated under any new standards. So I would guess right now where I sit, the impact will be relatively minor to Graphic Packaging, but we'll do that assessment boiler by boiler, stack by stack over the next six months.

Your next question will come from the line of Philip Ng with Jefferies & Company. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Just a quick question on the inflation front. I mean, obviously from a comparison basis, 2010 was pretty challenging because '09 was deflationary. So how should we be thinking about 2011?

Well, I think, for us, you got to break it down the input, as Dan tried to say, the input that seems to have the most volatility clearly would be secondary fiber. It continues to creep up and it's a global commodity for sure. I would have said 72 hours ago that I felt the oil pricing driving diesel was pretty easy to predict, but the Middle East, as it's unfolded over there, you see oil yesterday was what, about $100 a barrel or something like that, that will clearly blow back through the freight side of the equation. Our wood costs and our natural gas costs, which are our two largest drivers, I mean, they look pretty unaffected by sort of the global economy. It's very reasonable. So from that perspective, I feel good. We'll have to push pricing in the CRB side to recover secondary fiber, and we won't be alone in that by any way, shape or form. 65% of what we do is virgin in our mills. So there's a lot of folks with exposure to recycle that are going to be concerned about that as well. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: But I mean just from a magnitude perspective, [indiscernible] your base in 2011 is probably going to be a little more modest than 2010 right?

Well, it depends. I mean yes, I would have said so. I just do not know how to handicap some of the global things that are going on in the oil markets, right? And oil has a spider effect. It affects resin and diesel and surcharges. So I would have said yes. Let's see how it settles down in the Middle East. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: On the pricing front, I mean you guys have done a phenomenal job passing pricing through at the paperboard level, industry's obviously very tight right now. Was 2010 more a anomaly? Or should we expect that type of momentum going to 2011?

In terms of the impacts or sort of pricing moves? Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Pricing moves. This past year, you guys pushed through a lot of price increases on CUK and CRB. So how should I be thinking about 2011 just because the market is still very tight right now?

I mean, what I would say is that, as Dan suggested, our contracts are delayed, so you're going to see a lot more movement in the second half because we saw a second half movement in those primary input costs that drive pricing. A lot of the paperboard pricing increases in SUS and CRB were in the second half of the year. So once again they reset, right? So you're going to see pricing movement in 2011 that might not be materially different than 2010, but still a recovery of the inflationary. What I do not know is how much more you will see if you end up with oil and OCC running away. You will see, I'm guessing, from Graphic Packaging a need to recover those costs, which you'll see board price movements to do so, if this thing doesn't moderate. And it's really difficult to predict, but that would be my guess. Because historically, that's what's happened. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: I mean, that's what I was trying to dig in, not the recovery, just additional increases on the board side so. I mean, outside...

The board side recovery is almost always driven by input costs if you look traditionally. And so if your view on input costs that drive those are probably your view on what board pricing will do; that would be my best guidance on that. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: If inflation is relatively stable...

Prices in board generally stay pretty stable. Philip Ng - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: Just because market conditions are still, I mean, exceptionally tight right now so I thought just from a demand side perspective, you guys might be able to get more pricing through.

Your next question will come from the line of Ian Zaffino with Oppenheimer & Co. Brian Bittner - Oppenheimer & Company: It's Brian in for Ian. You guys have traditionally been able to effectively take out costs year after year after year. Just seeing kind of what your outlook on the cost run is over the next couple of years and your ability to just continue to take the same magnitude of cost out of the business, and just walk us through what you're thinking around that is.

Well, I mean, certainly, we've been pretty consistent in our continuous improvement objectives. They spike up when we do a merger because there's a bunch of synergy targets, and most of those are pulling through. But if you look at -- we've completed, but if you look at just the core operating cost, Graphic Packaging still has, what, $2.6 billion worth of cost. We have $400-some-odd million worth of inventory. We have seven paperboard mills. So for me to say that cost reduction is done at Graphic would be a terrible distortion of the facts. And in fact, our forward-looks on continuous improvement look exactly like they have in the last couple of years. And as I look in the first quarter, as I look at what we're doing, we are not having a problem taking costs out of this business. As efficient as we are, there's still a lot of opportunity. Some of it isn't coming from new capital investments. The Macon biomass is a perfect example. But I mean in some of our mills like West Monroe, we were looking at that the other day and if you look at the art of the possible, West Monroe uses almost twice as much water as Macon on a per ton basis. It's not the water that's expensive, it's that we have to heat that water. So there's a lot more energy. So we can improve our digesters, we can improve our efficiency in our West Monroe mill, and energy is our second largest cost. So as we look over the next two to three years, we have lots of cost opportunity take-outs in those large paperboard mills to drive continuous improvement.

Your next question will come from the line of Joe Stivaletti with Goldman Sachs.

I just was wondering on the Flexible Packaging side, is that a business that you have any, from a strategic standpoint, would you be looking to possibly grow that business or shrink that business? Divest it? I just wondered on the heels of separating it out, if there was anything, any changes that we should expect?

Well, what I would expect is that we operate that business more effectively going forward. I mean, it is a lower margin business than our core paperboard business. The announcement at the Jacksonville facility suggests that there's cost take-out opportunity to improve the overall margin in that business. So I think if you look at all of our businesses, Joe, it is the one that's most likely to recover volume as the economy improves. It's driven by construction. It's driven by manufacturing. So as we make more cards and we build more houses, we'll see an inherent improvement, and it has some leverage. If the volume improves, the margins will improve in that business, and that's the primary expectation. It still does good on cash. It's a good cash business for us. And again, even though we've reduced debt, we still have $2.4 billion or so of debt. So as long as we're generating cash to pay down debt, that makes it strategically important to me.

Is it an area that you would consider growing?

Well, you mean organically?

Through acquisition.

Through acquisition. That's a totally different question, and I don't know that I can answer that one.

Your next question will come from the line of Richard Close with Jefferies. Richard Close - Jefferies & Company, Inc.: I was looking for a little bit more color on the boiler project in Macon. Could you guys talk a little bit about, not type of cost savings, but rather maybe quantify a little bit the type of cost savings that you're going to get there from reducing your energy purchases?

We haven't really published what that's going to do. What I would tell you is the project is around an $80 million project. 30% of the costs are going to be paid under the recovery act by the federal government biomass investment. It's a three-year project, so we won't really start to see savings on that until the end of 2013. If the project is a very lucrative project, and so we are very comfortable with the returns in that project, but the reality is that they won't start accruing for the most part until 2014. So I'm trying to stay focused on the ones that are right here. For the corporation, it's a great strategic investment. I love getting off the grid long term, but short term, it doesn't have a lot of impact.

And there are no further questions at this time. I would now turn the call back over to our host today.

Well, thank you, all, for listening, and we'll talk to you at the end of next quarter.

Thank you for your participation. This does conclude today's conference call. You may now disconnect.