Greetings. Welcome to Novelis' fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2026 earnings presentation. At this time, all participants are in listen-only mode. The question and answer session will follow the formal presentation. If anyone should require operator assistance during the conference, please press star zero from your telephone keypad. Please note that the conference is being recorded. At this time, I'll turn the conference over to Megan Cochard, Vice President, Treasury and Investor Relations. Thank you, Megan. You may now begin. Thank you, Rob, and good morning or evening, everyone. Welcome to Novelis' fourth quarter and full fiscal year 2026 earnings conference call. Hosting our call today is Steve Fisher, our President and Chief Executive Officer, and Dev Ahuja, our Chief Financial Officer. Following the presentation, the call will be open to analysts and investors for questions. This conference call is being broadcast on the internet at novelis.com in the Investors section. A replay of this call will also be available on our website. Before I turn the call over to Steve, let me remind you that today's earnings release and presentation include forward-looking statements as defined in the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, those factors identified in the release and in our filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Today's presentation also includes certain non-GAAP measurements. Reconciliation of these measurements is provided in the financial statements included with our earnings release, as well as in the appendix of our presentation. Now let me turn the call over to Steve. Thanks, Megan. Good morning or evening, everyone, and thanks for joining us today. Fiscal 2026 was challenged by the disruption caused by the Oswego plant fires late last year, but our core performance remains strong. I am also pleased to let everyone know we have already started commissioning the Oswego hot mill, and we will have coils coming off the mill within the next few weeks, well ahead of our previous guidance of end of June. In the fourth quarter, adjusted EBITDA per ton increased 10% year-over-year to $544, reflecting a solid demand, cost discipline, and benefits from our high recycled content business model amid favorable scrap market conditions. These results underscore the resilience of our operating model and the strength of demand for aluminum products across our key end markets. We are also making strong progress on what we can control to drive margin expansion and build operational resilience. Notably, through our global cost efficiency program, we exited fiscal year 2026 with more than $200 million in run rate savings and expect to deliver additional savings in each of the next two years. Finally, we continue to make excellent progress on our strategic growth investment in Bay Minette, Alabama. The cold mill began commissioning in March, and we remain firmly on track for full plant commissioning later this calendar year. This investment positions us to support the undersupplied North American market today and capture future growth while strengthening our ability to serve customers with low carbon, high value aluminum solutions. As we begin the new fiscal year, we are encouraged by the momentum in the business, the progress at Oswego and Bay Minette, and our ability to navigate near-term disruption and serve our customers. Turning to slide four. Recovery and restart efforts in Oswego are progressing very well following two significant fire events in the plant in September and November. Most importantly, all employees were safely evacuated during both incidents with no injuries. Over the past several months, our priorities have been restoring the hot mill and mitigating the impact to our customers. We've taken decisive actions to support our customers by rerouting material globally and significantly expanding alternative sources of supply, leveraging both our Novelis network and third-party partners to mitigate capacity constraints in North America. From an operational standpoint, we have completed all major mechanical assembly work and are now in the commissioning process, testing the equipment, systems, and connections across the four production stands. We expect to be rolling coils in the next couple of weeks, positioning us to support pent-up demand and normalize shipments over time. Turning to the financial impact. We updated the combined total free cash flow impact before insurance to be approximately $1.7 billion, compared to our previous estimate between $1.3 billion-$1.6 billion. This increase primarily reflects higher repair costs versus our preliminary estimates and incremental costs to minimize customer disruption. These actions included elevated logistics costs, third-party sourcing, and other temporary inefficiencies associated with operating outside of our optimal footprint. These deliberate decisions are aimed to protect customer relationships and business continuity and reinforce our reputation as a reliable partner. Doing so also led to a slightly improved estimated adjusted EBITDA impact to be between $100 million to $150 million, with an unchanged estimated shipment impact. Novelis has comprehensive insurance to protect against these types of incidents and are working collaboratively with our insurers to recover our claims. We intend to seek a recovery of all insured losses, subject to deductibles, sub-limits, and other policy exclusions. Given the process, the timing and amount of recoveries from any insurance claims related to the fires are uncertain and may take some time to materialize. We currently estimate that we will be able to recover approximately 70%-75% of the estimated cash flow and EBITDA impacts of the fires. Overall, while the event at Oswego created near-term financial pressure, we remain encouraged by the pace of recovery and remain confident in our ability to fully. Importantly, we have incorporated insights from the Oswego disruption into our global operations, enhancing employee safety and asset reliability. Additionally, we are aggressively implementing a standard operating system at all of our manufacturing sites. Based on the principles of world-class manufacturing, the system will enhance our ability to deliver consistent quality and reliable performance for our customers worldwide. Now I turn the call over to Dev for a more detailed review of our financial results. Dev? Thank you, Steve, and good morning, good afternoon, or good evening. Let's turn to slide six and our fourth quarter financial highlights compared to the prior year period. Net sales increased 4% to $4.8 billion, primarily driven by higher average aluminum prices, partially offset by a 12% decline in total rolled product shipments at 844 kilotons. Shipments were directly affected by an estimated 73 kilotons impact due to the Oswego fires and indirect impacts in other regions that had to divert capacity to meet North American demand. We also see some continued softness in some specialties markets muted by the current economic environment. Adjusted EBITDA was down 3% year-over-year to $459 million. Q4 FY 2026 results included some large unusual offsetting impacts, including an estimated net negative impact of $53 million from the Oswego fires, $27 million net negative impact from tariffs, and a positive $41 million insurance recovery related to the floods that impacted our Sierre plant in 2024. The EBITDA bridge shows the impact of the fire in unfavorable shipments and product mix, partially offset by lower costs from improved scrap prices, idled fixed costs relating to the Oswego disruption reclassed below EBITDA and operating cost efficiencies. Foreign exchange and a higher Sierre insurance recovery than the prior year in other were additional tailwinds. Adjusted EBITDA per ton as reported was $544, up 10% year-over-year. We reported a net loss attributable to our common shareholder of $84 million in the quarter. This includes the Oswego fire impact in adjusted EBITDA, as well as $577 million in fire-related losses recorded below EBITDA, partially offset by favorable metal price lag given the rise in local market premiums. Net income attributable to our common shareholder, excluding special items, was $227 million in the quarter. Let's look at Q4 performance year-over-year by region, beginning on slide seven. North America shipments were down 19% year-over-year, impacted by production constraints following the Oswego fires. Without the production disruption, we expect shipments would have been consistent with the prior year results. The 51% decrease in adjusted EBITDA is driven by the estimated $53 million fire impact and $27 million net tariff impact. The tariff impact was a reduction sequentially from Q3, higher than expected given complicated capacity constraints as we work through Oswego disruption. With Oswego coming back online and access to more U.S. capacity, we continue to expect the tariff burden to go down as we move forward. In Europe, shipments increased 7%, largely due to higher automotive shipments to support North America. Adjusted EBITDA increased 44%, primarily from the higher volume as well as more favorable year-over-year insurance recoveries related to the 2024 Sierre flood. These factors were partially offset by less favorable metal benefit from unfavorable metal mix. Turning to the next slide, in Asia, total shipments grew 14% as we increased support to North American customers. However, adjusted EBITDA decreased 21% due mainly to less favorable product mix and metal benefit resulting from lower local market premiums and unfavorable metal mix. In South America, volumes grew 8%, driven by higher beverage packaging shipments to support North America. Adjusted EBITDA improved 27%, primarily as a result of the higher volume and improved scrap market conditions compared to a year ago. Net sales increased 7% to $18.4 billion, primarily driven by higher average aluminum prices, partially offset by a 5% decline in total rolled product shipments to 3.6 million tons. The decrease in shipments was primarily a result of the estimated 145 kilotons direct impact from the Oswego fires and lower local shipments in other regions as they shifted capacity to support North American demand, as well as softness in some specialties markets. adjusted EBITDA was down 9% year-over-year to $1.6 billion, including an estimated net negative impact of $104 million from the Oswego fires and $143 million from tariffs. adjusted EBITDA per ton, as reported, was $462. Excluding the impact of tariffs and Oswego fires in adjusted EBITDA and shipments, adjusted EBITDA per ton would be over $500, demonstrating the resilience of our business model, strong success of our efficiency initiatives, and favorable market conditions. Fiscal 2026 net income attributable to our common shareholder was $15 million. Net income attributable to our common shareholder, excluding special items, was $476 million, a 38% year-over-year decline, mainly driven by tariffs and unrealized derivative losses this year versus gains in the prior year. Let's turn to cash flow on slide 10. Fiscal 2026 adjusted free cash flow is an outflow of $2.4 billion, driven by $2.3 billion invested in capital expenditures and an approximately $1.1 billion impact from the Oswego fire. We exited the year with a very strong liquidity of $2.8 billion, supported by $950 million in equity contribution from our shareholder in the second half of the year, underscoring their continued confidence in Novelis. Looking ahead to fiscal 2027, we expect total capital expenditures to be at a similar level to FY 2026 as we complete peak spending at Bay Minette and carry out the necessary repairs at Oswego. Full year CapEx is expected to be in the range of $2.1 billion-$2.4 billion, including approximately $350 million for maintenance capital. As expected, net leverage increased to 4.1 times at the end of FY 2026, reflecting the impact of the Oswego disruption and elevated capital spending at Bay Minette. With Oswego restarting, Bay Minette nearing completion, and continued strong business momentum, we believe we have a clear line of sight to returning to positive free cash flow by the end of fiscal 2027, setting a firm path towards delevering. Turning to the next slide, as we look at our structural cost reduction program, I want to highlight the meaningful progress we have made and the momentum we are carrying into the next phases of this work. At the end of fiscal 2025, we set a three-year ambition to sustainably reduce our cost base by $300 million through SG&A streamlining, operational efficiencies, and footprint optimization. The target was designed not just to take cost out, but to build a more resilient, more agile business for the long term. What's important is how consistently our team has outperformed against these expectations through disciplined execution and a relentless focus on efficiency. We exited fiscal 2026 at a run rate above $200 million, well ahead of the $75 million we had originally targeted a year ago and delivered more than $125 million of in-year savings in fiscal year 2026. That acceleration reflects strong traction across all work streams, with SG&A simplification and technology-enabled process improvements leading the way. Looking ahead, we remain confident in our ability to continue expanding these savings. We are now targeting $350 million-$400 million in total structural cost reductions by the end of FY 2028, up from our original estimate of $300 million. The work is delivering sustainable results, but these actions are not just about cost. They are about creating a simpler, more efficient operating model that leverages automation, improves throughput, and ultimately strengthens margins. I'd now like to hand the call back to Steve for a market and business outlook. Thanks, Dev. Let's take a look at our end market outlook on slide 13. Overall, we continue to be encouraged by the long-term fundamentals across each of our key markets, with near-term demand largely consistent with our expectations. Starting with beverage packaging, our largest end market, long-term growth remains very attractive, with global ex-China growth expected in the 4% range through the end of the decade. Sustainability priorities and consumer preferences for recyclable packaging continue to drive a favorable mix shift towards aluminum. In the near-term, global beverage packaging demand remains strong across regions, reinforcing aluminum's position as the package of choice and demand resilience despite inflation. Moving to automotive. Long-term demand remains solid as aluminum continues to gain share through lightweighting and performance-driven innovation. Growth in North America is supported by a favorable vehicle mix, particularly higher aluminum content in SUVs and pickup trucks. While Europe remains stable under constrained economic conditions, near-term demand is supported by North American capacity constraints, and we remain confident in the longer-term trajectory. In aerospace, the long-term outlook remains constructive, underpinned by multi-year OEM order backlogs and sustained demand for new aircraft. Aluminum plate and sheet continue to play a key role in aerospace applications, and we are encouraged by the signs that global aerospace supply chain constraints continue to ease. Finally, in specialties, long-term growth is expected to track GDP-plus rates, supported by lightweighting, sustainability trends, and an undersupplied U.S. housing market. In the near term, building and construction demand remains stable but suppressed, while economic uncertainty is tempering demand in certain segments such as batteries, truck and trailer, and light-gauge products. Overall, while near-term conditions vary by market, the long-term demand drivers for aluminum remain firmly intact across our portfolio. Turning to slide 14. The need for additional domestic aluminum capacity in the U.S. has never been clearer, and Bay Minette is a critical step in addressing the capacity-constrained market. We are building a state-of-the-art 600-kiloton aluminum facility designed to support long-term growth across our North American markets. This low-carbon, greenfield rolling and recycling facility positions us extremely well for decades of growth ahead while reinforcing our leadership in sustainable aluminum solutions. The estimated total capital cost for the project remains unchanged at approximately $5 billion, with $3.2 billion having been spent through the end of fiscal year 2026. From a project execution standpoint, we are making excellent progress. The cold mill commissioning process began in March, marking a major milestone for the site. Looking ahead, the activity level over the next several months will remain high, with the hot mill beginning its commissioning process next month and the other assets to follow. We remain on track to complete project commissioning during the H2 of calendar year 2026 and then begin qualification of customer coils. As the plant ramps up, Bay Minette will significantly enhance our ability to serve key markets, particularly beverage packaging and automotive, while also providing flexibility to support specialty products. Overall, this facility meaningfully strengthens our U.S. manufacturing footprint as a significant contributor to achieving a long-term consolidated company adjusted EBITDA per ton above $600. In summary, our strong fourth quarter adjusted EBITDA and adjusted EBITDA per ton results reflect the positive underlying market fundamentals from favorable demand trends and scrap market conditions to the success of our cost efficiency program. We are energized by the progress we are making to restart Oswego in the coming weeks and to commission Bay Minette later this year. This is all in order to support strong customer demand for sustainable aluminum products. The underlying strength of the business provides confidence in our expectation to return to positive free cash flow at the end of fiscal 2027. With that, we're happy to take any of your questions. I'll turn it back over to Rob. Thank you. We'll now be conducting a question-and-answer session. We ask you to please limit yourself to one question and one follow-up to allow as many possible to ask questions. You may re-queue with any additional questions. To ask your question this time please press star one on your telephone keypad, then the confirmation tone will indicate your line is in the question queue. You will press star two to withdraw your question from the queue. Thank you. Our first question is from the line of Vibhav Zutshi with J.P. Morgan. Please proceed with your questions. Yes, thanks for the opportunity. First question is on the Oswego ramp-up. Now, given the early restart, how quickly can we get back all the lost volumes? The reason to ask this is because one of your key auto customers recently mentioned that they do have contingency plans and alternative sources for the rest of the year, so just wanted to understand the ramp-up. Thanks for the question. Very encouraged by the progress, as I said before, at Oswego. We anticipate that we'll be able to have coils rolling off the hot mill here in the next few weeks. From that point in time, we do believe we will ramp up the overall facility very quickly, which will help to support the overall constrained market in North America, both for automotive and beverage packaging. We'll do everything we can to assist our customers in making up volume that was lost. We do know inventory levels across the system are quite low, and there will be a need to make up volume H2 of this calendar year. We're in a position to help our customers as much as possible with Oswego coming up. Okay. Okay. Got it. Thank you. Second question is on the cost side, from the West Asia conflict. Just want to understand if there is any energy inflation that you are seeing in any of the regions, or we do have hedges in place? Sorry, I didn't get the last part of the question. Can you repeat? Yeah. I mean, on the energy inflation, is there anything that we are seeing in any of the region, or we have, you know, hedges in place, or how are you managing it? Yeah. We are hedged almost to the extent of 2/3 in regions like Europe looking forward. For this quarter, we were close to 100% hedged already. We are not seeing such a negative impact as such at this point in time. Now, this was about Europe, where the sensitivity to energy prices is pretty significant. Even in some other markets, like for example, Brazil, we take energy hedges, which is like well over 50%. In short, except in some regulated, fully regulated market where we don't have flexibility, and that is really mainly Korea, we take some prudent hedges to de-risk ourselves. To your concern, the short answer is that, no, we do not see any significant dent as such because of energy costs at this point. Okay. Thank you so much. You're welcome. Our next question is from the line of Indrajit Agarwal with CLSA. Please proceed with your questions. Indrajit, your line is live for a question. Perhaps you're muted. Hi, can you hear me now? Yes, we can. All right. First of all, congratulations for an early start of Oswego. My first question is actually on that set. Given the fires, what could be the structural cost increase or losses in that by way of, let's say, a higher insurance cost or volumes lost, permanently to competition as such? Indrajit, no, we do not expect any volume losses. We are very confident. We look at our pipeline of orders and demand at this moment. We will not have a problem of demand. We just need to step up and just ramp up production. We have very little concern on being on getting affected on the volume side. On the insurance side, yes, the cost has gone up. It has gone up by the order of over $20 million, not something that we cannot absorb. Our attempt will be that we are resetting a lot of standards, particularly around hot mill, hot mill safety, fire prevention. Over time, as we do this work and convince our insurers, we expect that we will be able to bring the cost back on track. Sure. Thank you. My second question is on pricing. Does the profitability of this quarter has benefits of some of the beverage can contracts getting repriced from first January? Broadly, what proportion would have been repriced as of 1 January? There's an inflation adjustment that happens annually, that is a reset. As such, I mean, pricing is a slight positive offset by mix, as you will see in the EBITDA bridge. There's nothing of so much significance that we need to report for now. Overall, pricing environment is positive. That's something for you to note. Sure. Thank you so much for your answers. You're welcome. The next questions are from the line of Sumangal Nevatia with Kotak. Please proceed with your questions. Yeah, good morning. Thanks for the chance. The first question is on Oswego. Earlier, someone asked on the volume ramp up, is it possible to quantify? Are we going to back to regular run rate from second half, given we are just few weeks away? Is it possible now to give some sort of a volume and margin guidance for FY 2027? On the first part as it relates to Oswego, we're very confident in having close get out of the hot mill in the next few weeks, which is ahead of the previous expectations of end of this quarter. We think that it'll quickly ramp up to pre-fire levels. It's the same equipment that we put back in, right? It's just either new same equipment or refurbished equipment. It is in essence the same mill that we had before. It's not as though we're committing a new piece of equipment. Again, highly confident that we'll be ramping very quickly back to pre-fire levels. As it relates to guidance, I'll turn that one over to Dev for FY 2027. I mean, we will see a nice uptick in both the shipments and in our EBITDA and earnings. You know, I mean, while that is not exactly your question, I want to just use the opportunity to help all of you to really understand how the business is looking on an underlying basis. I mean, it is very easy to get lost in all the noise. Let's say that this year we have reported an EBITDA of $1,645, add the FY impact of $104 million, add tariffs impact of $143 million, which in future will be kind of minimal to insignificant. We are talking about an EBITDA of $1,892 million. I mean, we if you just take out the impact of the fire, we are talking about 3,702 KT of shipments. Note the fact that our EBITDA is close to $1.9 billion if you cut the noise factors, which will kind of not exist for next year, right? I'm just giving you I'm not giving you guidance. I'm just giving you all the things that are sitting below the surface that it is easy to not see, to not see them very clearly. I mean, on a per ton basis right now for the full year, we are above $500 per ton. None of this is any guidance. We continue to be guided by our $600 per ton, where we are firmly on track. I mean, again, I'm just taking the opportunity to talk about how strong the underlying business is doing. Let me also say one more thing. You've heard about the cost savings that we are delivering. $125 million already in the P&L this year. A run rate of $200 million. If you think about $200 million, which, you know, on a run rate basis is easily in our pocket, that is $50 per ton worth of EBITDA. If you take the entire 400, I mean, if we have delivered a run rate of $200 million in one year, way ahead of actually our own expectations, you know, then we have some credibility to say that 400 is a very, very possible number. Think about that. That's $100 per ton of EBITDA. Plus minus noise. If I'm already at 500 just on the strength of this 1 thing, you should not have any difficulty thinking about the positive momentum underlying our earnings. That was a long answer to your question, but I just want to make sure that all of you are registering the underlying strength of the business. Okay. Understood. Just H2, Dev, for FY 2027 would be a pre-fire kind of a run rate as far as volumes and margin is concerned. Is that a fair understanding? I mean, that's a fair understanding. And the reason why I'm saying it's a fair understanding is that look at where we were pre-fire, you know, on a EBITDA per ton basis. We were in the vicinity of $500 already, right? Today, admit that there are some tailwinds coming from very easy scrap conditions. Take a little bit away, productivity savings are going to ramp up from cost savings and all of that. To your point, I think that we should see a pretty normal flow of earnings as we come out of the EBITDA, sorry, as we come out of the Oswego fire impact in the second half of the year. You're absolutely right about that. The thing I'm most excited about is that we are now finally turning the corner to get to a positive free cash flow cycle. I hope that that is not lost on you, because as we finish Oswego, we start getting insurance recoveries. As we finish Bay Minette in the later part of this year, I mean, you know, with our underlying operating free cash flow of about over a billion-dollar, you know, I'm pretty excited that, you know, we are actually getting onto a positive free cash flow cycle starting from the fourth quarter of this fiscal. These are all inputs. And I'm going into more details than your question, but I just wanna make sure that you guys are registering what's going on below the noise. Just a small question. On slide 18, when we are saying $925 million adjustment to the adjusted EBITDA for the fire, sorry, yeah, Oswego fire. What is this $925 million? Is this the reconstruction cost and the loss of business cost? What all is included in this? Yeah. This includes repairs and restoration costs. This is cost to serve our customers. I mean, I would say that close to about 65%-70% of the cost will be, you know, cost to serve our customers by buying materials from alternative sources, spending more than normal on expedited freight. It is repairs, it is cost to serve. You know, it is really some idle costs which, you know, which need to be taken into the cost of the fire. It's all of that at $925 million. Okay. Can we expect to recover 70%-75% of this cost, right, from the insurance? That is correct. I mean, we expect to recover 70%- 75%. It will take some time, but this year, by the end of this. We are expecting some decent recoveries right in this quarter to be clear. By the end of the year, my current best estimate is that we would have recovered more than half of that 70%- 75% range, right? Basically I would say about, out of the 75, about 37% would have been recovered by the end of the year, or 50% of the recoverable amount, if not a little more, would have been recovered by the end of the year based upon the close work that we are doing with our insurers. Got it. Thanks and all the best. Thank you. The next questions are from the line of Somaiah Valliappan with Avendus Spark. Please proceed with your questions. Yeah, thanks for the opportunity, sir. You did mention about the scrap spreads and the tailwind there. If you could just help us understand in terms of scrap market dynamics correctly. Also, if you could give some regional color. I mean, we've not seen headlines, scrap prices moving up the way LME has kind of gone up. I mean, what is the dynamics there, specifically U.S., Europe and Asia, if you could give us some color. Yeah, no, absolutely. I mean, let's start by saying that scrap availability is not a challenge in any of the regions, number one. Number two, right now we are benefiting from multiple factors, i.e., the fact that our facilities are not working full in the U.S. means that we are not buying as much as we would normally, and that reduces the pressure on scrap prices. In a way, you know, us not competing in the scrap market is also making the conditions a little bit easier, right? Overall, from an availability perspective, and therefore that also improves availability in South America because it reduces export pressures and they cannot compete as much, you know, by exporting to the U.S. market. All in all, I have to admit that we are enjoying a favorability that I am not banking on in future. I mean, if you look at my EBITDA per ton of $544, yes. I mean, you know, you can kind of do some shaving of that to a more normal level, which you saw in the first two quarters, which was like in the vicinity of, you know, sort of $500. I mean, in short, right now we are enjoying pretty good conditions. Our work at the back continues to happen because we do not want to take the scrap markets for granted. We saw what could happen two years ago, we continue to work on all our initiatives in order to improve sources of supply and look for alternative scrap sources and all of that. The short answer, favorable conditions helped by higher metal prices, no availability issues, but we are ready for things to tighten up as we look ahead. That's quite helpful. It also gives a perspective for the next few months, slightly medium term on the same topic, with more players getting into the secondary and especially with China getting more into the scrap markets. Do we structurally see our scrap markets getting tighter over the next couple of years? Is that a thing that we are also thinking, you know, when we are thinking about Bay Minette? Absolutely we do. We've talked about that. We've seen the competition for recycled materials to increase recycled content by all of our competitors, because that's what consumers want, right? Lower carbon footprint of the metal they're taking. That is driving competition, which is exactly why Dev talked about all of our long-term initiatives. We have to find more sources of scrap, alternative types of alloys that we can utilize in our in our production system. We need to find ways with technology and innovation to sort scrap before going into landfills and do other things in order to get our hands on more scrap to relieve that. That's something we've been talking about for the last couple of years. Absolutely, even though we are seeing favorable market conditions today, we know what's gonna happen in two to three years and need to be prepared for it. So all those actions stay in the forefront of what we're doing. Lower LME actually, you know, sort of helps us to not have that intensity of competition from China. Just to make a comment, okay. Okay. Okay. Just a follow-up on the CapEx that you had mentioned at the beginning, the $2 billion CapEx for the year, $2.1 billion. This you did mention $350 million is for maintenance. How much of Bay Minette, the remaining $1.8 billion is baked into that? What is our expectation, let's say, next year, where this CapEx number can be? All right. We have spent about $3.2 billion already on Bay Minette, right? We expect that for the most part, most of the remaining CapEx will be spent. Think about Bay Minette as roughly about $1.7 billion out of the total CapEx, right? Where do we get? We get to $2,050, right? If I take $1.7 billion of Bay Minette, if I take $350, the rest is all other small CapEx. Should not be a surprise to you that of the $2.1 billion-$2.4 billion that we guide you to, the lion's share of that is really the Bay Minette spend, which I think we are getting, n ot I think. I mean, we are going to be seeing the end of it, probably within the calendar year for the most part, and a little bit of an overflow into the next calendar year. Yeah. Does that mean next year the run rate number will be materially lower compared to this $2 billion for this financial year? I mean, absolutely. That's what I was telling you, that from the fourth quarter of this, of this fiscal, we are going to get into a positive cash flow cycle exactly because of this. You know, Bay Minette is the biggest thing. I mean, if you consider we generate $1.1 billion cash flow before all CapEx, and you take away, you know, another about Sorry, you take away about $350 million from that. Basically, you know, I mean, we are already at roughly about, you know, sort of $700 million of cash that is available easily. That's discretionary cash, you know, which is going to go into some other CapEx, growth, technology, and all of that. We start on a de-levering path. Sure. Thank you, sir. Our next questions are from the line of Elena Losco with BNP. Please proceed with your questions. We've lost Elena. Our next question is from the line of Satyadeep Jain with AMBIT Capital. Please proceed with your question. Hi, thank you. Dev and Steve, first question on the auto market in general. One of the steel companies in the U.S. is talking about very high aluminum prices in relation to steel and substitution from steel, aluminum to steel that management team has not seen in many, many years. That quote, quoting the management team, "This is the highest level of interest for steel over aluminum in multiyear or multi-decade." Just given the unsigned contracts you still have for Bay Minette, Oswego will ramp up, are you seeing some kind of substitution away from aluminum? You had talked historically about, a few quarters ago, about some lower demand for aluminum in China, in autos. Just maybe what are you seeing in the U.S. in the last few weeks and months? Sure. Yeah, let me talk about the U.S. We're still very confident in aluminum growth on vehicles for everything we've talked about in the past. For light weighting, for performance of the vehicles, that trends do continue. Where we've lowered kind of the five-year growth rate that we see in the automotive market from high single digits to now in more in the 3%- 5% is more driven by electric vehicle adoption, which we saw more aluminum penetration on those vehicles. That in the U.S. is pulling back for various reasons, affordability of electric vehicles, infrastructure for electric vehicles, CAFE standards, or regulatory standards in the U.S. You know, we've seen that pull back. Growth rates are lower, but the overall penetration and growth of aluminum is still there, and we're very confident in that. With that said, with these high fuel prices that we see today, we also are seeing electric vehicles starting to ramp back up too. It's a bit of a dynamic scenarios inside of the U.S., but I can tell you that in all of our discussions with our auto customers, we feel very confident. We feel very confident in the growth and confident in selling our assets in a very constrained market that we're seeing today. Basically, you're not seeing any competition in your contracts which is coming up for renewal or maybe Bay Minette, which is still, I believe, still 200 KT is untied. With, at least with steel, you're not seeing any competition where steel is taking some market share as of now? Yeah. We do compete against steel. We always have competed against steel, but again, we feel very confident in the reasons and what drives the demand for aluminum into the penetration of autos. Yeah, we feel very comfortable with that growth and our ability to fill our capacity in North America. Just clarifying that 200 KT for Bay Minette is still unsigned as of now, right? No. We need to start what we've always said is 2/3 of the plant would be beverage packaging, and a third will be automotive. That is the intent, we need to start thinking about the system as a whole, right? We're contracting all the time for the North America system, both in beverage packaging and automotive, as we continue to see the growth that we've outlined for. Beverage packaging is probably a little bit more ahead of the growth rate in the North America place than what we had thought of. Auto's slightly a little bit behind. Again, we feel very confident that the North America market is so undersupplied for aluminum that we absolutely will need to add the capacity for Bay Minette, ADI's capacity into the marketplace, and the market will still need more capacity as we look out, you know, three to five years. Again, very confident in where we stand and very excited about Bay Minette beginning its commissioning later this year. Second question on the guidance. All the peers that you have have given guidance. You're seeing encouraging signs maybe offset by some tightness in scrap as you come back with Bay Minette and Oswego. Why stop short of giving guidance for FY 2027 if you have visibility, you already have guidance for Oswego, EBIT impact, you already have the underlying market drivers. Why not give guidance for 27? When you look at $600 per ton, what is the exact time frame you're looking for there? Well, I mean, we're not trying to avoid all that. I don't know how much more input I can give to you about the strength of the underlying business. I mean, I've given you some very rich inputs. What we are trying to avoid is getting caught in any short-term noise. I mean, we are in a geopolitical environment which is really in a flux. You know, in short, what we are trying to do is we ourselves and also when we talk with you, we want to keep the right vision in front of us, and on that right vision we are right on track. When we keep talking about $600 per ton, you know, I already told you earlier, and I'll repeat that, you know, you have seen in the quarters before the fire or the underlying EBIT per ton, which is already in the range of about 500. If I simply take productivity savings and where we are getting to add $100, you should have no difficulty in imagining the $600 per ton is within reach in the next about two-to-three years easily, based upon this, as Oswego, as, sorry, as Bay Minette also ramps up. Essentially, with all the productivity savings, as they get delivered, as Bay Minette ramps up, we have no difficulty in imagining that in about a two to three years time frame, we are well on track to get there. We are just not getting caught up in quarter after quarter noise. I don't know how much more input I can give to you. I think we have given you some very rich inputs for you to make good judgments about what to expect, plus minus the noise. Thank you so much. The next question is from the line of Ritesh Shah with Investec. Please proceed with your questions. Yeah, hi. Thanks for the opportunity. Couple of questions. First is how we should look at the capital structure at Novelis, factoring the infusion which has come from at the holdco level. Second is the leverage profile. Next few years, if you would like to put some numbers over that. I think that's the first question. Sure. One thing to be clear, just given where we are, I do not expect to need any more parental equity infusion or support. I think, we are at a stage with fairly good visibility to be able to navigate the entire situation, number one. Number two, that we are not going to raise any long-term debt anymore, very clearly. We are going to raise some bridge funding and call it like about $500 million, and that will be I mean, at this moment I'm thinking maybe it's a two-year thing. Hopefully less, but let's call it two years. That's all. We will raise some short-term bridge $500 million to navigate the timing of the cash flow, complete Bay Minette, complete the full Oswego restoration, and then after that come the insurance claim and the positive free cash flow cycle. That's the way you should think about it short term. We continue to say what we said earlier. We are at 4.1 net leverage. There will be a short-term elevation as we continue to spend on Bay Minette and the Oswego fire. There will be some short-term elevation and call it like going up to the high fours, but after that we are right back to delevering. That is what one should expect. I'm really not counting on any more long-term debt. We will not need to raise any more long-term debt. Would you like to qualify net leverage ratios that it won't peak beyond 4.5 or something, if you look at, as you look into FY 2027, 2028 factoring the insurance proceeds? I mean, I would love to, but all that I'm telling you is that listen, we are dealing with this market with high elevated metal prices. It does not seem to be stopping anywhere. Right now, $3,700 LME. I'm trying not to get locked into a very precise number. I'm telling you high fours. Will it be $4.5, $4.7, I mean, honestly, you tell me where metal prices are going to settle, right? Okay. You know, be honest here, that I don't have control on everything out there, you know. I mean, in the short term, we are just getting ready to deal with all of it. That is why I'm saying that I will go for some two years, $500 million debt just to help me navigate the short term, right? That's what I think we have to work with right now. Sure. My second and third question are linked. Second is, how should we look at the working capital growth? I think, it's a new normal. How does that get factored in our pricing contracts when we look at the commercials? That's the first one. Secondly, if you could please reflect on cash flow conversion because headline EBITDA pattern, adjusted EBITDA looks great. When we look at actual cash flow conversion, it doesn't sound very pretty. If you could highlight on that would be quite useful. Thank you. I mean, what I can tell you is this. By the way, I just want to continue to close the previous question. By the end of the year, because I said leverage will be elevated to mid, call it high four. At the end of the year, that is not gonna be the case. I'm expecting the year to end with somewhere around a four leverage. We'll come right back at the end of the year. Please make a note of that, which I did not say earlier, number one. Number two, that right now, you know, when you talk about cash conversion, we are getting pressured right now by a very abnormal supply chain. I mean, remember, we have to get materials from all over the world. There is about like, you know, 100 KT of not stranded, I mean, transit material. We are resetting our production programs across our mills to support Oswego. That really means that there is, you know, there is a couple of $100 million of extra working capital that is stuck in the system. As we restart Oswego, we will be unwinding that and getting back on track in the, in the coming, you know, two to three quarters, I would say. Hopefully, not three, but two quarters. We want to get back to a very normal regular cycle where you will see, hopefully, some unwinding of the working capital that is now kind of, you know, sort of, forced to stay at elevated levels. High LME and, you know, think about it like, you know, every $100, right now it's about $90 million. I had a couple of hundred millions going into working capital, which is over time going to be unwinded with the start of Oswego in particular and resetting of supply chains. Sorry. Even if we exclude working capital, if you look at the other line items, there's nearly a $200 million block. How should we look into that? Which $200 million. Cash flow statement, we have non-cash. When we look at the cash flow bridge, we have non-cash restructuring and impairment charges that's nearly $92 million, loss on foreign exchange remeasurement of debt, that's $17, amortization of debt, $15, non-cash charges related to Oswego fires. If you put all of that together, it's near to a sizable number of $250 million. Even if we strip out working capital, which we completely appreciate, when we look at the actual cash flow conversion, for some reason, I think, where we see it is that there can be definitely some room for improvement. Just wanted to understand how is the management approaching this particular variable? The management is approaching with a lot of focus. What we are not able to right now manage is really the noise arising from the extra, you know, sort of engagement of working capital due to longer supply chain and the elevated prices. I mean, you narrated some of the items, restructuring. Of course. I mean, we are onto an operating efficiency improvement program, SG&A rewiring program. That means that we have to spend on restructuring. We are rationalizing our assets. That's a one-time cost. Typically, restructuring payouts programs are one year or less in terms of payback. We are making just the right investments. Yes. I mean, front-ended, there is a cash outflow, the benefits of that will come through our $400 million announced restructuring program. You mentioned about non-cash, you know, sort of currency translation adjustment, but that's non-cash. I mean, I think that, you know, when you look at the lines, it is easy to get lost in the, in the way the cash flow statement is stated. If you come one level above and start looking at the dynamics, I mean, look at slide number 10 of our deck. We are trying to make things easy for you. $34 million is the Adjusted Free Cash Flow before CapEx. All right. Negative, right? I mean, I'm saying that take about $1.1 billion of Oswego impact. I come back to the point, you know. I'm about a $1.1 million of operating cash flow. You know, there are noisy things that you will see in the cash flow statement. We are just trying to make it simple on slide number 18 by telling you what is the underlying cash flow we are generating, and this is pretty much steady as a rock if you make an adjustment for the Oswego fire impact with this number. It's a number which is steady as a rock. As we unwind working capital, I'm hoping to get some benefits of, you know, sort of some release. If everything happens as I imagined it would in next year, we will actually be able to see the benefit of the release of working capital. My underlying cash flow should reflect that. That is why at this moment, I feel like we are managing things in the best possible way, and we look forward to see some positive results. Thank you. The next question is in the line of Ashish Kehair with Nuvama. Please proceed with your question. Yeah, h i. Thanks for the opportunity. One question on the volume side. Even if we adjust the volume which has been impacted because of Oswego, we found that, you know, it was down around 0.5% year-over-year. In fact, you know, we are still lower than FY 2023 volumes, despite the fact that every quarter we believe that, you know, beverage can packaging is going up, automotive is fine. Only specialty is the thing which we call out. I'm just wondering, though, are we losing some market share somewhere else or how to explain this volume movement even if after adjusting this Oswego impact for the last four years? We are not losing market share. Yes, I mean, right now we are impacted because of our inability to supply, but we are not losing any contracts, to be absolutely clear, number one. Number two, that what we are reporting the 73 KT is simply the direct impact of the fire. When you go rapidly resetting your supply chains, asking all the other regions to reset the product mix and, you know, sort of produce what is required in order to, you know, sort of prioritize servicing customers impacted by the fire, it is not the most efficient way to run our mills. The most efficient way to run our mills is basically with an optimal product mix, which is, you know, sort of well-planned and that gives you the best results. Right now we are not in that situation. We are also losing more volumes because of some inherent inefficiency that comes into the system. That's why I will keep urging you that if you can think about looking beyond the noise, because as Oswego starts up and as we get back to a normal cadence of production across all our network, we will be gaining market share. We have contracts which by definition will help us to actually capture more market share. In short, honestly, we are not concerned about any loss of market share, quite the opposite. Based upon all the contracts that we have on hand, we are fully contracted, more than fully contracted for beverage packaging for all that we can produce for FY 2027. We do not see the risk of any market share losses. Volumes will come up. I agree with this. Oswego impact is only for this year. If I'm comparing with for the last four years, we are yet to reach to level which we did at FY 2023 also, around 3.8 million. No, now if. And this- You go back to history, there were these factors. What I can tell you is that when I look at where we are today, what are the contracts that I have, what are the orders that are there? I mean, we have pretty good line of sight. I mean, you can take it or you may not take it, I'm telling you that we have a pretty good line of sight to basically get back to growth. You have heard, look at what our customers are saying. Look at some of our top customers. Everybody is reporting good market conditions in beverage packaging. The tone is pretty upbeat. I do not see us, you know, sort of having any difficulty in being able to get back to growth and market share gains as we look at FY 2027 post Oswego restart. Understood. Sir, can we think that, on an annualized basis, we can reach to four million ton in FY 28 when all your Oswego impact goes over, even if Bay Minette does not come in, can we produce and sell four million ton? Pretty much. That's not a guidance. We can. Okay. Secondly, in terms of your Oswego impact, when we are talking about $925 million, and you have said that, between 65%-70% of that total cost is because of the cost to serve customers. But there are certain costs which are, which you are incurring on repairs and maintenance, which anyway you have to do it on a regular basis also. So is it possible to quantify that number out of this $925 million, how much it could be for repairs and maintenance? Basically, first of all, I want to be clear that 925 is a number that we are reporting at the end of this year. I think you heard earlier from Steve that the total cost that we are expecting is still going to come and will be in the region of about $1.7 billion. Net of all the recoveries from insurance, we expect that we'll be out of pocket by less than $500 million. Right now. Just be clear about that all is not yet over when it comes to spending on the Oswego fire. Remember that the net impact post-insurance recovery is going to be of the order of less than $500 million. You spoke about repairs. Yes, there are one-time repairs cost to bring the mill back. There are costs which are capitalized, there are costs which go into repairs. Okay. There are one-time costs of repairs to bring the mill back. Not everything that we are going to be spending in Oswego is going to be capitalized, right? Regular repairs and maintenance, absolutely they occur. The fact that, you know, we are restoring and renewing a lot of equipment now after the fire means that we should be able to get some better productivity from repairs and maintenance. But if you just boil down to, you know, sort of how to think about it, altogether, we keep telling you that our repairs, annual repairs and maintenance cost is about $350, and that is the regular repairs and maintenance across the system. That's the best way to think about it, all mills included. All the details of the 925 will be detailed out in the other income and expense footnote for you. There's a full detail of the breakdown, so you can have a look, you know, for a full view of the numbers. I would rather, you know, sort of just go to the Q, have a look at the breakdown of the full 925, and you will get an idea of what we are talking about there. Understood. Sir, lastly, when you discussed about this $544 per ton EBITDA for this quarter, and you mentioned that a few of the conditions may be because of higher scrap availability and the scrap spread because of the closure of Oswego. Once Oswego comes into picture next month, then definitely there could be some pressure on the scrap spread availability could be there. What I'm trying to look at is just find from $544, is it possible to go again back to $500 level besides excluding your tariff impact on the- Yeah. Again, we don't wanna get into guidance. All we've highlighted is that, obviously the fact that Oswego has not been running and it's caused disruptions across our North America system, we have not been buying at the levels we typically buy it in scrap, which have driven some of the favorability in the spread conditions. Obviously, there's higher LME and regional premiums that are also part of the benefit of that. I think you should just focus on trying to get away from the noise, all the underlying performance that we've been able to drive in our cost efficiency programs, and that's where we really can drive to the $600 per ton as we bring Bay Minette up to full capacity. In the near term, we've just said, yes, we do expect some of the spread conditions associated with the oversupply of scrap in the marketplace right now because of Oswego to be tempered as we do bring up Oswego. It will not happen immediately. Again, that will take time to work through the system as well. Thank you. We've reached the top of the hour, and this will now conclude our question and answer session. I'd like to turn the floor back over to Mr. Fisher for closing comments. Thank you, Rob, and again, thanks to everyone for attending our call today. We remain confident in the underlying strength of the business, as you've heard from us, and our ability to capture the strong markets again with clear line of sight to restarting Oswego hot mill in the coming days, and then ultimately commissioning Bay Minette later this year. Thank you again for your support and look forward to providing another business and financial update on our Q1 earnings call in August. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. This concludes today's conference. You may now disconnect your lines at this time. Thank you for your participation, and have a wonderful day.