Unidentified Analyst: This is actually [indiscernible] on behalf of George. We had conflicting calls this morning. So first off, you had pretty strong volume growth in Americas overall, and I recognize there’s this fixed cost under absorption. But I guess, are there any other factors in incremental margin such that we didn’t kind of see more volume flow through to earnings? And I guess, as we move into ’24, you’re highlighting that you expect continued growth in North America. So just wondering about kind of the earnings trajectory for the Americas into ’24 as well.
David Bourne: Yes. Thanks for the question. I think Ollie may have dropped off the line for a second, so I’ll answer on his behalf.
Oliver Graham: I apologize. I have a small technical issue. I’m not hearing the question, but I have had the question put to me, so I’ll answer it about any factors up in fixed cost absorption preventing volume growth flowing through to earnings in Americas. So yes, I think in Q2, we did have a couple of issues. One was that we didn’t produce as much. We regulated inventories, and that’s what drove the strong cash flow performance, and so that did impact EBITDA relative to cash flow because we curtailed some production. We did have some planned and foreseen cost headwinds, one-off cost headwinds in Q3, including a provision release for Bang Energy after the takeover. So that was a negative also in the quarter for North America.
On the South America side, there was a small timing issue that we mentioned in the remarks that also impacted Q3. So I think those are the main things. Looking into the fourth quarter, as I said in the remarks, we did have a specific take-or-pay in Q4 in North America that doesn’t repeat. So that’s a negative. And we have some — also some — we had a very strong quarter for ends in Brazil in Q4 ’22 that we’re not going to be able to lap fully, which is a small negative in Brazil as well relative to the volume growth we anticipate. So hopefully, that addresses the question.
Unidentified Analyst: Great. Appreciate that. And understand you’re fairly limited on what you can disclose. But just with regards to this potential closure in North America, are you able to talk about at all how this plant’s cost position sits relative to the rest of your network? And then, I guess, as an overall industry, how would you characterize operating rates for the bev can market at the moment in North America?
David Bourne: On the assumption, Ollie is having some technical difficulties, I’ll pick up the answers to that. So obviously, we are limited in what we are able to say while the White House [ negotiation ] kickstarts and we’ll see where that gets to. But White House is one of the highest cost plants in our network in North America and an older plant with it and, therefore, has some fixed costs attached to it, which would be helpful for takeout. Typically with the plant of that magnitude, you can model something in the low double digits in terms of the actual cost takeout for that plant. And on the top of that, obviously, by spreading volumes through to other plants, you get some potential fixed cost overhead absorption benefits sitting over the top of that.
Operator: And we’ll move to our next question from Arun Viswanathan with RBC Capital Markets.
Arun Viswanathan : Sorry about that. Just real quickly, the leverage is relatively high at 5.7x. Maybe you can discuss if the $100 million of free cash flow will be used, how would that be used towards deleveraging and maybe where you plan to end up in maybe fiscal ’24 end.
Oliver Graham: Yes. David, do you want to take that?
