AMENDMENT NO. 8 AND AGREEMENT

any other Person without the prior consent of all of the Lenders; provided that the Borrower or any Subsidiary may merge or may be consolidated into the Borrower or any Guarantor if the Borrower or such Guarantor is the surviving entity; or (b) sell, lease, transfer, assign, farm-out, convey, or otherwise dispose of any of its Property (including, without limitation, any working interest, overriding royalty interest, production payments, net profits interest, royalty interest, or mineral fee interest) other than: (i) the sale of Hydrocarbons in the ordinary course of business, (ii) the sale or transfer of equipment that is (A) obsolete, worn out, depleted or uneconomic and disposed of in the ordinary course of business, (B) no longer necessary for the business of such Person or (C) contemporaneously replaced by equipment of at least comparable value and use, (iii) the transfer of the Rig Assets by the Borrower to the Rig Subsidiary in connection with the Rig Sale, and (iv) the Rig Sale.

(d)                                           Section 6.21 of the Credit Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following:

Section 6.21.                         Non-Guarantor Subsidiary.  Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, including any provision of this Article VI, the Borrower shall not, nor shall it permit any of its Subsidiaries to, (a) create, assume, incur or suffer to exist any Lien on or in respect of any of its Property for the benefit of Tri-Flow or the Rig Subsidiary, (b) sell, assign, pledge, or otherwise transfer any of its Properties to Tri-Flow, (c) other than the Rig Assets, sell, assign, pledge, or otherwise transfer any of its Properties to the Rig Subsidiary  or (d) make or permit to exist any loans, advances, or capital contributions to, or make any investment in, or purchase or commit to purchase any stock or other securities or evidences of indebtedness of or interests in, Tri-Flow, the Rig Subsidiary or in any Properties of Tri-Flow or of the Rig Subsidiary other than the loans, advances, capital contributions, investments, and commitments made prior to the date hereof in Tri-Flow; provided that, the respective amounts of such loans, advances, capital contributions, investments, and commitments shall not be increased (other than by appreciation).

(e)                                            Schedule 4.07 which is attached to the Credit Agreement is hereby replaced in its entirety with the Schedule 4.07 attached to this Agreement.

Section 4.                                          Mandatory Prepayment.  Within two Business Days after receipt of the proceeds from the Rig Sale (the “Asset Sale Proceeds”), the Borrower shall prepay the Advances or, if the Advances have been repaid in full, make deposits into the Cash Collateral Account to provide cash collateral for the Letter of Credit Exposure, in an amount equal to 100% of the Asset Sale Proceeds after payment of, or provision for, all fees and expenses incurred in connection with such Rig Sale.  The failure to comply with this Section 4 shall be an immediate Event of Default under the Credit Agreement.

Section 5.                                          Borrower Representations and Warranties.  The Borrower represents and warrants that: (a) after giving effect to this Agreement, the representations and warranties contained in the Credit Agreement and the representations and warranties contained in the other

3

Loan Documents are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Effective Date as if made on as and as of such date except to the extent that any such representation or warranty expressly relates solely to an earlier date, in which case such representation or warranty is true and correct in all material respects as of such earlier date; (b) after giving effect to this Agreement, no Default has occurred and is continuing; (c) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement are within the corporate power and authority of the Borrower and have been duly authorized by appropriate corporate and governing action and proceedings; (d) this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of the Borrower enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, or similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally and general principles of equity; (e) there are no governmental or other third party consents, licenses and approvals required in connection with the execution, delivery, performance, validity and enforceability of this Agreement; and (f) the Liens under the Security Instruments are valid and subsisting and secure Borrower’s obligations under the Loan Documents.

Section 6.              Guarantors Representations and Warranties.  Each Guarantor represents and warrants that: (a) after giving effect to this Agreement, the representations and warranties contained in the Guaranty and the representations and warranties contained in the other Loan Documents are true and correct in all material respects on and as of the Effective Date as if made on as and as of such date except to the extent that any such representation or warranty expressly relates solely to an earlier date, in which case such representation or warranty is true and correct in all material respects as of such earlier date; (b) after giving effect to this Agreement, no Default has occurred and is continuing; (c) the execution, delivery and performance of this Agreement are within the corporate, limited liability company, or partnership power and authority of such Guarantor and have been duly authorized by appropriate corporate, limited liability company, or partnership action and proceedings; (d) this Agreement constitutes the legal, valid, and binding obligation of such Guarantor enforceable in accordance with its terms, except as limited by applicable bankruptcy, insolvency, reorganization, moratorium, or similar laws affecting the rights of creditors generally and general principles of equity; (e) there are no governmental or other third party consents, licenses and approvals required in connection with the execution, delivery, performance, validity and enforceability of this Agreement; (f) it has no defenses to the enforcement of the Guaranty; and (g) the Liens under the Security Instruments are valid and subsisting and secure such Guarantor’s and the Borrower’s obligations under the Loan Documents.

Section 7.              Conditions to Effectiveness.  This Agreement and the amendments to the Credit Agreement provided herein shall become effective on the Effective Date and enforceable against the parties hereto upon the occurrence of the following conditions precedent:

(a)               The Administrative Agent shall have received multiple original counterparts, as requested by the Administrative Agent, of this Agreement duly and validly executed and delivered by duly authorized officers of the Borrower, the Guarantors, the Administrative Agent, and the Lenders.

(b)              No Default shall have occurred and be continuing as of the Effective Date.

4

(c)               The representations and warranties in this Agreement shall be true and correct in all material respects.

(d)              The Borrower shall have paid all fees and expenses of the Administrative Agent’s outside legal counsel and other consultants pursuant to all invoices presented for payment on or prior to the Effective Date.

Section 8.              Acknowledgments and Agreements.

(a)               The Borrower acknowledges that on the date hereof all Obligations are payable without defense, offset, counterclaim or recoupment.

(b)              The Administrative Agent and the Lenders hereby expressly reserve all of their rights, remedies, and claims under the Loan Documents.  Nothing in this Agreement shall constitute a waiver or relinquishment of (i) any Default or Event of Default under any of the Loan Documents, (ii) any of the agreements, terms or conditions contained in any of the Loan Documents, (iii) any rights or remedies of the Administrative Agent or any Lender with respect to the Loan Documents, or (iv) the rights of the Administrative Agent or any Lender to collect the full amounts owing to them under the Loan Documents.

(c)               Each of the Borrower, the Guarantors, Administrative Agent, and Lenders does hereby adopt, ratify, and confirm the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby, and acknowledges and agrees that the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby, is and remains in full force and effect, and the Borrower and the Guarantors acknowledge and agree that their respective liabilities and obligations under the Credit Agreement, as amended hereby, and the Guaranty, are not impaired in any respect by this Agreement.

(d)              From and after the Effective Date, all references to the Credit Agreement and the Loan Documents shall mean such Credit Agreement and such Loan Documents as amended by this Agreement.

(e)               This Agreement is a Loan Document for the purposes of the provisions of the other Loan Documents.  Without limiting the foregoing, any breach of representations, warranties, and covenants under this Agreement shall be a Default or Event of Default, as applicable, under the Credit Agreement.

Section 9.              Reaffirmation of the Guaranty.  Each Guarantor hereby ratifies, confirms, acknowledges and agrees that its obligations under the Guaranty are in full force and effect and that such Guarantor continues to unconditionally and irrevocably guarantee the full and punctual payment, when due, whether at stated maturity or earlier by acceleration or otherwise, all of the Guaranteed Obligations (as defined in the Guaranty), as such Guaranteed Obligations may have been amended by this Agreement, and its execution and delivery of this Agreement does not indicate or establish an approval or consent requirement by such Guarantor under the Guaranty in connection with the execution and delivery of amendments, consents or waivers to the Credit Agreement, the Notes or any of the other Loan Documents.

Section 10.            Counterparts.  This Agreement may be signed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be an original and all of which, taken together, constitute a

5

single instrument.  This Agreement may be executed by facsimile signature and all such signatures shall be effective as originals.

Section 11.            Successors and Assigns.  This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns permitted pursuant to the Credit Agreement.

Section 12.            Invalidity.  In the event that any one or more of the provisions contained in this Agreement shall for any reason be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality or unenforceability shall not affect any other provision of this Agreement.

Section 13.            Governing Law.  This Agreement shall be deemed to be a contract made under and shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Texas.

Section 14.            Entire Agreement. THIS AGREEMENT, THE CREDIT AGREEMENT AS AMENDED BY THIS AGREEMENT, THE NOTES, AND THE OTHER LOAN DOCUMENTS CONSTITUTE THE ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING AMONG THE PARTIES HERETO WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF AND SUPERSEDE ANY PRIOR AGREEMENTS, WRITTEN OR ORAL, WITH RESPECT THERETO.

THERE ARE NO UNWRITTEN ORAL AGREEMENTS AMONG THE PARTIES.

[SIGNATURES BEGIN ON NEXT PAGE]

6

EXECUTED effective as of the date first above written.

Schedule A

Rig Assets

TRUCKS AND OTHER EQUIPMENT

Schedule 4.07
Litigation

Burnett:

On March 23, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 100th Judicial District Court in Carson County, Texas; Cause No. 9840, The Tom L. and Anne Burnett Trust, by Anne Burnett Windfohr, Windi Phillips, Ben Fortson, Jr., George Beggs, III and Ed Hudson, Jr. as Co-Trustees; Anne Burnett Windfohr; and Burnett Ranches, Ltd. v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.  The plaintiffs claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.  The owner of the remainder of the mineral estate, Texas Christian University, has intervened in the suit joining the plaintiffs’ request to terminate certain oil and natural gas leases.

The plaintiffs in the above action (i) allege negligence and (ii) seek damages, including, but not limited to, damages for damage to their land and livestock, certain expenses related to fighting the fire and certain remedial expenses totaling approximately $1.7 million to $1.8 million.  In addition, the plaintiffs seek (i) termination of certain oil and natural gas leases, (ii) reimbursement for their attorney’s fees (in the amount of at least $549,000) and (iii) exemplary damages.  The plaintiffs also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or a general partnership or de facto partnership.

On June 21, 2007, the Judge of the 100^th Judicial District Court issued a Final Judgment (a) granting motions for summary judgment in favor of Cano and certain of its subsidiaries on plaintiffs’ claims for (i) breach of contract/termination of an oil and gas lease; and (ii) negligence; and (b) granting the plaintiffs’ no-evidence motion for summary judgment on contributory negligence, assumption of risk, repudiation and estoppel affirmative defenses asserted by Cano and certain of its subsidiaries.  The Final Judgment has been appealed.

Adcock:

On April 28, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 31^st Judicial District Court of Roberts County, Texas, Case No. 1922, Robert and Glenda Adcock, et al. v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc. (“Adcock”).  There are 47 plaintiffs and three groups of intervenors that claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.

The plaintiffs and intervenors (i) allege negligence, res ipsa loquitor, trespass and nuisance and (ii) seek damages, including, but not limited to, damages to their land, buildings and livestock and certain remedial expenses totaling $11,297,684.  In addition, the plaintiffs and intervenors seek (i) reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and (ii) exemplary damages.  The plaintiffs also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or a general partnership or de facto partnership.  On August 28, 2007, one of the intervenors, Travelers Lloyds Insurance Company, filed a Notice of Nonsuit requesting the court to sign an order dismissing its claims, which seek approximately $367,627 of total damages, without prejudice.   The Court granted the Nonsuit on September 12, 2007.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s motion to transfer and transferred the Adcock case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200^th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 31^st District Court until the 200^th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 31^st District Court for trial.

Hutchinson:

On April 10, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 31st Judicial District Court of Roberts County, Texas, Case No. 1920, Joseph Craig Hutchison and Judy Hutchison v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc. (“Hutchinson”).  The plaintiffs claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.  The plaintiffs (i) allege negligence and trespass and (ii) seek undisclosed

damages, including, but not limited to, damages to their land and certain remedial expenses.  In addition, the plaintiffs seek exemplary damages.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company’s motion to transfer and transferred this case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 31st District Court until the 200th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 31st District Court for trial.

On October 3, 2007, Firstbank Southwest, as Trustee for the John and Eddalee Haggard Trust, intervened in the consolidated case in the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas as part of the Hutchinson case.  The intervenor claims that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.  The intervenor (i) alleges negligence and (ii) seeks undisclosed damages, including, but not limited to damages to their land and certain remedial expenses.

Chisum:

On May 1, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 31st Judicial District Court of Roberts County, Texas, Case No. 1923, Chisum Family Partnership, Ltd. v. Cano, W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc. (“Chisum”).  The plaintiff claims that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.  The plaintiff (i) alleges negligence and trespass and (ii) seeks undisclosed damages, including, but not limited to, damages to their land and certain remedial expenses.  In addition, the plaintiffs seek exemplary damages.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted the Company’s motion to transfer and transferred this case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 31st District Court until the 200th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 31st District Court for trial.

Martinez:

On July 3, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 31^st Judicial District Court of Roberts County, Texas, Case No. 1928, Rebecca Lee Martinez, et al v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd., and WO Energy, Inc. (“Martinez”).  The plaintiffs claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County, Texas.  The plaintiffs (i) allege negligence and (ii) seek undisclosed damages for the wrongful death of two relatives, Gerardo Villarreal and Medardo Garcia, who they claim died as a result of the fire.  An additional heir of one of Medardo Garcia has intervened in this case alleging similar claims.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s motion to transfer and transferred the Martinez case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200^th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 31^st District Court until the 200^th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 31^st District Court for trial.

The plaintiffs and intervenor nonsuited this case on December 19, 2007 and refiled in the 348^th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas as part of the Valenzuela case described below.

Villarreal:

On August 9, 2006, the following lawsuit was filed in the 233rd Judicial District Court of Gray County, Texas, Yolanda Villarreal, Individually and on behalf of the Estate of Gerardo Villarreal v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd., and WO Energy, Inc. (“Villarreal”).  The plaintiffs claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County, Texas. The plaintiffs (i) allege negligence and (ii) seek undisclosed damages, including exemplary damages, for the wrongful death of Gerardo Villarreal who they claim died as a result of the fire.  The plaintiffs also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally

liable under vicarious liability theories.  Relatives of Roberto Chavira have intervened in the case alleging similar claims regarding the death of Roberto Chavira.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s motion to transfer and transferred the Martinez case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200^th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 233^rd District Court until the 200^th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 233^rd District Court for trial.

SPS:

On March 14, 2007, the following lawsuit was filed in 100th Judicial District Court in Carson County, Texas; Cause No. 9994, Southwestern Public Service Company d/b/a Xcel Energy v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc. (“SPS”). The plaintiffs claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.

The plaintiff (i) alleges negligence and breach of contract and (ii) seeks $1,876,000 in damages for loss and damage to transmission and distribution equipment, utility poles, lines and other equipment.  In addition, the plaintiff seeks reimbursement for its attorney’s fees.  On May 15, 2007, three new plaintiffs (one of which is a former plaintiff in the Adcock matter) intervened in the lawsuit and (i) allege negligence, res ipsa loquitor, nuisance, and trespass and (ii) seek damages, including, but not limited to, damages to their land, buildings and livestock and certain remedial expenses totaling approximately $201,280.  In addition, the intervenors seek (i) reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and (ii) exemplary damages.  The intervenors also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or as a partnership or de facto partnership.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s motion to transfer and transferred the SPS case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200^th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 100^th District Court until the 200^th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 100^th District Court for trial.

On January 10, 2008, Philip L. Fletcher intervened in the consolidated case in the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas as part of the SPS case.  The intervenor (i) alleges negligence, trespass and nuisance and (ii) seeks damages, including, but not limited to, damages to his livestock, attorney’s fees and exemplary damages.  The intervenor also claims that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or as a partnership or de facto partnership.

On January 15, 2008, the Jones and McMordie Ranch Partnership intervened in the consolidated case in the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas as part of the SPS case.  The intervenor (i) alleges negligence, trespass and nuisance and (ii) seeks exemplary damages.  The intervenor also claims that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or as a partnership or de facto partnership.

Burgess:

On May 2, 2007, the following lawsuit was filed in the 84^th Judicial District Court of Hutchinson County, Texas, Case No. 37,619, Gary and Genia Burgess, et al. v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W.O. Operating, Ltd. and WO Energy, Inc. (“Burgess”).  Eleven plaintiffs claim that electrical wiring and equipment relating to oil and gas operations of the Company or certain of its subsidiaries started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County, Texas.  Five of the plaintiffs are former plaintiffs in the Adcock matter.  The plaintiffs (i) allege negligence, res ipsa loquitor, nuisance, and trespass and (ii) seek damages, including, but not limited to, damages to their land, buildings and livestock and certain remedial expenses totaling approximately $1,152,480.  In addition, the plaintiffs seek (i) reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and (ii) exemplary damages.  The plaintiffs also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or as a partnership or de facto partnership.

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s motion to transfer and transferred the Burgess case to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200^th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  No further action will be taken in the 84^th District Court until the 200^th District Court resolves all pretrial matters and remands this case to the 84^th District Court for trial.

MDL Case:

On September 25, 2007, the Texas Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation granted Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W. O. Operating Company, Ltd, and WO Energy, Inc.’s Motion to Transfer Related Cases to Pretrial Court pursuant to Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13.  The Panel transferred to a single pretrial court for consideration of pretrial matters of all pending cases (Adcock, Chisum, Hutchison, Villarreal, Martinez, Southwestern Public Service Company d/b/a Xcel Energy, Burgess, identified above) that assert claims against the Company and its subsidiaries related to wildfires beginning on March 12, 2006.  The Panel transferred all pending cases to the Honorable Paul Davis, retired judge of the 200th District Court of Travis County, Texas.  On October 19, 2007, the Court entered a Case Management Order settling deadlines for completion of discovery in January and February of 2008 and a hearing date for summary judgment motions on April 14, 2008.

On December 19, 2007, the plaintiffs and intervenor in the Martinez case nonsuited their claims in the consolidated case.

Valenzuela:

On December 18, 2007, the following lawsuit was filed in the 348^th Judicial District Court of Tarrant County, Texas, Case No. 348-227907-07, Norma Valenzuela, et al. v. Cano Petroleum, Inc., W.O. Energy of Nevada, Inc., W.O. Operating, Ltd. and WO Energy, Inc. (“Valenzuela”).  Six plaintiffs, including the two plaintiffs and intervenor from the nonsuited Martinez case, claim that the electrical wiring and equipment of Cano or certain of its subsidiaries relating to oil and gas operations started a wildfire that began on March 12, 2006 in Carson County.  The plaintiffs (i) allege negligence and (ii) seek undisclosed damages for the wrongful death of four relatives, Manuel Dominguez, Roberto Chavira, Gerardo Villarreal and Medardo Garcia, who they claim died as a result of the fire.  In addition, plaintiffs seek (i) reimbursement for their attorney’s fees and (ii) exemplary damages.   The plaintiffs also claim that Cano and its subsidiaries are jointly and severally liable as a single business enterprise and/or as a partnership or de facto partnership.  Cano and its subsidiaries have not yet answered the lawsuit but intend to file a notice of tag along to transfer the case to the MDL proceeding in the 200^th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas.

Due to the inherent risk of litigation, the outcome of the cases listed above is uncertain and unpredictable; however, at this time, Cano management believes the suits are without merit and is vigorously defending itself and its subsidiaries.