Repurchase Commitments:

Producers of recreational vehicles and manufactured housing customarily enter into repurchase agreements with lending institutions that provide wholesale floorplan financing to independent dealers. The Company’s agreements generally provide that, in the event of a default by a dealer in its obligation to these credit sources, Fleetwood will repurchase product. With most repurchase agreements this obligation ceases when the amount for which the Company is contingently liable to the lending institution has been outstanding for more than 12, 18 or 24 months, depending on the terms of the agreement. The contingent liability under these agreements approximates the outstanding principal balance owed by the dealer for units subject to the repurchase agreement, less any scheduled principal payments waived by the lender. Although the maximum potential contingent repurchase liability approximated $180 million for inventory at manufactured housing dealers and $383 million for inventory at RV dealers as of April 30, 2006, the risk of loss is reduced by the potential resale value of any products that are subject to repurchase, and is spread over numerous dealers and financial institutions. The gross repurchase obligation will vary depending on the season and the level of dealer inventories. Typically, the repurchase obligation for the third fiscal quarter will be greater than other periods due to high dealer inventories. The RV repurchase obligation is significantly more than the manufactured housing obligation due to a higher average cost per motor home and more units in dealer inventories. Past losses under these agreements have not been significant and lender repurchase demands have been funded out of working capital.

In the past three fiscal years the Company had the following repurchase activity:

Legal Proceedings:

In May 2003, the Company filed a complaint in state court in Kansas, in the 18th Judicial District, District Court, Sedgewick County, Civil Department, against The Coleman Company, Inc. (Coleman) in connection with a dispute over the use of the “Coleman” brand name. The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On June 6, 2003, Coleman filed an answer and counterclaimed against us alleging various counts, including breach of contract and trademark infringement. On November 17, 2004, after a hearing, the Court granted our request for a permanent injunction against Coleman prohibiting Coleman from licensing the Coleman name for recreational vehicles to companies other than Fleetwood. Coleman has appealed that ruling. At the conclusion of trial, on December 16, 2004, the jury awarded monetary damages against Fleetwood on Coleman’s counterclaim in the amount of $5.2 million. On January 21, 2005, the Court granted Coleman’s request for treble damages, making the total amount of the award approximately $14.6 million. A charge to record this award was reflected in the Company’s results for the third fiscal quarter of 2005. Payment has been stayed pending Fleetwood’s appeal, which has been filed. The Company anticipates that the appeal will be argued by the end of this calendar year. Pending the appeal, Fleetwood was required to post a letter of credit for $18 million, representing the full amount of the judgment plus an allowance for attorneys’ fees and interest. The Company is pursuing all available appellate remedies.

Brodhead et al v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. was filed in federal court in the Central District of California on June 22, 2005. The complaint states a claim for damages growing out of certain California statutory claims with respect to alleged defects in a specific type of plastic roof installed on folding trailers from 1995 through 2003. The plaintiffs have clarified that the class for which they are seeking certification extends to all owners of folding trailers produced by Fleetwood Folding Trailers, Inc. with this type of roof, as well as any former owners who may have had to pay to have this type of roof repaired. The subject matter of the claim is similar to a putative class action previously filed in California state court in Griffin et al v. Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. et al. The California trial court denied class action certification in the Griffin matter on April 28, 2005, and the State of California—Court of Appeal upheld the denial in a ruling issued on May 11, 2006. Proceedings relating to the class certification in the Brodhead matter were stayed pending the outcome of the state court certification in Griffin. It is not possible at this time to properly assess the risk of an adverse verdict or the magnitude of any possible exposure with respect to either of the Brodhead or the Griffin complaints. Fleetwood intends to vigorously defend both matters.

The Company is also subject to other litigation from time to time in the ordinary course of business. The Company’s liability under some of this litigation is covered in whole or in part by insurance. Although the amount of any liability with respect to such claims and litigation over and above our insurance coverage cannot currently be determined, in the opinion of our management such liability is not expected to have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations.

Guarantees:

In November 2002, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 45, “Guarantor’s Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others.” Interpretation No. 45 discusses the necessary disclosures to be made by a guarantor in its financial statements about its obligations under certain guarantees that it has issued. It also discusses that the guarantor must recognize a liability, at fair value, at the inception of the guarantee for the obligation incurred in issuing the guarantee.

In conjunction with the sale of the Company’s manufactured housing retail business, numerous leased retail locations were assigned to the buyers. Although the Company received indemnification from the assignees, if the assignees were to become unable to continue making payments under the assigned leases, the Company estimates its maximum potential obligation with respect to the assigned leases to be $13.7 million as of April 30, 2006. The Company shall remain liable for such lease obligations for the remaining lease terms, which range from one month to nine years. The fair value of the guarantee is not material at April 30, 2006. The risk of loss is mitigated by the potential to sublease the assigned leases to other parties.

Other:

Fleetwood Enterprises, Inc. has entered into 11 limited guarantees aggregating $4.4 million to certain obligations of certain retailers to floorplan lenders and an additional two unsecured guarantees aggregating $3.5 million for other obligations.