(1) Net Revenue is computed by subtracting voyage expenses from revenue.  Net Revenue is not a recognized measurement under IFRS and should not be considered as an alternative or comparable to net income.

(2) Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA represents net earnings before interest and finance costs net, gains or losses from the change in fair value of derivative financial instruments, foreign exchange gains or losses, income taxes, depreciation, depreciation of drydocking costs, amortization of fair value of time charter attached to vessels, impairment and gains or losses from sale of vessels. Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA does not represent and should not be considered as an alternative to total comprehensive income/(loss) or cash generated from operations, as determined by IFRS, and our calculation of Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA may not be comparable to that reported by other companies. Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA is not a recognized measurement under IFRS.

Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA is included herein because it is a basis upon which we assess our financial performance and because we believe that it presents useful information to investors regarding a company’s ability to service and/or incur indebtedness and it is frequently used by securities analysts, investors and other interested parties in the evaluation of companies in our industry.

Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA has limitations as an analytical tool, and you should not consider it in isolation, or as a substitute for analysis of our results as reported under IFRS. Some of these limitations are:

Because of these limitations, Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA should not be considered a measure of discretionary cash available to us to invest in the growth of our business.

The following table sets forth a reconciliation of Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA (unaudited) to total comprehensive (loss)/income to Adjusted (LBITDA)/EBITDA (unaudited) for the periods presented:

(1) Ownership days are the aggregate number of days in a period during which each vessel in our fleet has been owned by us.

(2) Available days are the number of our ownership days less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to scheduled repairs or repairs under guarantee, vessel upgrades or special surveys.

(3) Operating days are the number of available days in a period less the aggregate number of days that the vessels are off-hire due to any reason, including unforeseen circumstances.

(4) Bareboat charter days are the aggregate number of days in a period during which the vessels in our fleet are subject to a bareboat charter.

(5) We calculate fleet utilization by dividing the number of our operating days during a period by the number of our available days during the period.

(6) Average number of vessels is measured by the sum of the number of days each vessel was part of our fleet during a relevant period divided by the number of calendar days in such period.

(7) Time Charter Equivalent (TCE) rates are our revenue less net revenue from our bareboat charters less voyage expenses during a period divided by the number of our available days during the period excluding bareboat charter days. TCE is a measure not in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP. Please read “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”

The following table reflects the calculation of our daily TCE ratesVoyage Revenues to Daily Time Charter Equivalent Reconciliation for the periods presented.

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not Applicable.

C.  Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not Applicable.

D.  Risk Factors

This annual report on Form 20-F contains forward-looking statements and information within the meaning of U.S. securities laws that involve risks and uncertainties. Our actual results may differ materially from the results discussed in the forward-looking statements and information. Factors that may cause such a difference include those discussed below and elsewhere in this annual report on Form 20-F.

Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and our business in general. Other risks relate principally to the securities market and ownership of our common shares. The occurrence of any of the events described in this section could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating results, and ability to pay dividends or the trading price of our common shares. 

Risks relating to Our Industry

The international dry bulk shipping industry is cyclical and volatile.

The international seaborne transportation industry is cyclical and has high volatility in charter rates, vessel values and profitability. Fluctuations in charter rates result from changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for energy resources, commodities, semi-finished and finished consumer and industrial products internationally carried at sea. Since the early part of 2009, rates have been volatile, but gradually recovered from market lows with further improvements taking place in the first half of 2010, before leveling out in the second half of 2010 and declining in 2011 throughout 2012. In 2013 rates remained volatile reaching their lows in January 2013 and their highs in December 2013 while volatility continued during 2014 as well, with rates reaching their highs during January 2014 and their lows during July 2014. In 2015, the decreasing trend in rates continued and in Decembercontinued. In February 2016 the market reached ana new all-time low which haveand until the end of 2016 remained fairly depressed.depressed as compared to pre-2009 rates. Currently all of our vessels are chartered on short-term time charters and on the spot market, and we are exposed therefore to changes in spot market and short-term charter rates for dry bulk vessels and such changes affect our earnings and the value of our dry bulk vessels at any given time. The supply of and demand for shipping capacity strongly influences freight rates. The factors affecting the supply and demand for vessels are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Factors that influence demand for vessel capacity include:

Factors that influence the supply of vessel capacity include:

In addition to the prevailing and anticipated freight rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to scrap prices, costs of bunkers and other operating costs, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance costs, insurance coverage costs, the efficiency and age profile of the existing dry bulk fleet in the market, and government and industry regulation of maritime transportation practices, particularly environmental protection laws and regulations. These factors influencing the supply of and demand for shipping capacity are outside of our control, and we may not be able to correctly assess the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions.

We anticipate that the future demand for our dry bulk vessels and charter rates will be dependent upon continued economic growth in the world’s economies, seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the global dry bulk vessel fleet and the sources and supply of dry bulk cargo to be transported by sea. Adverse economic, political, social or other developments could negatively impact charter rates and therefore have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and ability to pay dividends. We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

The dry bulk vessel charter market remains significantly below its high in 2008.

The revenues, earnings and profitability of companies in our industry are affected by the charter rates that can be obtained in the market, which is volatile and has experienced significant declines since its highs in the middle of 2008. The Baltic Dry Index, or the BDI, which is published daily by the Baltic Exchange Limited, or the Baltic Exchange, a London-based membership organization that provides daily shipping market information to the global investing community, is an average of selected ship brokers’ assessments of time charter rates paid by a customer to hire a dry bulk vessel to transport dry bulk cargoes by sea. The BDI has long been viewed as the main benchmark to monitor the movements of the dry bulk vessel charter market and the performance of the entire dry bulk shipping market. The BDI declined from a high of 11,793 in May 2008 to a low of 663 in December 2008, which represents a decline of 94.0% within a single calendar year. Since 2009, the BDI has remained fairly depressed (comparedcompared to historical numbers).numbers. The BDI reached as high as 1,222 in August 5, 2015 and a new all-time low of 471290 in December 16, 2015.February 10, 2016 and went as high as 1,257 in November 18, 2016. The BDI ranged from 290685 to 473983 from January until March 2016, with 290 being its new all-time low.February 2017. The dry bulk market remains volatile and significantly depressed.

The decline and volatility in charter rates is primarily due to the number of newbuilding deliveries as vessel oversupply is gradually taking itshas taken a toll on the market. Increased demand for dry bulk commodities has been unable to fully absorb new deadweight tonnage, or dwt, that entered the market in recent years. Although the number of dry bulk carriers on order has declined from the historic highs in recent years, there remains a substantial amount of capacity on order. Due to a lack of financing, we expect cancellations and/or slippage of newbuilding orders. While vessel supply will continue to be affected by the delivery of new vessels and the removal of vessels from the global fleet, either through scrapping or accidental losses, an over-supply of dry bulk carrier capacity could exacerbate the recent decrease in charter rates or prolong the period during which low charter rates prevail.

The decline and volatility in charter rates in the dry bulk market also affects the value of our dry bulk vessels, which follows the trends of dry bulk charter rates, and earnings on our charters, and similarly affects our cash flows, liquidity and compliance with the covenants contained in our loan arrangements.

Global economic conditions may continue to negatively impact the dry bulk shipping industry. 

In the current global economy, operating businesses have recently faced tightening credit, weakening demand for goods and services, weak international liquidity conditions, and declining markets.

The international shipping industry and dry bulk market are highly competitive.

The shipping industry and dry bulk market are capital intensive and highly fragmented with many charterers, owners and operators of vessels and are characterized by intense competition. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, some of whom have substantially greater resources than we do. The trend towards consolidation in the industry is creating an increasing number of global enterprises capable of competing in multiple markets, which may result in a greater competitive threat to us. Our competitors may be better positioned to devote greater resources to the development, promotion and employment of their businesses than we are. Competition for the transportation of cargo by sea is intense and depends on customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation, price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its operators to the charterers. Competition may increase in some or all of our principal markets, including with the entry of new competitors, who may operate larger fleets through consolidations or acquisitions and may be able to sustain lower charter rates and offer higher quality vessels than we are able to offer. We may not be able to continue to compete successfully or effectively with our competitors and our competitive position may be eroded in the future, which could have an adverse effect on our fleet utilization and, accordingly, business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

The Euro may not be stable and countries may not be able to refinance their debts.

As a result of the credit crisis in Europe, in particular in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, concerns persist regarding the debt burden of certain Eurozone countries and their ability to meet future financial obligations and the overall stability of the Euro. Despite efforts by European Council in establishing the European Financial Stability Facility and the European Stability Mechanism, and the work of central bankers to renegotiate sovereign debt, concerns persist regarding the debt burden of Eurozone countries, their ability to meet future financial obligations, and the overall stability of the Euro. As we earn revenue in United States Dollars, the strengthening of the Euro (with which we pay some of our expenses) as compared to the United States Dollar could increase our expenses. An extended period of adverse development in the outlook for European countries could reduce the overall demand for dry bulk cargoes and for our services.

The current state of the global financial markets and current economic conditions may adversely impact the dry bulk shipping industry.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, volatile. Recently, operating businesses in the global economy have faced tightening credit, weakening demand for goods and services, deteriorating international liquidity conditions, and declining markets. There has been a general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly in the shipping industry, due to the historically volatile asset values of vessels. As the shipping industry is highly dependent on the availability of credit to finance and expand operations, it has been negatively affected by this decline.

Also, as a result of concerns about the stability of financial markets generally and the solvency of counterparties specifically, the cost of obtaining money from the credit markets has increased as many lenders have increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to current debt and reduced, and in some cases ceased, to provide funding to borrowers. Due to these factors, we cannot be certain that financing will be available if needed and to the extent required, on acceptable terms. If financing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our obligations as they come due or we may be unable to enhance our existing business, complete additional vessel acquisitions or otherwise take advantage of business opportunities as they arise.

If the current global economic environment persists or worsens, we may be negatively affected in the following ways:

In addition, lower demand for dry bulk cargoes as well as diminished trade credit available for the delivery of such cargoes have led to decreased demand for dry bulk carriers, creating downward pressure on charter rates and vessel values. The relatively weak global economic conditions have and may continue to have a number of adverse consequences for dry bulk and other shipping sectors, including, among other things: 

The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

We depend on spot charters in volatile shipping markets.

We currently charter all five vessels we own on the spot charter market. The spot charter market is highly competitive and spot charter rates may fluctuate significantly based upon available charters and the supply of and demand for seaborne shipping capacity. While our focus on the spot market may enable us to benefit if industry conditions strengthen, we must consistently procure spot charter business. Conversely, such dependence makes us vulnerable to declining market rates for spot charters and to the off-hire periods including ballast passages. Rates within the spot charter market are subject to volatile fluctuations while longer-term time charters provide income at pre-determined rates over more extended periods of time. There can be no assurance that we will be successful in keeping our vessels fully employed in these short-term markets or that future spot rates will be sufficient to enable the vessels to be operated profitably. At current spot charter rates, we don’t believe that we will be operating profitably. A significant decrease in charter rates would affect value and adversely affect our profitability, cash flows and ability to pay dividends. We cannot give assurances that future available spot charters will enable us to operate our vessels profitably.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

An over-supply of dry bulk carrier capacity may depress charter rates.

The market supply of dry bulk vessels has been increasing as a result of the delivery of numerous newbuilding orders over the last few years. Newbuildings were delivered in significant numbers starting at the beginning of 2006 and continued to be delivered through 2015.2016, even though the fleet growth percentage has substantially reduced during the last 2 years. An oversupply of dry bulk vessel capacity, particularly during a period of economic recession, may result in a reduction of charter hire rates. If we cannot enter into charters on acceptable terms, we may have to secure charters on the spot market, where charter rates are more volatile and revenues are, therefore, less predictable, or we may not be able to charter our vessels at all. In addition, a material increase in the net supply of dry bulk vessel capacity without corresponding growth in dry bulk vessel demand could have a material adverse effect on our fleet utilization (including ballast days) and our charter rates generally, and could, accordingly, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

The market values of our vessels have declined, and may decline further and have triggered certain financial covenants under our existing and potentially future loan and credit facilities. This could have a material adverse effect on our ability to continue our business.

The market value of dry bulk vessels has generally experienced high volatility, and is currently at a low value. The market prices for secondhand and newbuilding dry bulk vessels in the recent past have declined from historically high levels to low levels within a short period of time. The market value of our vessels may increase and decrease depending on a number of factors including:

Our loan agreement with DVB Bank SE, which we refer to as the DVB Loan Agreement and our loan agreement with HSH Nordbank AG, which we refer to as the HSH Loan Agreement, and our loan agreement with Commerzbank, which we refer to as Kelty Loan Agreement are secured by mortgages on our vessels, and require us to maintain specified collateral coverage ratios and to satisfy financial covenants, including requirements based on the market value of our vessels and our net worth. Since the middle of 2008, the prevailing conditions in the dry bulk charter market coupled with the general difficulty in obtaining financing for vessel purchases have led to a significant decline in the market values of our vessels. Furthermore, each of our loan arrangements contains a cross-default provision that may be triggered by a default under any of our other loans, other than the unsecured credit facilities with Firment Trading Limited and Silaner Investments Limited, both affiliates of our chairman Mr. George Feidakis, which we refer to as the Firment Credit Facility and Silaner Credit Facility, respectively.

As of December 31, 2015,2016, we were in breach of most ofsatisfied the covenants included in our loan agreements with HSH Nordbank AG Commerzbankand DVB Bank SE following amendments made by supplemental agreements that we entered into in 2016 which relaxed or waived certain covenants up to March 2017. In March 2017, we reached agreements in principle with HSH Nordbank AG and DVB Bank SE and therefore(which remain subject to definite documentation) to amend the total amount outstandingloan agreements, including amendments to relax or waive certain covenants of both of the loan agreements for these loans was classified under current liabilities.the period from April 2017 to April 2018. For a more detailed discussion see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness and Note 12 in the Consolidated Financial Statements filed herewith.

Further declines of market values of our vessels may affect our ability to comply with various covenants and could also limit the amount of funds we are permitted to borrow under our current or future loan arrangements. If we are unable to comply with the financial and other covenants under any of the DVB Loan Agreement, the HSH Loan Agreement, the Firment Credit Facility or the Silaner Credit Facility, and if we are unable to obtain relaxations and/or waivers, our lenders could accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose on vessels in our fleet, which would impair our ability to continue to conduct our business. If our indebtedness were accelerated in full or in part, it would be very difficult in the current financing environment for us to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing and we could lose our vessels if our lenders foreclose upon their liens, which would adversely affect our business, financial condition, ability to continue our business and pay dividends.

For a more detailed discussion on our loan covenants and cross-default provisions, see “Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness.”

If we sell any vessel at a time when vessel prices have fallen and before we have recorded an impairment adjustment to our consolidated financial statements, the sale price may be agreed at a value lower than the vessel’s depreciated book value as in our consolidated financial statements at that time, resulting in a loss and a respective reduction in earnings. If the market values of our vessels decrease, such decrease and its effects could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

If a determination is made that a vessel’s future useful life is limited or its future earnings capacity is reduced, it could result in an impairment of its value on our consolidated financial statements that would result in a charge against our earnings and the reduction of our stockholders’ equity. These impairment costs could be very substantial.

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board inspection of our independent accounting firm could lead to findings in our auditors' reports and challenge the accuracy of our published audited consolidated financial statements.

Auditors of U.S. public companies are required by law to undergo periodic Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, inspections that assess their compliance with U.S. law and professional standards in connection with performance of audits of financial statements filed with the SEC. For several years certain European Union countries, including Greece, did not permit the PCAOB to conduct inspections of accounting firms established and operating in such European Union countries, even if they were part of major international firms. Accordingly, unlike for most U.S. public companies, the PCAOB was prevented from evaluating our auditor's performance of audits and its quality control procedures, and, unlike stockholders of most U.S. public companies, we and our shareholders were deprived of the possible benefits of such inspections. During 2015, Greece agreed to allow the PCAOB to conduct inspections of accounting firms operating in Greece. In the future, such PCAOB inspections could result in findings in our auditors' quality control procedures, question the validity of the auditor's reports on our published consolidated financial statements and the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, and cast doubt upon the accuracy of our published audited consolidated financial statements.

Our industry is subject to complex laws and regulations.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. These requirements include but are not limited to: U.S. Oil Pollution Act 1990, as amended, which we refer to as OPA; International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, which we refer to as SOLAS; International Convention on Load Lines, 1966; International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, 1973, as amended by the 1978 Protocol, which we refer to as MARPOL; International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, 2001, which we refer to as the Bunker Convention; International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea, 1996, as superseded by the 2010 Protocol, which we refer to as the HNS Convention; International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by the 1992 Protocol and further amended in 2000, which we refer to as the CLC; International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1971, as amended, which we refer to as the Fund Convention; and Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002, which we refer to as the MTSA.

Government regulation of vessels, particularly in the area of environmental requirements, can be expected to become more stringent in the future and could require us to incur significant capital expenditures on our vessels to keep them in compliance, or even to scrap or sell certain vessels altogether. Compliance with such laws, regulations and standards, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and increased management costs and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. We may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including, but not limited to, costs relating to air emissions, the management of ballast water, recycling of vessels, maintenance and inspection, elimination of tin-based paint, development and implementation of safety and emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

These requirements can also affect the resale prices or useful lives of our vessels or require reductions in capacity, vessel modifications or operational changes or restrictions. Failure to comply with these requirements could lead to decreased availability of or more costly insurance coverage for environmental matters or result in the denial of access to certain jurisdictional waters or ports, or detention in certain ports. Under local, national and foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material liabilities, including cleanup obligations and claims for impairment of the environment, personal injury and property damages in the event that there is a release of petroleum or other hazardous materials from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our operations. Violations of, or liabilities under, environmental regulations can result in substantial penalties, fines and other sanctions, including, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels. Events of this nature would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code. The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of the vessel to develop, implement and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe vessel operation and protection of the environment and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Further details in relation to the ISM Code are set out below in the section headed “Environmental and Other Regulations”. The failure of a shipowner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject it to increased liability, and, if the implementing legislation so provides, to criminal sanctions, may invalidate or result in the loss of existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. In addition, if we fail to maintain ISM Code certification for our vessels, we may also breach covenants in certain of our credit and loan facilities that require that our vessels be ISM-Code certified. If we breach such covenants due to failure to maintain ISM Code certification and are unable to remedy the relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose on the vessels in our fleet securing those credit and loan facilities. As of the date of this annual report on Form 20-F, each of our vessels is ISM Code-certified.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may be imposed.

Due to concern over the risk of climate change, a number of countries and the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. These regulatory measures may include, among others, adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. In addition, although the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping currently are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which required adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, a new treaty may be adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. Compliance with changes in laws, regulations and obligations relating to climate change could increase our costs related to operating and maintaining our vessels and require us to install new emission controls, acquire allowances or pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions, or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program. Revenue generation and strategic growth opportunities may also be adversely affected.

Charterers have been placed under significant financial pressure, thereby increasing our charter counterparty risk.

The continuing weakness in demand for dry bulk shipping services and any future declines in such demand could result in financial challenges faced by our charterers and may increase the likelihood of one or more of our charterers being unable or unwilling to pay us contracted charter rates. We expect to generate most of our revenues from these charters and if our charterers fail to meet their obligations to us, we will sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Capital expenditures and other costs necessary to operate and maintain our vessels may increase.

Changes in safety or other equipment standards, as well as compliance with standards imposed by maritime self-regulatory organizations and customer requirements or competition, may require us to make additional expenditures. In order to satisfy these requirements, we may, from time to time, be required to take our vessels out of service for extended periods of time, with corresponding losses of revenues. In the future, market conditions may not justify these expenditures or enable us to operate some or all of our vessels profitably during the remainder of their economic lives.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

Seasonal fluctuations in industry demand could affect us.

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our results of operations, which could affect the amount of dividends, if any, that we pay to our shareholders. The market for marine dry bulk transportation services is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of coal and other raw materials in the northern hemisphere during the winter months. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. This seasonality could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

Our insurance may not be adequate to cover our losses that may result from our operations.

We carry insurance to protect us against most of the accident-related risks involved in the conduct of our business, including marine hull and machinery insurance, war risk insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes pollution risks, crew insurance and war risk insurance. However, we may not be adequately insured to cover losses from our operational risks, which could have a material adverse effect on us. Additionally, our insurers may refuse to pay particular claims and our insurance may be voidable by the insurers if we take, or fail to take, certain action, such as failing to maintain certification of our vessels with applicable maritime regulatory organizations. Any significant uninsured or underinsured loss or liability could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. It may also result in protracted legal litigation. In addition, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates in the future during adverse insurance market conditions. We maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability coverage insurance for $1.0 billion per event. If damages from a catastrophic spill exceed our insurance coverage, it would have a materially adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Moreover, insurers have over the last few years increased premiums and reduced or restricted coverage for losses caused by terrorist acts generally.

In addition, we do not currently carry and may not carry loss-of-hire insurance, which covers the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled drydocking due to damage to the vessel from accidents. Accordingly, any loss of a vessel or extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

Our vessels are exposed to operational risks.

The operation of any vessel includes risks such as weather conditions, mechanical failure, collision, fire, contact with floating objects, cargo or property loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in countries, piracy, terrorist attacks, armed hostilities and labor strikes. Such occurrences could result in death or injury to persons, loss, damage or destruction of property or environmental damage, delays in the delivery of cargo, loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts, governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business, higher insurance rates and damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally.

In the past, political conflicts have also resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt international shipping, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea, the Gulf of Aden and parts of the Indian Ocean and West Africa. Continuing conflicts and recent developments in the Middle East and North Africa, including Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq and Libya, and the presence of United States and other armed forces in the Middle East and Asia could produce armed conflict or be the target of terrorist attacks, and lead to civil disturbance and uncertainty in financial markets. If these attacks and other disruptions result in areas where our vessels are deployed being characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones or Joint War Committee “war, strikes, terrorism and related perils” listed areas, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult or impossible to obtain. In addition, there is always the possibility of a marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental damage. Although our vessels carry a relatively small amount of oil used for fuel (“bunkers”), a spill of oil from one of our vessels or losses as a result of fire or explosion could be catastrophic under certain circumstances.

We may not be adequately insured against all risks, and our insurers may not pay particular claims. With respect to war risks insurance, which we usually obtain for certain of our vessels making port calls in designated war zone areas, such insurance may not be obtained prior to one of our vessels entering into an actual war zone, which could result in that vessel not being insured. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to timely obtain a replacement vessel in the event of a loss. Under the terms of our credit facilities, we will be subject to restrictions on the use of any proceeds we may receive from claims under our insurance policies. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to maintain or obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage for tort liability. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which may increase our costs in the event of a claim or decrease any recovery in the event of a loss. If the damages from a catastrophic oil spill or other marine disaster exceeded our insurance coverage, the payment of those damages could have a material adverse effect on our business and could possibly result in our insolvency.

In general, we do not carry loss of hire insurance. Occasionally, we may decide to carry loss of hire insurance when our vessels are trading in areas where a history of piracy has been reported. Loss of hire insurance covers the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled drydocking or unscheduled repairs due to damage to the vessel. Accordingly, any loss of a vessel or any extended period of vessel off- hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

We may be subject to funding calls by our protection and indemnity clubs, and our clubs may not have enough resources to cover claims made against them.

We are indemnified for legal liabilities incurred while operating our vessels through membership of protection and indemnity, or P&I, associations, otherwise known as P&I clubs. P&I clubs are mutual insurance clubs whose members must contribute to cover losses sustained by other club members. The objective of a P&I club is to provide mutual insurance based on the aggregate tonnage of a member’s vessels entered into the club. Claims are paid through the aggregate premiums of all members of the club, although members remain subject to calls for additional funds if the aggregate premiums are insufficient to cover claims submitted to the club. Claims submitted to the club may include those incurred by members of the club, as well as claims submitted by other P&I clubs with which our club has entered into interclub agreements. We cannot assure you that the P&I club to which we belong will remain viable or that we will not become subject to additional funding calls, which could adversely affect us.

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydocking repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs that our insurance does not cover in full. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, would decrease our earnings. In addition, space at drydocking facilities is sometimes limited and not all drydocking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable drydocking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a drydocking facility that is not conveniently located to our vessels’ positions. The loss of earnings while these vessels are forced to wait for space or to travel to more distant drydocking facilities would decrease our earnings.

We may be subject to increased inspection procedures, tighter import and export controls and new security regulations.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin and destination and trans-shipment points. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of the cargo and contents of our vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or delivery and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against us.

It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. Furthermore, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and our ability to pay dividends.

Rising fuel prices may adversely affect our profits.

Fuel is a significant, if not the largest, expense if vessels are under voyage charter or if consumed during ballast days. Moreover, the cost of fuel will affect the profit we can earn on the spot market. Upon redelivery of vessels at the end of a time charter, we may be obliged to repurchase the fuel on board at prevailing market prices, which could be materially higher than fuel prices at the inception of the time charter period. As a result, an increase in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical events, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Further, fuel may become much more expensive in the future, which may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail.

Increases in crew costs may adversely affect our profits.

Crew costs are a significant expense for us under our charters. There is a limited supply of well-qualified crew. We generally bear crewing costs under our charters. Increases in crew costs may adversely affect our profitability.

The operation of dry bulk vessels has certain unique operational risks.

The operation of certain vessel types, such as dry bulk vessels, has certain unique risks. With a dry bulk vessel, the cargo itself and its interaction with the vessel can be a risk factor. By their nature, dry bulk cargoes are often heavy, dense, easily shifted and react badly to water exposure. In addition, dry bulk vessels are often subjected to battering during unloading operations with grabs, jackhammers (to pry encrusted cargoes out of the hold) and small bulldozers. This may cause damage to the vessel. Vessels damaged due to treatment during unloading procedures may be more susceptible to breach while at sea. Hull breaches in dry bulk vessels may lead to the flooding of the vessels holds. If a dry bulk vessel suffers flooding in its forward holds, the bulk cargo may become so dense and waterlogged that its pressure may buckle the vessels bulkheads leading to the loss of a vessel. If we are unable to adequately maintain our vessels we may be unable to prevent these events. Any of these circumstances or events could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends. In addition, the loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel, or other assets of the relevant vessel-owning company, for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages even if we are not at fault, for example, if we pay a supplier for bunkers who subcontracts the supply and does not pay such subcontractor. In many jurisdictions, a claimant may seek to obtain security for its claim by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels, could cause us to default on a charter, breach covenants in the DVB Loan Agreement or the HSH Loan Agreement, interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of money to have the arrest or attachment lifted. Please see “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel which is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could attempt to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another of our vessels.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency.

A government could requisition one or more of our vessels for title or for hire. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition vessels in other circumstances. Even if we would be entitled to compensation in the event of a requisition of one or more of our vessels, the amount and timing of payment would be uncertain. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels may negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

The ongoing uncertainty related to the Greek sovereign debt crisis may adversely affect our operating results.

Greece has experienced a macroeconomic downturn during recent years, including as a result of the sovereign debt crisis and the related austerity measures implemented by the Greek government. Our operations in Greece may be subjected to new regulations or regulatory action that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. We also face the risk that strikes, work stoppages, civil unrest and violence within Greece may disrupt our shore-side operations located in Greece. The Greek government’s taxation authorities have increased their scrutinization of individuals and companies to secure tax law compliance. If economic and financial market conditions remain uncertain, persist or deteriorate further, the Greek government may impose further changes to tax and other laws to which may be subject or change the ways they are enforced, which may adversely affect our business, compliance costs, operating results, and financial condition.

Compliance with safety and other vessel requirements imposed by classification societies may be costly.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be certified as safe and seaworthy in accordance with applicable rules and regulations, and accordingly vessels must undergo regular surveys. All of the vessels that we operate or manage are classed by one of the major classification societies, including Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Class NK), DNV GL and Bureau Veritas and Rina Services SPA.Veritas. Vessels must undergo annual surveys, immediate surveys and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed over a five-year period. Our vessels are on special survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every two to three years for inspection of its underwater parts. If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual, intermediate or special survey, the vessel may be unable to trade between ports and may be unemployable which could trigger the violation of certain covenants in the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement. Such an occurrence could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends. Please see “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

A further economic slowdown or changes in the economic, regulatory and political environment in the Asia Pacific region could reduce dry bulk trade demand.

A significant number of the port calls made by our vessels involve the transportation of dry bulk products to ports in the Asia Pacific region. As a result, continued economic slowdown in the region or changes in the regulatory environment, and particularly in China or Japan, could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Before the global economic financial crisis that began in 2008, China had one of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP, which had a significant impact on shipping demand. The growth rate of China’s GDP continues to remain below pre-2008 levels.lower than originally anticipated. In addition, China has imposed measures to restrain lending, which may further contribute to a slowdown in its economic growth. China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region may continue to experience slowed or even negative economic growth in the future.

Many of the economic and political reforms adopted by the Chinese government are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition based upon the outcome of such experiments. If the Chinese government does not continue to pursue a policy of economic reform, the level of imports of exports of dry bulk products to and from China could be adversely affected by changes to these economic reforms by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government, such as changes in laws, regulations or restrictions on importing commodities into the country. Notwithstanding economic reform, the Chinese government may adopt policies that favor domestic shipping companies and may hinder our ability to compete with them effectively. Moreover, a significant or protracted slowdown in the economies of the United States, the European Union or various Asian countries or changes in the regulatory environment may adversely affect economic growth in China and elsewhere. Our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be materially and adversely affected by an economic downturn or changes in the regulatory environment in any of these countries.

We conduct a substantial amount of business in China.

The Chinese legal system is based on written statutes and their legal interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Prior court decisions may be cited for reference but have limited precedential value. Since 1979, the Chinese government has been developing a comprehensive system of commercial laws, and considerable progress has been made in introducing laws and regulations dealing with economic matters such as foreign investment, corporate organization and governance, commerce, taxation and trade. However, because these laws and regulations are relatively new, there is a general lack of internal guidelines or authoritative interpretive guidance and because of the limited number of published cases and their non-binding nature interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations involve uncertainties. We conduct a substantial portion of our business in China or with Chinese counter parties. For example, we enter into charters with Chinese customers, which charters may be subject to new regulations in China. We may, therefore, be required to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs, and pay new taxes or other fees to the Chinese government. Changes in laws and regulations, including with regards to tax matters, and their implementation by local authorities could affect our vessels that are either chartered to Chinese customers or that call to Chinese ports and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

The Chinese economy differs from the economies of western countries in such respects as structure, government involvement, level of development, growth rate, capital reinvestment, allocation of resources, bank regulation, currency and monetary policy, rate of inflation and balance of payments position. Although state-owned enterprises still account for a substantial portion of the Chinese industrial output, in general, the Chinese government is reducing the level of direct control that it exercises over the economy. There is an increasing level of freedom and autonomy in areas such as allocation of resources, production, pricing and management and a gradual shift in emphasis to a “market economy” and enterprise reform, although it still acts with greater control than a truly free-market economy. Many of the Chinese government’s reforms are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition based upon the outcome of such experiments. The level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by the failure to continue market reforms or changes to existing pro-export economic policies. The level of imports to and exports from China may also be adversely affected by changes in political, economic and social conditions (including a slowing of economic growth) or other relevant policies of the Chinese government, such as changes in laws, regulations or export and import restrictions, internal political instability, changes in currency policies, changes in trade policies and territorial or trade disputes. A decrease in the level of imports to and exports from China could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

If economic conditions throughout the world do not improve, it will impede our operations.

Negative trends in the global economy that emerged in 2008 continue to adversely affect global economic conditions. In addition, the world economy continues to face a number of new challenges, including uncertainty related to the winding down of the U.S. Federal Reserve’s bond buying program and declining global growth rates. These challenges also include continuing turmoil and hostilities in the Middle East, Ukraine, North Africa, the Middle East, and other geographic areas and countries and continuing economic weakness in the European Union. An extended period of deterioration in the outlook for the world economy could increase our bunker prices and lessen overall demand for our services. Such changes could adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.

We face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates and instability in the banking and securities markets around the world, among other factors. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions will last. However, these recent and developing economic and governmental factors, together with the concurrent decline in charter rates and vessel values, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and may cause the price of our common shares to decline.

Continued economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region, particularly in China, may exacerbate the effect on us, as we anticipate a significant number of the port calls made by our vessels will continue to involve the loading or discharging of dry bulk commodities in ports in the Asia Pacific region. Before the global economic financial crisis that began in 2008, China had one of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of GDP, which had a significant impact on shipping demand. The growth rate of China’s GDP is estimated to have decreased to approximately 6.9%6.8% for the year ended December 31, 2015, which is China’s lowest growth rate for the past five years, and continues to remain below pre-2008 levels.2016. China has recently imposed measures to restrain lending, which may further contribute to a slowdown in its economic growth, while it has announced plans to gradually transition from an investment led growth model to a consumption driven economic growth model, which could lead to smaller demand for iron ore and other commodities. This transition may take place over the span of a number of years, and there can be no assurance as to the time frame for such a transformation or that any such transformation will occur at all. It is possible that China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region will continue to experience slowed or even negative economic growth in the near future. Moreover, the current economic slowdown in the economies of the United States, the European Union and other Asian countries may further adversely affect economic growth in China and elsewhere. Our business, financial condition and results of operations, ability to pay dividends, if any, as well as our future prospects, will likely be materially and adversely affected by a further economic downturn in any of these countries.

Company Specific Risk Factors

There are doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We had a working capital deficit (being our total consolidated current liabilities exceeding our total consolidated current assets) of $64.9 million as of December 31, 2015. See “—At December 31, 2015, Globus’s current liabilities exceeded its current assets” for more information.

As of December 31, 2015, we were in breach in most of the covenants included in our loan agreements with HSH Nordbank AG, Commerzbank AG and DVB Bank SE. Although none of the lenders declared an event of default and we have obtained relaxations and waivers as described herein, if breaches like these persist, our lenders may require immediate repayment of their loans.

Our ability to become profitable depends upon our ability to generate revenues and/or obtain financing adequate to fulfill our shipping activities, and achieving a level of revenues adequate to support our operating expenses has raised substantial doubts about our ability to continue as a going concern. We plan to attempt to raise additional capital by selling securities through one or more private placement or public offerings, which may include a rights offering, or by borrowing additional funds. All of our vessels are pledged as collateral to a bank, and therefore if we were to sell one or more vessels, the net proceeds of such sale would be used first to repay the outstanding debt to which the vessel is collateralized with, and the remainder, if any, would be for our use, subject to the terms of our remaining loan and credit arrangements. However, the doubts raised relating to our ability to continue as a going concern may make our securities an unattractive investment for potential investors. These factors, among others, may make it difficult to raise any additional capital.

We have a number of unsecured credit facilities outstanding in addition to secured loan agreements. When those unsecured credit facilities, namely the Firment Credit Facility and Silaner Credit Facility, become due, it is not likely that we will have the cash flow to repay these facilities if the current economic conditions don’t improve, unless we are able to raise funds by incurring new debt or issuing new securities.

At December 31, 2015,2016, Globus’s current liabilities exceeded its current assets.

Working capital, which is current assets, minus current liabilities, including the current portion of long-term debt, amounted to a working capital deficit of $64.9$29 million as of December 31, 2015.2016.

Current liabilities as of December 31, 2016 include:

(1) the total amount outstanding of $27.3$2.8 million with respect to the HSH Loan Agreement with HSH Nordbank AG. Globus reached to an agreement in principle to amend the HSH Loan Agreement (which is subject to completing final documentation) with HSH Nordbank AG in April 2016, which includedMarch 2017, including amendments that would provide for the principal repayment of $1.39$1 million in 2016.2017 and the deferral of the four scheduled principal installments due within 2017, each amounting to $693,595, to the balloon payment. For more information, see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

(2) the total amount outstanding of $15.65 million with respect to the Kelty Loan Agreement. In March 2016, Globus reached a settlement agreement with Commerzbank. Commerzbank agreed to settle the outstanding indebtedness of $15.65 million in return for the sale of the shares of Kelty Marine Ltd. for $6.86 million plus overdue interest of $40,708. If the total amount of cash and bank balances and bank deposits exceeds $10 million in the aggregate as declared on June 30, 2016 then we must pay to Commerzbank any excess amounts. If there is no excess, Globus will be released from its guarantee. For more information, see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

(3) the total amount outstanding of $21$3.4 million with respect to the Loan Agreement with DVB Bank SE. In April 2016,March 2017, Globus reached an agreement within principle to amend the lender onDVB Loan Agreement (which is subject to completing final documentation) including amendments to relax or waive certain amendments and waivers to the terms of the loan agreement which are validcovenants for the period from March 1, 2016April 2017 to March 31, 2017.April 2018. It was agreed that the amendments will provide that Globus will make a principal prepayment of $1.7 million for 2016, which we have made,by September 2017 and the remaining amount willanother $1.7 million would be deferred to the balloon payments. For more information, see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

As of December 31, 2015, the Company was in breach of the financial covenants included in all of its loan agreements,(3) the total outstanding balance of those loans$17.4 million with respect to the Firment Credit Facility, which was classified under current liabilities, except forreduced when we issued shares and warrants, and the outstanding balance with Firment Trading Limited.remainder of which was repaid. For more information, see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

In March 2016, the Company reached a settlement with Commerzbank AG, and in April 20162017, the Company entered into a supplemental agreement with DVB Bank SE and an agreementagreements in principle to amend the loan agreements (which isare subject to completing final documentation) with DVB Bank SE and HSH Nordbank AG. Subject to completing final documentation with HSH Nordbank AG, all the covenant breaches were remediated or waived. For more information, see Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

After the effect of these agreements the working capital deficit becomeswas approximately $20$9.5 million as of December 31, 2015.2016.

We were inmay breach of the covenants contained in the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement.

As of December 31, 2015,2016, the Company was not in breach of the financial covenants included in all of its loan agreements, the total outstanding balance of those loans was classified under current liabilities, except for the outstanding balance with Firment Trading Limited.agreements.

We received relaxations and/or waivers regardingIn March 2017, we agreed in principle with HSH Nordbank AG and DVB Bank SE to amend the covenants contained inHSH Loan Agreement and the DVB Loan Agreement, and HSH Loan Agreement in April 2016. Our supplemental agreement with HSH Nordbank AG is subjectrespectively, (subject to completing final documentation. The relaxations and/or waivers conditionallydocumentation) including amendments that will provide for the suspensionrelaxation and/or waiver of certain financial covenants, including maintaining a minimum liquidity and minimum net worth,worth. We may not be able to meet these relaxed terms and allows for certain paymentscannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain waivers in the future.

If the agreements in principle reached in March 2017 with HSH Nordbank AG and DVB Bank SE do not result in the amendments to the respective loan agreements as contemplated by such agreements, we may breach covenants contained in such loan agreements constituting an event of dividends.default. If an event of default occurs under the DVB Loan Agreement or the HSH Loan Agreement the respective lender could elect to declare the outstanding debt, together with accrued interest and other fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against the collateral securing that debt, which could constitute all or substantially all of our assets. The March 2017 agreements are each subject to the satisfaction of a due diligence review by the lender. Each of the parties to each loan agreement must agree on the terms of the final documentation, and the amendment of each loan agreement is a condition precedent to the amendment of each other loan agreement. Further, it is a condition to the March 2017 agreement reached with DVB Bank SE that the amendment to the DVB Loan Agreement be completed by April 18, 2017, subject to a reasonable extension at the bank’s discretion.

See “Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources – Indebtedness.”

All our loan arrangements with third parties (that is, all of our loan arrangements other than the Firment Credit Facility and the Silaner Credit Facility, which are both affiliates of our chairman Mr. George Feidakis) contain cross-default provisions that provide that if we are in default under any of our loan arrangements, the lender of another loan arrangement can declare a default under its other loan arrangement, which could result in our default of all of our loan arrangements. Because of the presence of cross-default provisions in these loan arrangements, the refusal of any lender to grant or extend a relaxation or waiver could result in most of our indebtedness being accelerated, notwithstanding that other lenders have relaxed or waived covenant defaults under their respective loan arrangements. Our supplemental agreement with HSH Nordbank AG is subject to completing final documentation.

As of the date of this annual report on Form 20-F, none of our lenders had declared an event of default under the relevant loan agreements for which we were not in compliance as of December 31, 2015.

Restrictive covenants in the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement may impose financial and other restrictions on us, including cross-default provisions, and we cannot assure you that we will be able to borrow funds from future debt arrangements.

The DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement impose operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability to, among other things:

These restrictions could limit our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs, make acquisitions or pursue available business opportunities. In addition, the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement will, and future credit arrangements will likely,require us to maintain specified financial ratios and satisfy financial covenants during the remaining terms of such agreements, some of which are based upon the market value of our fleet. If the market value of our fleet declines sharply, we may not be in compliance with certain provisions of the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement, and we may not be able to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing. The market value of dry bulk vessels is sensitive, among other things, to changes in the dry bulk charter market, with vessel values deteriorating in times when dry bulk charter rates are falling and improving when charter rates are anticipated to rise. The current low charter rates in the dry bulk market, along with the oversupply of dry bulk carriers and the prevailing difficulty in obtaining financing for vessel purchases, have adversely affected dry bulk vessel values, including the vessels in our fleet. As a result, we may not meet certain minimum asset coverage ratios and other financial ratios which are included in our loan arrangements.

For a more detailed discussion on our loan covenants, including breaches of them and relaxations and/or waivers we obtained, see “Item 5.B Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness.”

Events beyond our control, including changes in the economic and business conditions in the shipping sectors in which we operate, may affect our ability to comply with these covenants. We cannot assure you that we will satisfy these requirements or that our lenders will remediate or waive any failure to do so.

If an event of default occurs under the DVB Loan Agreement or the HSH Loan Agreement the respective lender could elect to declare the outstanding debt, together with accrued interest and other fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against the collateral securing that debt, which could constitute all or substantially all of our assets.

Furthermore, each of our outstanding loan arrangements with third parties contains a cross-default provision that may be triggered by a default under any of our other loansloans. (This excludes the unsecured credit facilityfacilities with Firment Trading Limited and Silaner Investments Limited, whichas both lenders are both affiliates of our chairmanChairman Mr. George Feidakis.)Feidakis, and both of these facilities have no debt outstanding on the date of this annual report, but remain available to the Company). A cross-default provision means that a default on one loan could result in a default on all of our other loans. Because of the presence of cross-default provisions in these secured loan arrangements, the refusal of any one lender to grant or extend a relaxation or waiver could result in most of our indebtedness being accelerated even if our other secured lenders have relaxed or waived covenant defaults under their respective loan arrangements. If our indebtedness is accelerated, it will be very difficult in the current financing environment for us to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing and we could lose our vessels if our lenders foreclose their liens, and our ability to conduct our business would be severely impaired.

Our discretion is limited because we may need to obtain consent from our lenders in order to engage in certain corporate actions. Our lenders’ interests may be different from ours, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain our lenders’ consent when needed. This may limit our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders, finance our future operations or pursue business opportunities.

Our shareholders were significantly diluted by virtue of the February 2017 private placement and loan amendment agreements. It is unclear whether the full ramifications of those transactions have been reflected in our stock price.

In February 2017 we issued in the aggregate 25 million common shares and warrants to issue an additional 32,380,017 common shares in exchange for $20 million of debt release and $5 million in cash. Prior to such issuance, a total of 2,627,674 common shares were issued and outstanding. Our share price has not proportionately decreased to reflect the additional number of common shares that are issued and issuable pursuant to exercise of the warrants, and it remains to be seen how the market will perceive this change in our increased number of shares. If the market views these transactions negatively, our share price could substantially depreciate.

Our stock price has been volatile and no assurance can be made that it will not substantially depreciate.

Our stock price has been volatile recently. The closing price of our common shares within the past 18 months has ranged from a low of $0.30 on January 29, 2016 to a peak of $14.23 on November 16, 2016. Adjusting for the 4:1 stock split we effected on October 20, 2016, this represents a 4,643% increase from January 29, 2016. Our opening stock price as of the date immediately prior to the filing of this annual report on Form 20-F, was $3.43. We can offer no comfort or assurance that our stock price will stop being volatile or not substantially depreciate.

Our existing shareholders will be diluted each time our outstanding warrants are exercised.

After we issued the warrants, our warrant holders had the right to purchase an aggregate of 32,380,017 common shares. The number of common shares issuable upon exercise and price of exercise are subject to adjustment. We expect the exercise of such outstanding warrants to dilute the value of our shares.

A substantial number of common shares were sold in the February 2017 private placement and related loan amendment agreements, and we cannot predict if and when the holders of those securities may sell such shares in the public markets. Furthermore, in the future, we may issue additional common shares or other equity or debt securities convertible into common shares in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements, or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing shareholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

The sale of a substantial amount of our common shares, including resale of the common shares issuable upon the exercise of the warrants held by the warrant holders, in the public market could adversely affect the prevailing market price of our common shares.

Our warrant holders hold outstanding warrants to purchase an aggregate of 32,380,017 common shares at an exercise price of $1.60 per share and 5 million shares. Both the number of common shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants and the exercise price are subject to adjustment. Sales of substantial amounts of our common shares in the public market, or the perception that such sales might occur, could adversely affect the market price of our common shares, and the market value of our other securities.

We cannot predict if and when the warrant holders may sell such shares in the public markets, but note that they hold a substantial amount of shares and such sales could cause our stock price to be volatile and could cause our shareholders to be diluted. Furthermore, in the future, we may issue additional common shares or other equity or debt securities convertible into common shares in connection with a financing, acquisition, litigation settlement, employee arrangements, or otherwise. Any such issuance could result in substantial dilution to our existing shareholders and could cause our stock price to decline.

Certain shareholders hold registration rights, which may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common shares.

In connection with the February 8, 2017 transactions, we issued to Firment Shipping Inc., a company owned by our Chairman Mr. George Feidakis, 20 million common shares and warrants to purchase 7,380,017 common shares. Firment Shipping Inc. has the right to register those common shares for resale pursuant to a registration rights agreement we entered into with its affiliate, Firment Trading Limited. The resale of those common shares in addition to the offer and sale of the other securities sold in the February 2017 private placement (including shares issuable upon exercise of warrants sold in that private placement) may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common shares.

Our warrants could have cashless exercise at our expense if, six months after the warrants were issued, the underlying common shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants are not registered for sale pursuant to an effective registration statement.

Our warrants all contain a provision whereby the warrant’s holder has the right to a cashless exercise if, six months after their issuance, a registration statement covering their resale is not effective. If for any reason we are unable to keep such a registration statement active and our share price is higher than the $1.60 exercise price, we could be required to issue shares without receiving cash consideration. As 32,380,017 common shares are issuable upon exercise of the warrants, this could mean that we issue all such shares but do not receive $51,808,027.20 (which is the $1.60 exercise price multiplied by 32,380,017), which would dilute our shareholders and likely decrease our share price.

If we are unable to deliver common shares free of restrictive legends where required, we must make whole any purchaser who loses money by purchasing common shares on the market to complete a trade.

The warrants and the purchase agreement pursuant to which the warrants were issued require us, within the later of (a) five full trading days of the exercise of a warrant and (b) three full trading days after receipt of the purchase price for such exercised warrants, to issue common shares, which, where called for therein, must be free of restrictive legends. We are similarly obligated, where called for therein, to remove restrictive legends from the 5 million common shares issued to purchasers in the February 2017 Transactions. If we are unable to deliver proof that the above has occurred when required and if a warrant or shareholder has traded the common shares that we have failed to deliver unlegended, penalty provisions of these documents require us to make whole any warrant holder or shareholder who loses money by purchasing shares on the common market to complete its trade. Depending on our share price during this time and the number of shares to which the payments relate, we could be required to pay a substantial sum.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to refinance our existing indebtedness or obtain additional financing.

We may finance future fleet expansion with additional secured indebtedness. While we may refinance amounts drawn under the DVB Loan Agreement or the HSH Loan Agreement, the Firment Credit Facility or Silaner Credit Facility or secure new debt facilities with the net proceeds of future debt and equity offerings, we cannot assure you that we will be able to do so at an interest rate or on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering, including the actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers and the market value of our fleet, as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions, weakness in the financial markets and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity in credit markets worldwide is reducing the availability and increasing the cost of credit.

If we are not able to refinance the DVB Loan Agreement, the HSH Loan Agreement, the Firment Credit Facility and the Silaner Credit Facility or obtain new debt financing on terms acceptable to us, we will have to dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to pay the principal and interest of this indebtedness. If we are not able to satisfy these obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing plans. In addition, debt service payments under the DVB Loan Agreement, the HSH Loan Agreement, the Firment Credit Facility and the Silaner Credit Facility or alternative financing may limit funds otherwise available for working capital, capital expenditures, the payment of dividends and other purposes. Our inability to obtain additional or replacement financing at anticipated costs or at all may materially affect our results of operation, our ability to implement our business strategy, our payment of dividends and our ability to continue as a going concern.

In December 2013, we entered into a credit facility for up to $4.0 million with Firment Trading Limited, a company related to us through common control, for the purpose of financing its general working capital needs. During December 2014, the credit limit of the facility increased from $4.0 to $8.0 million, and in December 2015 the credit limit of the facility increased from $8.0 to $20.0 million. In December 2015, the Firment Credit Facility was assigned from Firment Trading Limited, a Cypriot company, to Firment Trading Limited, a Marshall Islands corporation, each of which is a company related to us through common control. We have the right to drawdown any amount up to $20.0 million or prepay any amount, during the availability period, in multiples of $0.1 million. Currently, we have $15.9 million drawn under the Firment Credit Facility. Any prepaid amount can be re-borrowed in accordance with the terms of the Firment Credit Facility. Please read “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

In February 2015, we entered into a new loan agreement with HSH Nordbank AG, the HSH Loan Agreement, for up to $30.0 million for the purpose of a partial refinancing of our then existing credit facility with Credit Suisse AG. Please read “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information. We were in breach of covenants contained in this agreement as of December 31, 2015, and have agreed with HSH to relax or waive certain provisions thereof. Our supplemental agreement with HSH Nordbank AG is subject to completing final documentation.

It was agreed that the Company would receive relaxations and/or waivers or covenant amendments until March 2017 regarding the financial covenants contained in the HSH Loan Agreement. More specifically we agreed:

In January 2016, we entered into a credit facility for up to $3.0 million with Silaner Investments Limited, a company related to us through common control, for the purpose of financing its general working capital needs. Currently, we have $2.15 million drawn under the Silaner Credit Facility. Any prepaid amount can be re-borrowed in accordance with the terms of the Silaner Credit Facility. Please read “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

We may not finalize documentation on our April 2016 loan modification from HSH.

In April, 2016 we reached an agreement in principle with HSH which, among other matters, modified our loan repayment schedule and relaxed or waived what would have otherwise been violations of loan covenants. We intend to complete the formal documentation of this arrangement and have no reason to believe that HSH does not similarly intend to do so.

If we are unable to complete formal documentation of this agreement, and are unable to enforce the terms of the agreement in principle or to otherwise refinance the HSH Loan Agreement or obtain new debt financing on terms acceptable to us, we will have to dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to pay the principal and interest of this indebtedness. If we are not able to satisfy these obligations, we may have to undertake alternative financing plans, and we would be in breach of the covenants under the HSH Loan Agreement. Even if we enforce the terms that we believe have been agreed, such may take a fair amount of time and expense to accomplish.

In addition, debt service payments under the HSH Loan Agreement may limit funds otherwise available for working capital, capital expenditures, the payment of dividends and other purposes. Our inability to obtain additional or replacement financing at anticipated costs or at all may materially affect our results of operation, our ability to implement our business strategy, our payment of dividends and our ability to continue as a going concern.

Please see “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

Our common shares may be delisted from Nasdaq, which could affect itstheir market price and liquidity.

We are required to meet certain qualitative and financial tests (including a minimum bid price for our common shares of $1.00 per share, at least 500,000 publicly held shares, at least 300 public holders, and a market value of publicly held securities of $1 million), as well as other corporate governance standards, to maintain the listing of our common shares on the Nasdaq Capital Market. It is possible that we could fail to satisfy one or more of these requirements. There can be no assurance that we will be able to maintain compliance with the minimum bid price, shareholders’ equity, number of publicly held shares or other listing standards in the future. We may receive notices from Nasdaq that we have failed to meet its requirements, and proceedings to delist our stock could be commenced. In such event, Nasdaq rules permit us to appeal any delisting determination to a Nasdaq Hearings Panel. If we are unable to maintain or regain compliance in a timely manner and our common shares are delisted, it could be more difficult to buy or sell our common shares and obtain accurate quotations, and the price of our shares could suffer a material decline. Delisting may also impair our ability to raise capital. Delisting of our shares would breach a number of our credit facilities and loan arrangements, some of which contain cross default provisions. There could also be adverse tax consequences—please read “Item 10.E Taxation – United States Tax Considerations - United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders – Distributions” for further information.

In October 2015, when the Company’s common shares traded on the Nasdaq Global Market, the Company received written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market dated October 22, 2015 indicating that because the market value of the Company's publicly held common stock ("MVPHS") for the previous 30 consecutive business days was below the minimum requirement of $5,000,000, the Company no longer met the minimum MVPHS continued listing requirement for the Nasdaq Global Market, as set forth in the Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(b)(1)(C). Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5810(c)(3)(D), the Company was granted a grace period of 180 calendar days (or until April 19, 2016) to regain compliance with Nasdaq's MVPHS requirement. Furthermore, in November 2015, the Company received written notification from the Nasdaq Stock Market dated November 9, 2015 indicating that because the closing bid price of the Company’s common stock for the previous 30 consecutive business days was below $1.00 per share, the Company no longer met the minimum bid price continued listing requirement for the Nasdaq Global Market, as set forth in Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(a)(1). Pursuant to Nasdaq Listing Rules, the applicable grace period to regain compliance was 180 days, or until May 9, 2016. Subsequent to these two events the Company monitored closely both its MVPHS and closing bid price and looked into ways of curing both deficiencies. The Company transferred from the Nasdaq Global Market to the Nasdaq Capital Market, where the MVPHS requirement is only $1,000,000. The Company’s common shares$1,000,000 and commenced trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market on April 11, 2016. However,

On May 9, 2016 the Company is still facing the bid price requirement deadline of May 9, 2016. If at that time, and as per the November 9, 2015 letter the Company received it meets the $1,000,000 MVPHS and all other initial listing standards (except the bid price) then the Company will receive a written notification from Nasdaq confirming its eligibility for a second grace period of 180 days. The Company deems it in the best interest ofdays, lasting until November 9, 2016 to regain compliance with its shareholders to remain listed and currently intends to do so by providingminimum $1.00 per share closing bid price requirement. On October 20, 2016, we effected a written notice to Nasdaq of its intention to effect afour-for-one reverse stock split if necessary.which reduced the number of our outstanding common shares from 10,510,741 to 2,627,674 shares (adjustments were made based on fractional shares). On November 3, 2016 received a letter from NASDAQ, indicating that the Company has regained compliance with the $1.00 per share minimum closing bid price requirement for continued listing on the NASDAQ Capital Market, pursuant to the NASDAQ marketplace rules. For at least 10 consecutive business days from October 20, to November 2, 2016, the closing bid price had been greater than $1.00. NASDAQ indicated within its letter that since the Company has regained compliance with Listing Rule 5550(a)(2) (the “Minimum Bid Price Rule”), the matter had closed. We can offer no reassurance that we will not receive similar letters in the future.

We may be unable to successfully employ our vessels on long-term time charters or take advantage of favorable opportunities involving short-term or spot market charter rates.

Our strategy involves employing our vessels primarily on time charters generally with durations between three months and five years. As of December 31, 2015,2016, all of our vessels were employed on short-term time charters or on spot charters. Although time charters with durations of one to five years may provide relatively steady streams of revenue, if our vessels were committed to such charters they may not be available for re-chartering or for spot market voyages when such employment would allow us to realize the benefits of comparably more favorable charter rates. In addition, in the future, we may not be able to enter into new time charters on favorable terms. The market is volatile, and in the past charter rates have declined below operating costs of vessels and such is currently the case. If we are required to enter into a charter when charter rates are low, employ our vessels on the spot market during periods when charter rates have fallen or we are unable to take advantage of short-term opportunities on the spot or charter market, our earnings and profitability could be adversely affected. We cannot assure you that future charter rates will enable us to operate our vessels profitably or to pay dividends, or both.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

As we expand our business, we may have difficulty improving our operating and financial systems and recruiting suitable employees and crew for our vessels.

Our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate if we expand the size of our fleet, and our attempts to improve those systems may be ineffective. In addition, as we seek to expand our internal technical management capabilities and our fleet, we or our crewing agents may need to recruit suitable additional seafarers and shore based administrative and management personnel. We cannot guarantee that we or our crewing agents will be able to hire suitable employees or a sufficient number of employees if and as we expand our fleet. If we or our crewing agent encounter business or financial difficulties, we may not be able to adequately staff our vessels. If we are unable to develop and maintain effective financial and operating systems or to recruit suitable employees as we expand our fleet, our financial performance may be adversely affected and, among other things, the amount of cash available for distribution as dividends to our shareholders may be reduced or eliminated.

Recently, the limited supply of and increased demand for well-qualified crew, due to the increase in the size of the global shipping fleet, has created upward pressure on crewing costs, which we generally bear under our time and spot charters. Increases in crew costs may adversely affect our profitability, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

We expect that our vessels will call at ports where smugglers may attempt to hide drugs and other contraband on vessels, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent that our vessels are found with contraband, whether inside or attached to the hull of our vessel, and whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew, we may face governmental or other regulatory claims that could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Labor interruptions could disrupt our business.

Our vessels are manned by masters, officers and crews (totaling 133113 as of December 31, 2015)2016). Seafarers manning the vessels in our fleet are covered by industry-wide collective bargaining agreements that set basic standards. Any labor interruptions or employment disagreements with our crew members could disrupt our operations and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends. We cannot assure you that collective bargaining agreements will prevent labor interruptions.

Our charterers may renegotiate or default on their charters.

Our charters provide the charterer the right to terminate the charter on the occurrence of stated events or the existence of specified conditions. In addition, the ability and willingness of each of our charterers to perform its obligations under its charter with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control. These factors may include general economic conditions, the condition of the dry bulk shipping industry and the overall financial condition of the counterparties. The costs and delays associated with the default of a charterer of a vessel may be considerable and may adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

In the recent depressed dry bulk market conditions, there have been numerous reports of charterers renegotiating their charters or defaulting on their obligations under their charters. If oura current charterers or a future charterer defaults on a charter, we will seek the remedies available to us, which may include arbitration or litigation to enforce the contract, although such efforts may not be successful and for short term charters may cost more to enforce than the potential recovery. We cannot predict whether our charterers will, upon the expiration of their charters, re-charter our vessels on favorable terms or at all. If our charterers decide not to re-charter our vessels, we may not be able to re-charter them on terms similar to the terms of our current charters or at all. If we receive lower charter rates under replacement charters or are unable to re-charter all of our vessels, this may adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

The aging of our fleet may result in increased operating costs in the future.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel. As of December 31, 20152016 and 2014,2015, the weighted average age of the vessels in our fleet was 7.48.8 and 8.17.4 years, respectively. As of March 31, 2016, the weighted average age of the five vessels we own was 8.1. Our oldest vessel was built in 2005, and our youngest vessel was built in 2010. As our fleet ages, we will incur increased costs. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates, paid by charterers, increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, further market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

We may also decide that it makes economic sense to lay up one or more vessels. While our vessels are laid up, we will pay lay-up costs, but those vessels will not be able to earn any hire.

We may have difficulty managing our planned growth properly.

Any future acquisitions of additional vessels will impose additional responsibilities on our management and staff and may require us to increase the number of our personnel. In the event of a future acquisition of additional vessels, we will also have to increase our customer base to provide continued employment for the new vessels.

We intend to continue to stabilize and then to try to grow our business through disciplined acquisitions of vessels that meet our selection criteria and newly built vessels if we can negotiate attractive purchase prices. Our future growth will primarily depend on:

A delay in the delivery to us of any such vessel, or the failure of the shipyard to deliver a vessel at all, could cause us to breach our obligations under a related charter and could adversely affect our earnings. In addition, the delivery of any of these vessels with substantial defects could have similar consequences. A shipyard could fail to deliver a new-building on time or at all because of:

In addition, if we enter a new-building or secondhand contract in the future, we may seek to terminate the contract due to market conditions, financing limitations or other reasons. The outcome of contract termination negotiations may require us to forego deposits on construction or purchase and pay additional cancellation fees. In addition, where we have already arranged a future charter with respect to the terminated new-building contract, we would need to provide an acceptable substitute vessel to the charterer to avoid breaching our charter agreement.

During periods in which charter rates are high, vessel values generally are high as well, and it may be difficult to consummate vessel acquisitions or enter into new-building contracts at favorable prices. During periods when charter rates are low, such as the current market, we may be unable to fund the acquisition of new-buildings, whether through lending or cash on hand. For these reasons, we may be unable to execute our growth plans or avoid significant expenses and losses in connection with our future growth efforts.

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks, such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, the possibility that indemnification agreements will be unenforceable or insufficient to cover potential losses and difficulties associated with imposing common standards, controls, procedures and policies, obtaining additional qualified personnel, managing relationships with customers and integrating newly acquired assets and operations into existing infrastructure. We cannot give any assurance that we will be successful in executing our growth plans or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection with our future growth.

To the extent we scrap or sell vessels, we may decide to terminate the employment of some of our staff.

Legislative or regulatory changes in Greece may adversely affect our results from operations.

Globus Shipmanagement Corp., our ship management subsidiary, who we refer to as our Manager, is regulated under Greek Law 89/67, and conducts its operations and those on our behalf primarily in Greece. Greece has been implementing new legislative measures to address financial difficulties, several of which as a response from oversight by the International Monetary Fund and by European regulatory bodies such as the European Central bank.Bank. Such legislative actions may impose new regulations on our operations in Greece that will require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that our Manager or we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. Any such taxes, fees or costs we incur could be in amounts that are significantly greater than those in the past and could adversely affect our results from operations.

For example, in January 2013, tax law 4110/2013 amended the long-standing provisions of art. 26 of law 27/1975 by imposing a fixed annual tonnage tax on vessels flying a foreign (i.e., non-Greek) flag which are managed by a Law 89 company, establishing an identical tonnage tax regime as the one already in force for vessels flying the Greek flag. This tax varies depending on the size of the vessel, calculated in gross registered tonnage, as well as on the age of each vessel. Payment of this tonnage tax completely satisfies all income tax obligations of both the shipowning company and of all its shareholders up to the ultimate beneficial owners. Any tax payable to the state of the flag of each vessel as a result of its registration with a foreign flag registry (including the Marshall Islands) is subtracted from the amount of tonnage tax due to the Greek tax authorities.

The Greek crisis could adversely affect the operations of our fleet manager, which has offices in Greece.

Globus Shipmanagement Corp., our Manager, has an office in Greece. As a result of the ongoing economic slump in Greece and the capital controls imposed by the government in June 2015, our Manager may be subjected to new regulations that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. Furthermore, renewed political uncertainty and social unrest due to the worsening economic conditions and the growing refugee population in the country may undermine Greece's political and economic stability and may lead it to exit the Eurozone, which may adversely affect the operations of our Manager located in Greece. We also face the risk that enhanced capital controls, strikes, work stoppages, civil unrest and violence within Greece may disrupt the operations of our Manager.

We rely on our information systems to conduct our business.

The efficient operation of our business is dependent on computer hardware and software systems. Information systems are vulnerable to security breaches by computer hackers and cyber terrorists. We rely on what we believe to be industry accepted security measures and technology to securely maintain confidential and proprietary information maintained on our information systems. However, these measures and technology may not adequately prevent security breaches. In addition, the unavailability of the information systems or the failure of these systems to perform as anticipated for any reason could disrupt our business and could result in decreased performance and increased operating costs, causing our business and results of operations to suffer. Any significant interruption or failure of our information systems or any significant breach of security could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

We expect that a limited number of financial institutions will hold our cash including financial institutions that may be located in Greece.

We expect that a limited number of financial institutions will hold all of our cash, including some institutions located in Greece. Our bank accounts are with banks in Switzerland, Germany and Greece.Of the financial institutions located in Greece, none are subsidiaries of international banks. We do not expect that these balances will be covered by insurance in the event of default by these financial institutions. The occurrence of such a default could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and we may lose part or all of our cash that we deposit with such banks.

Purchasing and operating secondhand vessels may result in increased operating costs and reduced fleet utilization.

While we have the right to inspect previously owned vessels prior to our purchase of them, such an inspection does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition that we would have if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. A secondhand vessel may have conditions or defects that we are not aware of when we buy the vessel and which may require us to incur costly repairs to the vessel. These repairs may require us to put a vessel into drydocking, which would increase cash outflows and related expenses, while reducing our fleet utilization. Furthermore, we usually do not receive the benefit of warranties on secondhand vessels.

The declarationOur ability to declare and payment ofpay dividends to holders of our common shares will depend on a number of factors and will always be subject to the discretion of our board of directors.

WeIf we are not in compliance with our loan covenants and were we to receivereceived a notice of default and bewere unable to cure it under the terms of our loan covenants, we may be forbidden from issuing dividends. There can be no assurance that dividends will be paid to holders of our shares in any anticipated amounts and frequency at all. Our policy is, to the extent permitted by law and applicable contractual obligations, to declare and pay to holders of our shares a variable quarterly dividend in excess of 50% of the net income of the previous quarter subject to any reserves our board of directors may from time to time determine are required. However, we may incur other expenses or liabilities that would reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends, including as a result of the risks described in this section of this annual report on Form 20-F. The DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement also prohibit our declaration and payment of dividends under some circumstances. Under each of the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement we will be prohibited from paying dividends if an event of default has occurred or any event has occurred or circumstance arisen which with the giving of notice or the lapse of time or the satisfaction of any other condition would constitute an event of default under the DVB Loan Agreement and the HSH Loan Agreement. Please read “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information. We may also enter into new financing or other agreements that may restrict our ability to pay dividends. In addition, we may pay dividends to the holders of our Series A Preferred Sharespreferred shares prior to the holders of our common shares, depending on the terms of the preferred shares.

The declaration and payment of dividends to holders of our shares will be subject at all times to the discretion of our board of directors, and will be paid equally on a per-share basis between our common shares and our Class B shares, to the extent any are issued and outstanding. We can provide no assurance that dividends will be paid in the future.

There may be a high degree of variability from period to period in the amount of cash, if any, that is available for the payment of dividends based upon, among other things:

Marshall Islands law generally prohibits the payment of dividends other than from surplus or certain net profits, or while a company is insolvent or would be rendered insolvent by the payment of such a dividend. We may not have sufficient funds, surplus, or net profits to make distributions.

We may incur expenses or liabilities or be subject to other circumstances in the future that reduce or eliminate the amount of cash that we have available for distribution as dividends, if any. Our growth strategy contemplates that we will finance the acquisition of our new-buildings or selective acquisitions of vessels through a combination of our operating cash flow and debt financing through our subsidiaries or equity financing. If financing is not available to us on acceptable terms, our board of directors may decide to finance or refinance acquisitions with a greater percentage of cash from operations to the extent available, which would reduce or even eliminate the amount of cash available for the payment of dividends. We may also enter into other agreements that will restrict our ability to pay dividends.

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our net income or loss for the period, which will be affected by non-cash items. We may incur other expenses or liabilities that could reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. As a result of these and the other factors mentioned above, we may pay dividends during periods when we record losses and may not pay dividends during periods when we record net income, if we pay dividends at all.

We may declare and pay dividends only to the holders of our Series A Preferred Shares or prior to declaring and paying any dividends to our common shareholders.

Our Series A Preferred Shares are entitled to receive dividends at the sole discretion of the Remuneration Committee. The declaration and payment of any dividend to holders of our common shares and Class B shares is also at the discretion of our board of directors. It is possible in the future that we will pay dividends only to holders of the Series A Preferred Shares, or to holders of the Series A Preferred Shares prior to the holders of our common shareholders (by which we mean the holders of common and Class B shares). As a result of such potential dividend policy, the market price of our common shares could be adversely affected. Please read “Item 5.B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Indebtedness” for further information.

We are a holding company, and we will depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations or to make dividend payments.

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries, which are all directly and wholly owned by us, will conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our wholly owned subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to make dividend payments depends on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, our board of directors may exercise its discretion not to declare or pay dividends. In addition, our subsidiaries are subject to limitations on the payment of dividends under Marshall Islands or Maltese law.

Management may be unable to provide reports as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm may be unable to provide us with unqualified attestation reports as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

Under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which we refer to as Sarbanes-Oxley, we are required to include in each of our annual reports on Form 20-F a report containing our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and we may also be required to include, in our future annual reports, a related attestation of our independent registered public accounting firm. Our Manager, Globus Shipmanagement, will provide substantially all of our financial reporting, and we will depend on the procedures it has in place. If in such annual reports on Form 20-F our management cannot provide a report as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified attestation report as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as required by Section 404, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our consolidated financial statements, which could result in a decrease in the value of our common shares.

Unless we set aside reserves or are able to borrow funds for vessel replacement, at the end of a vessel’s useful life our revenues will decline.

As of December 31, 20152016 and December 31, 2014,2015, the vessels in our current fleet had a weighted average age of 7.48.8 and 8.17.4 years, respectively. The weighted average of the vessels we own as of March 31, 2016 was 8.1 years. Our oldest vessel was built in 2005, and our youngest vessel was built in 2010. Unless we maintain reserves or are able to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, we will be unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their remaining useful lives, which we expect to be 25 years from the date of their construction. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our vessels to customers. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our business, results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends will be materially adversely affected. Any reserves set aside for vessel replacement may not be available for dividends. 

Investments in derivative instruments such as forward freight agreements could result in losses.

From time to time, we may take positions in derivative instruments including forward freight agreements, or FFAs. FFAs and other derivative instruments may be used to hedge a vessel owner’s exposure to the charter market by providing for the sale of a contracted charter rate along a specified route and period of time. Upon settlement, if the contracted charter rate is less than the average of the rates, as reported by an identified index, for the specified route and time period, the seller of the FFA is required to pay the buyer an amount equal to the difference between the contracted rate and the settlement rate, multiplied by the number of days in the specified period. Conversely, if the contracted rate is greater than the settlement rate, the buyer is required to pay the seller the settlement sum. If we take positions in FFAs or other derivative instruments and do not correctly anticipate charter rate movements over the specified route and time period, we could suffer losses in the settling or termination of the FFA. This could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay dividends.

We depend upon a few significant customers for a large part of our revenues.

We may derive a significant part of our revenue from a small number of customers. During the years ended December 31, 2016, 2015 2014 and 2013,2014, we derived substantially all of our revenues from approximately 29, 32 33 and 1833 customers, respectively, and approximately 36%, 54%36% and 60%54%, respectively, of our revenues during those years, were derived from four customers. If one or more of our major customers that contribute to a significant part of our revenues is unable to performdefaults under a charter with us and we are not able to find a replacement charter, or if such a customer exercises certain rights to terminate the charter, we could suffer a loss of revenues that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash available for distribution as dividends to our shareholders.

We could lose a customer or the benefits of a time charter if, among other things:

If we lose a key customer, we may be unable to obtain charters on comparable terms with charterers of comparable standing or we may have increased exposure to the volatile spot market, which is highly competitive and subject to significant price fluctuations. We would not receive any revenues from such a vessel while it remained unchartered, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition, insure it and service any indebtedness secured by such vessel. The loss of any of our customers, time charters or vessels or a decline in payments under our charters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends.

In addition, we are earning managementconsulting fees on them/vEnergy Globe.from an affiliated ship-management company. If that vesselthis agreement is sold,terminated we will likely stop acting as manager and will no longer receive management fees for this service.consulting fees.

We will earn income in 20162017 by managing a third party vessel.providing consulting services.

We currently earn $900$1,000 per day by providing consulting services to manage them/vEnergy Globe as further described in “Item 4.A - History and Development of the Company.”an affiliated ship-management company, which agreement has a one year term. If the shipthis agreement is sold or if the current owner does not believe that we are providing adequate or economical management services, it may terminate the ship management agreement, andterminated we will no longer be earning this additional revenue.receive consulting fees for these services. The loss of this revenue could negatively impact us.

The superior voting rights of our Class B shares, if issued, may limit our common shareholders’ ability to influence corporate matters.

We currently have no Class B shares outstanding. Under our articles of incorporation, our Class B shares have 20 votes per share,us and our common shares have one vote per share.

Even if we issue or otherwise sell additional common shares after an issuanceresults of Class B shares, holders of our Class B shares, depending on the number, may have substantial control and influence over our management and affairs and over all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets. It is possible that, because of this dual class stock structure, holders of our Class B shares will be able to control all matters submitted to our shareholders for approval even though they may own significantly less than 50% of the aggregate number of outstanding shares of our common shares and Class B shares. This potential concentrated control could limit our common shareholders’ ability to influence corporate matters and, as a result, we may take actions that our common shareholders do not view as beneficial. As a result, the market price of our common shares could be adversely affected.operations.

Provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws may have anti-takeover effects.

Several provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws, which are summarized below, may have anti-takeover effects. These provisions are intended to avoid costly takeover battles, lessen our vulnerability to a hostile change of control and enhance the ability of our board of directors to maximize shareholder value in connection with any unsolicited offer to acquire our company. However, these anti-takeover provisions could also discourage, delay or prevent the merger or acquisition of our company by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise that a shareholder may consider in its best interest and the removal of incumbent officers and directors.

Multi Class Stock. Our multi-class stock structure, which consists of common shares, Class B shares, and preferred shares, can provide holders of our Class B shares or preferred shares a significant degree of control over all matters requiring shareholder approval, including the election of directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger or other sale of our company or its assets.assets, because our different classes of shares can have different numbers of votes. For instance, our articles of incorporation grant 20 votes to each Class B share, as compared to one vote per common share; although no Class B shares are currently issued and outstanding, any person who held Class B shares representing more than 2.5% of the Company’s total issued and outstanding shares could control a majority of the Company’s votes and would be able to exert substantial control over our management and all matters requiring shareholder approval, including electing directors and significant corporate transactions, such as a merger. Such holder’s interest could differ from yours, and the issuance of such shares could decrease the price of our common shares.

Blank Check Preferred Shares. Under the terms of our articles of incorporation, our board of directors has authority, without any further vote or action by our shareholders, to issue up to 100 million shares of “blank check” preferred shares. Our board could authorize the issuance of preferred shares with voting or conversion rights that could dilute the voting power or rights of the holders of common shares. The issuance of preferred shares, while providing flexibility in connection with possible acquisitions and other corporate purposes, could, among other things, have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of us or the removal of our management and may harm the market price of our common shares.

Classified Board of Directors. Our articles of incorporation provide for the division of our board of directors into three classes of directors, with each class as nearly equal in number as possible, serving staggered, three-year terms beginning upon the expiration of the initial term for each class. Approximately one-third of our board of directors is elected each year. This classified board provision could discourage a third party from making a tender offer for our shares or attempting to obtain control of us. It could also delay shareholders who do not agree with the policies of our board of directors from removing a majority of our board of directors for up to two years.

Election of Directors. Our articles of incorporation do not provide for cumulative voting in the election of directors. Our bylaws require parties, other than the chairman of the board of directors, board of directors and shareholders holding 30% or more of the voting power of the aggregate number of our shares issued and outstanding and entitled to vote, to provide advance written notice of nominations for the election of directors. These provisions may discourage, delay or prevent the removal of incumbent officers and directors.

Advance Notice Requirements for Shareholder Proposals and Director Nominations. Our bylaws provide that shareholders, other than shareholders holding 30% or more of the voting power of the aggregate number of our shares issued and outstanding and entitled to vote, seeking to nominate candidates for election as directors or to bring business before an annual meeting of shareholders must provide timely notice of their proposal in writing to the corporate secretary. Generally, to be timely, a shareholder’s notice must be received at our principal executive offices not less than 150 days or more than 180 days prior to the first anniversary date of the immediately preceding annual meeting of shareholders. Our bylaws also specify requirements as to the form and content of a shareholder’s notice. These provisions may impede a shareholder’s ability to bring matters before an annual meeting of shareholders or make nominations for directors at an annual meeting of shareholders.

We generate revenues from the trading of our vessels in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies.

We generate substantially all of our revenues from the trading of our vessels in U.S. dollars, but during the years ended December 31, 20152016 and 20142015 we incurred approximately 18%28% and 20%18%, respectively, of our vessel operating expenses, and certain administrative expenses, in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. This difference could lead to fluctuations in net profit due to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the other currencies. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value can increase, decreasing our revenues. We have not hedged our currency exposure, and, as a result, our results of operations and financial condition, denominated in U.S. dollars, and our ability to pay dividends could suffer.

Increases in interest rates may cause the market price of our shares to decline.

An increase in interest rates may cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments in general. Any such increase in interest rates or reduction in demand for our shares resulting from other relatively more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our shares to decline. If LIBOR increases, then our payments pursuant to certain existing loans will increase. See “Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk.”

Our chairman of the board of directors beneficially owns a majority of our total outstanding common shares and controls matters on which our shareholders are entitled to vote.

As of December 31, 2015, Mr. George Feidakis, the chairman of our board of directors, beneficially owns a majority of our outstanding common shares.shares as of April 11, 2017. Please read “Item 7.A. Major Shareholders.” Until such time that we issue additionala significant number of securities (which would occur upon exercise of the warrants issued during the February 2017 private placement and loan amendment) to persons other than Mr. George Feidakis or entities nor beneficially owned by Mr. George Feidakis, or Mr. George Feidakis sells all or a portion of his common shares, Mr. George Feidakis can control the outcome of matters on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, including the election of directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of Mr. George Feidakis may be different from your interests.

The public market may not continue to be active and liquid enough for you to resell our common shares in the future.

The price of our common shares may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors such as:

Furthermore, as of December 31, 2015, Mr. George Feidakis, the chairman of our board of directors, beneficially owns a majority of our outstanding common shares. Please read “Item 7.A. Major Shareholders.” Where a substantial percentage of the shares of publicly traded companies are held by a small number of shareholders, the shares may have a lower trading volume than similarly-sized publicly traded companies. Until such time as we issue additionala significant number of securities (which would occur upon exercise of the warrants issued during the February 2017 private placement and loan amendment) to persons other than Mr. George Feidakis or entities nor beneficially owned by Mr. George Feidakis, or Mr. George Feidakis sells all or a portion of his common shares, we may have a lower trading volume than similarly-sized companies, which means shareholders who buy or sell relatively small amounts of our common shares could have a disproportionately large impact on our share price, either positively or negatively, and could thus make our share price more volatile than it otherwise would be.

The dry bulk shipping industry has been highly unpredictable and volatile. The market for common shares in this industry may be equally volatile.

We may have to pay tax on U.S. source shipping income.

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel-owning or chartering company that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States is characterized as U.S. source shipping income and such income is subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deductions, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under section 883 of the Code and the U.S. Treasury regulations promulgated thereunder, which we refer to as the Section 883 Exemption.Exemption or through the application of a comprehensive income tax treaty between the United States and the corporation’s country of residence. The eligibility of Globus Maritime and our subsidiaries to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption is determined each taxable year and is dependent on certain circumstances related to the ownership of our shares and on interpretations of existing U.S. Treasury regulations, each of which could change. We can therefore give no assurance that we will in fact be eligible to qualify for the Section 883 Exemption for all taxable years. In addition, changes to the Code, the U.S. Treasury regulations or the interpretation thereof by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, or the courts could adversely affect the ability of Globus Maritime and our subsidiaries to take advantage of the Section 883 Exemption.

If we are not entitled to the Section 883 Exemption or an exemption under a tax treaty for any taxable year in which any company in the group earns U.S. source shipping income, any company earning such U.S. source shipping income, would be subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax on the gross amount of the U.S. source shipping income for the year (or an effective rate of 2% on shipping income attributable to the transportation of freight to or from the United States). The imposition of this taxation could have a negative effect on our business and revenues and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

For a more complete discussion, please read the section entitled “Item 10.E. Taxation— United States Tax Considerations— United States Federal Income Taxation of the Company.”

U.S. tax authorities could treat us as a “passive foreign investment company,” which could result in adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes if either at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income” or at least 50% of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property, and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.”

U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC, unless those shareholders make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders). In particular, U.S. shareholders who are individuals would not be eligible for the preferential tax rate on qualified dividends. Please read “Item 10.E. Taxation— United States Tax Considerations— United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders” for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

Based on our current operations and anticipated future operations, we believe we should not be treated as a PFIC. In this regard, we intend to treat gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering activities as services income, rather than rental income. Accordingly, we believe that our income from our time chartering activities should not constitute “passive income,” and that the assets we own and operate in connection with the production of that income do not constitute assets that produce or are held for the production of “passive income.”

There are legal uncertainties involved in this determination, because there is no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our current and projected future operations. Moreover, a case decided in 2009 by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held that, contrary to the position of the IRS in that case, and for purposes of a different set of rules under the Code, income received under a time charter of vessels should be treated as rental income rather than services income. If the reasoning of this case were extended to the PFIC context, the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering activities would be treated as rental income, and we would be a PFIC unless an active leasing exception applies. Although the IRS has announced that it will not follow the reasoning of this case, and that it intends to treat the income from standard industry time charters as services income, no assurance can be given that a U.S. court will not follow the aforementioned case. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in our assets, income or operations.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our U.S. shareholders will face adverse U.S. tax consequences and information reporting obligations, as more fully described under “Item 10.E. Taxation—United States Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders.”

We could face penalties under European Union, United States or other economic sanctions.

Our business could be adversely impacted if we are found to have violated economic sanctions under the applicable laws of the European Union, the United States or another applicable jurisdiction against countries such as Iran, Sudan, Syria, North Korea and Cuba. U.S. economic sanctions, for example, prohibit a wide scope of conduct, target numerous countries and individuals, are frequently updated or changed and have vague application in many situations.

Many economic sanctions relate to our business, including prohibitions on certain kinds of trade with countries, such as exportation or re-exportation of commodities, or prohibitions against certain transactions with designated nationals who may be operating under aliases or through non-designated companies. The imposition of Ukrainian-related economic sanctions on Russian persons, first imposed in March 2014, is an example of economic sanctions with a potentially widespread and unpredictable impact on shipping. Certain of our charterers or other parties with whom we have entered into contracts regarding our vessels may be affiliated with persons or entities that are the subject of sanctions imposed by the U.S. government, the European Union and/or other international bodies relating to the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014. If we determine that such sanctions require us to terminate existing contracts or if we are found to be in violation of such applicable sanctions, our results of operations may be adversely affected or we may suffer reputational harm.

Additionally, the U.S. Iran Threat Reduction Act (which was signed into law in 2012) amended the Exchange Act to require issuers that file annual or quarterly reports under Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act to include disclosure in their annual and quarterly reports as to whether the issuer or its affiliates have knowingly engaged in certain activities prohibited by sanctions against Iran or transactions or dealings with certain identified persons. We are subject to this disclosure requirement.

There can be no assurance that we will be in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could severely impact our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business, and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. Even inadvertent violations of economic sanctions can result in the imposition of material fines and restrictions and could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, our reputation, and the market price of our common shares.

Our vessels may call on ports subject to economic sanctions or embargoes.

From time to time on charterers’ instructions, our vessels may call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Sudan and Syria. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. On May 1, 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13608 which prohibits foreign persons from violating or attempting to violate, or causing a violation of any sanctions in effect against Iran or facilitating any deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject to U.S. sanctions. Any persons found to be in violation of Executive Order 13608 will be deemed a foreign sanctions evader and will be banned from all contacts with the United States, including conducting business in U.S. dollars.

On July 14, 2015, the P5+1 (the United States, United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China) and the EU announced that they reached a landmark agreement with Iran titled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, or the JCPOA, which is intended to restrict significantly Iran’s ability to develop and produce nuclear weapons while simultaneously easing sanctions directed at non-U.S. persons for conduct involving Iran, but taking place outside of U.S. jurisdiction and not involving U.S. persons. On January 16, 2016, the United States joined the EU and the United Nations in lifting a significant number of sanctions on Iran following an announcement by the International Atomic Energy Agency, or the IAEA, that Iran had satisfied its obligations under the JCPOA.

U.S. sanctions prohibiting certain conduct that is now permitted under the JCPOA have not actually been repealed or permanently terminated at this time. Rather, the U.S. government has implemented changes to the sanctions regime by: (1) issuing waivers of certain statutory sanctions provisions; (2) committing to refrain from exercising certain discretionary sanctions authorities; (3) removing certain individuals and entities from sanctions lists; and (4) revoking certain Executive Orders and specified sections of Executive Orders. These sanctions will not be permanently “lifted” until the earlier of October 18, 2023, or upon a report from the IAEA stating that all nuclear material in Iran is being used for peaceful activities.

Although we believe that we have been in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future as such regulations and sanctions may be amended over time, and the U.S. retains the authority to revoke the aforementioned relief if Iran fails to meet its commitments under the JCPOA. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business, and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or to divest from, our common shares may adversely affect the price at which our common shares trade. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. In addition, our reputation and the market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters with individuals or entities in countries subject to U.S. sanctions and embargo laws that are not controlled by the governments of those countries, or engaging in operations associated with those countries pursuant to contracts with third parties that are unrelated to those countries or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of our common shares may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

We are subject to Marshall Islands corporations law, which is not well-developed.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation, our bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, or the BCA. The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the laws of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain United States jurisdictions. The rights of shareholders of corporations incorporated in or redomiciled into the Marshall Islands may differ from the rights of shareholders of corporations incorporated in the United States. While the BCA provides that it is to be applied and construed according to make the laws of the Marshall Islands, with respect of the subject matter of the BCA, uniform with the laws of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, there have been few court cases interpreting the BCA in the Marshall Islands and we cannot predict whether Marshall Islands courts would reach the same conclusions as United States courts. Thus, you may have more difficulty in protecting your interests in the face of actions by our management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a United States jurisdiction that has developed a more substantial body of case law in the corporate law area.

It may be difficult to serve us with legal process or enforce judgments against us, our directors, our significant shareholders, or our management.

Our business is operated primarily from our offices in Greece. In addition, our largest shareholder and a majority of our directors and officers are non-residents of the United States, and all of our assets and a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for you to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States if you believe that your rights have been infringed under securities laws or otherwise. You may also have difficulty enforcing, both within and outside of the United States, judgments you may obtain in the United States courts against us or these persons in any action, including actions based upon the civil liability provisions of United States federal or state securities laws. There is also substantial doubt that the courts of the Marshall Islands or Greece would enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on United States federal or state securities laws.

The nature of our operations may make the outcome of any bankruptcy proceedings difficult to predict.

We redomiciled into the Marshall Islands and our subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the Marshall Islands or Malta, we have limited operations in the United States and we maintain limited assets, if any, in the United States. Consequently, in the event of any bankruptcy, insolvency, liquidation, dissolution, reorganization or similar proceeding involving us or any of our subsidiaries, bankruptcy laws other than those of the United States could apply. The Marshall Islands does not have a bankruptcy statute or general statutory mechanism for insolvency proceedings. If we become a debtor under U.S. bankruptcy law, bankruptcy courts in the United States may seek to assert jurisdiction over all of our assets, wherever located, including property situated in other countries. There can be no assurance, however, that we would become a debtor in the United States, or that a U.S. bankruptcy court would accept, or be entitled to accept, jurisdiction over such a bankruptcy case, or that courts in other countries that have jurisdiction over us and our operations would recognize a U.S. bankruptcy court’s jurisdiction if any other bankruptcy court would determine it had jurisdiction. These factors may delay or prevent us from entering bankruptcy in the United States and may affect the ability of our shareholders to receive any recovery following our bankruptcy.

We, or our large shareholders, may sell additional securities in the future.

The market price of our common shares could decline due to sales of a large number of our securities in the market, including sales of shares by our large shareholders, or the perception that these sales could occur. These sales could also occur if our warrant holders exercise their warrants and sell the common shares resulting from their warrants exercise. These sales could also make it more difficult or impossible for us to sell equity securities in the future at a time and price that we deem appropriate to raise funds through future offerings of shares.

We may issue additional common shares, including Class B shares, or other equity securities without your approval.

We may issue additional common shares, including Class B shares, or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future in connection with, among other things, future vessel acquisitions, repayment of outstanding indebtedness or our equity incentive plan, without shareholder approval, in a number of circumstances. For example, in April 2012, we issued 3,347 Series A Preferred Shares, and 2,567 of these shares remain outstanding.

Our issuance of additional common shares (which will occur each time a warrant holder exercises a warrant), including Class B shares, or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would have the following effects:

Because we are a foreign private issuer, we are not bound by any Nasdaq rule that requires shareholder approval for certain issuances of our securities. We therefore can issue securities in such amounts and at such times as we feel appropriate, all without shareholder approval. See “Item 16G. Corporate Governance.”

Item 4.  Information on the Company

A.  History and Development of the Company

We originally incorporated as Globus Maritime Limited on July 26, 2006 pursuant to the Companies (Jersey) Law 1991 (as amended), and began operations in September 2006. Following the conclusion of our initial public offering on June 1, 2007, our common shares were listed on the London Stock Exchange’s Alternative Investment Market, or AIM, under the ticker “GLBS.L.” On July 29, 2010, we effected a one-for-four reverse stock split, with our issued share capital resulting in 7,240,852 common shares of $0.004 each.

On November 24, 2010, we redomiciled into the Marshall Islands pursuant to the BCA and a resale registration statement for our common shares was declared effective by the SEC. Once the resale registration statement was declared effective by the SEC, our common shares began trading on the Nasdaq Global Market under the ticker “GLBS.” Our common shares were suspended from trading on the AIM on November 24, 2010 and were delisted from the AIM on November 26, 2010.

On June 30, 2011, we completed a follow-on public offering in the United States under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, which we refer to as the Securities Act, of 2,750,000 common shares at a price of $8.00 per share, the net proceeds of which amounted to approximately $20 million.

As of December 31, 2015, our issued and outstanding capital stock consisted of 10,319,151 common shares and 2,567 Series A Preferred Shares.

On April 11, 2016, our common shares began trading on the Nasdaq Capital Market instead of the Nasdaq Global Market.

On October 20, 2016, we effected a four-for-one reverse stock split which reduced the number of our outstanding common shares from 10,510,741 to 2,627,674 shares (adjustments were made based on fractional shares).

As of December 31, 2016, our issued and outstanding capital stock consisted of 2,627,674 common shares.

On February 8, 2017, we entered into a Share and Warrant Purchase Agreement pursuant to which we sold for $5 million an aggregate of 5 million of our common shares, par value $0.004 per share and warrants to purchase 25 million of our common shares at a price of $1.60 per share (subject to adjustment) to a number of investors in a private placement. These securities were issued in transactions exempt from registration under the Securities Act. The following day, we entered into a registration rights agreement with the Purchasers providing them with certain rights relating to registration under the Securities Act of the Shares and the common shares underlying the Warrants.

In connection with the closing of the February 2017 private placement, we also entered into two loan amendment agreements with existing lenders.

One loan amendment agreement was entered into by the Company with Firment Trading Limited, a related party to the Company and the lender of the Firment Credit Facility, which then had an outstanding principal amount of $18,523,787. Firment released an amount equal to $16,885,000 (but left an amount equal to $1,638,787 outstanding, which continued to accrue under the Firment Credit Facility as though it were principal) of the Firment Credit Facility and the Company issued to Firment Shipping Inc., an affiliate of Firment, 16,885,000 common shares and a warrant to purchase 6,230,580 common shares at a price of $1.60 per share (subject to adjustment). Subsequent to the closing of the February 2017 private placement, Globus repaid the outstanding amount on the Firment Credit Facility in its entirety.

The other loan amendment agreement was entered into by the Company with Silaner Investments Limited, a related party to the Company and the lender of the Silaner Credit Facility. Silaner released an amount equal to the outstanding principal of $3,115,000 (but left an amount equal to $74,048 outstanding, which continued to accrue under the Silaner Credit Facility as though it were principal) of the Silaner Credit Facility and the Company issued to Firment Shipping Inc., an affiliate of Silaner, 3,115,000 common shares and a warrant to purchase 1,149,437 common shares at a price of $1.60 per share (subject to adjustment). Subsequent to the closing of the February 2017 private placement, Globus repaid the outstanding amount on the Silaner Credit Facility in its entirety.

Each of the above mentioned warrants are exercisable for 24 months after their respective issuance. Under the terms of the warrants, all warrant holders (other than Firment Shipping Inc., which has no such restriction in its warrants) may not exercise their warrants to the extent such exercise would cause such warrant holder, together with its affiliates and attribution parties, to beneficially own a number of common shares which would exceed 4.99% (which may be increased, but not to exceed 9.99%) of our then outstanding common shares immediately following such exercise, excluding for purposes of such determination common shares issuable upon exercise of the warrants which have not been exercised. This provision does not limit a warrant holder from acquiring up to 4.99% of our common shares, selling all of their common shares, and re-acquiring up to 4.99% of our common shares.

Our executive office is located at the office of Globus Shipmanagement Corp., which we refer to as our Manager, at 128 Vouliagmenis Avenue, 3rd Floor, 166 74 Glyfada, Athens, Greece. Our telephone number is +30 210 960 8300. Our registered agent in the Marshall Islands is The Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc. and our registered address in the Marshall Islands is Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands MH96960. We maintain our website at www.globusmaritime.gr. Information that is available on or accessed through our website does not constitute part of, and is not incorporated by reference into, this annual report on Form 20-F.

As of December 31, 2010, our fleet comprised a total of five dry bulk vessels, consisting of one Panamax, three Supramaxes and one Kamsarmax, with a weighted average age of approximately 4.0 years and a total carrying capacity of 319,664 dwt.

In March 2011, we purchased a 2007-built Supramax vessel for $30.3 million. The vessel was delivered in September 2011 and was named “Sun Globe.”Sun Globe. In May 2011, we purchased a 2005-built Panamax vessel for $31.4 million. The vessel was delivered in June 2011 and was named “MoonMoon Globe.”

As of December 31, 2014 and 2013 our fleet comprised a total of seven dry bulk vessels, consisting of two Panamax, four Supramaxes and one Kamsarmax, with a weighted average age of approximately 8.1 and 7.1 years, respectively, and a total carrying capacity of 452,886 dwt.

In July 2015, we sold “Tiara Globe”, a 1998-built Panamax. As of December 31, 2015, our fleet comprised a total of six dry bulk vessels, consisting of one Panamax, four Supramaxes and one Kamsarmax, with an average age of 7.4 years and carrying capacity of 379,958 dwt. The weighted average age of the vessels we owned as of March 31, 2016 was 8.1 years, and their carrying capacity was 300,571 dwt.

In March 2016, we sold allas part of the shares of Kelty Marine Ltd., the owner of them/vEnergy Globe, to an unrelated third party. We reached a settlement agreement with Commerzbank relating toof the Kelty Loan Agreement, in March 2016. Commerzbank agreed to settle the outstanding indebtedness of $15.65 million was released in returnexchange for $6.86 million of sale proceeds from the sale of the shares of Kelty Marine Ltd. for $6.86 million(the owner ofm/v Energy Globe) plus overdue interest of $40,708. If the total amount of cash and bank balances and bank deposits exceeds $10 million in the aggregate as declared on June 30, 2016 then we must pay to Commerzbank any excess amounts. If there is no excess, Globus will be released from its guarantee.

AsOur fleet is currently comprised of March 31, 2016, our fleet comprised a total of five dry bulk vessels consisting of one Panamax and four Supramaxes.

Our capital expenditures, which principally consist of purchasing, operating and maintaining dry bulk vessels, for the previous three fiscal years, consisted of deferred drydocking costs of $0.5 million in 2016, deferred drydocking costs of $1.6 million in 2015, and deferred drydocking costs of $1.5 million in 2014, and deferred drydocking costs of $0.8 million in 2013.2014.

B.  Business Overview

We are an integrated dry bulk shipping company, providing marine transportation services on a worldwide basis. We own, operate and manage a fleet of dry bulk vessels that transport iron ore, coal, grain, steel products, cement, alumina and other dry bulk cargoes internationally. Our Manager also manages one dry bulk vessel that we do not own. We intend to grow our fleet through timely and selective acquisitions of modern vessels in a manner that we believe will provide an attractive return on equity and will be accretive to our earnings and cash flow based on anticipated market rates at the time of purchase. There is no guarantee however, that we will be able to find suitable vessels to purchase or that such vessels will provide an attractive return on equity or be accretive to our earnings and cash flow.

Our operations are managed by our Athens, Greece-based wholly owned subsidiary, Globus Shipmanagement Corp.,which we refer to as our Manager, which provides in-house commercial and technical management for our vessels and provides consulting services for one vessel that we used to own but recently sold.an affiliated ship-management company. Our Manager has entered into a ship management agreement with each of our wholly owned vessel-owning subsidiaries to provide services that include managing day-to-day vessel operations, such as supervising the crewing, supplying, maintaining of vessels and other services, and has also entered into a shipmanagementconsultancy agreement with Kelty Marine Ltd., which is no longer owned by us, after its salean affiliated ship-management company, where our Manager provides consulting services to an unrelated third party.the affiliated ship-management company.

The following table presents information concerning the vessels we own:

We own each of our vessels through separate, wholly owned subsidiaries, fivefour of which are incorporated in the Marshall Islands, and one of which is incorporated in Malta. All of our Supramax vessels are geared. Geared vessels can operate in ports with minimal shore-side infrastructure. Due to the ability to switch between various dry bulk cargo types and to service a wider variety of ports, the day rates for geared vessels tend to have a premium.

Our Manager also manages them/vEnergy Globe,has a 2010-built Kamsarmax with 79,387 dwt capacity, that we sold to an unrelated third party in March 2016 when we reached a settlementconsultancy agreement with Commerzbank relating to the Kelty Loan Agreement. Commerzbank agreed to settle the outstanding indebtedness of $15.65 million in return for the sale of the shares of Kelty Marine Ltd. for $6.86 million plus overdue interest of $40,708. If the total amount of cash and bank balances and bank deposits exceeds $10 million in the aggregate then we must pay to Commerzbank any excess amounts. If there is no excess, Globus will be released from its guarantee.an affiliated ship management company, where our Manager provides consulting services.

We budget 20 days per year in drydocking per vessel. Actual length will vary based on the condition of each vessel, shipyard schedules and other factors.

Employment of our Vessels

Our strategy is to employ our vessels on a mix of all types of charter contracts, including bareboat charters, time charters and spot charters. We believe this strategy provides the cash flow stability, reduced exposure to market downturns and high utilization rates of the charter market, while at the same time enabling us to benefit from periods of increasing spot market rates. We may, however, seek to employ a greater portion of our fleet on the spot market or on time charters with longer durations, should we believe it to be in our best interests. In addition, we generally seek to stagger the expiration dates of our charters to reduce exposure to volatility in the shipping cycle when our vessels come off of charter. We also continually monitor developments in the dry bulk shipping industry and, subject to market demand, will adjust the number of vessels on charters and the charter periods for our vessels according to market conditions.

We and our Manager have developed relationships with a number of international charterers, vessel brokers, financial institutions, insurers and shipbuilders. We have also developed a network of relationships with vessel brokers who help facilitate vessel charters and acquisitions.

On the date of the filing of this Annual Report on 20-F, all of our vessels were employed on spot time charters.

Each of our vessels travels across the world and not on any particular route. The charterers of our vessels, whether time, bareboat or on the spot market, select the locations to which our vessels travel.

Time Charter

A time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a fixed period of time at a specified daily rate. Under a time charter, the vessel owner provides crewing, insuring, repairing and maintenance and other services related to the vessel’s operation, the cost of which is included in the daily rate, and the customer is responsible for substantially all of the vessel voyage costs, including the cost of bunkers (fuel oil) and canal and port charges. The owner also pays commissions typically ranging from 0% to 6.25% of the total daily charter hire rate of each charter to unaffiliated ship brokers and to in-house brokers associated with the charterer, depending on the number of brokers involved with arranging the charter.

Basic Hire Rate and Term

“Basic hire rate” refers to the basic payment from the customer for the use of the vessel. The hire rate is generally payable semi-monthly or 15 days, in advance, in U.S. dollars as specified in the charter. As of December 31, 2015, we had no vessel under a time charter.

Off-hire

When the vessel is “off-hire,” the charterer generally is not required to pay the basic hire rate, and we are responsible for all costs. Prolonged off-hire may lead to vessel substitution or termination of the time charter. A vessel generally will be deemed off-hire if there is a loss of time due to, among other things, operational deficiencies; drydocking for examination or painting the bottom; equipment breakdowns; damages to the hull; or similar problems.

Ship Management and Maintenance

We are responsible for the technical management of the vessel and for maintaining the vessel, periodic drydocking, cleaning and painting and performing work required by regulations. Globus Shipmanagement provides the technical, commercial and day-to-day operational management of our vessels. Technical management includes crewing, maintenance, repair and drydockings. During the 20152016 year, we paid Globus Shipmanagement $700 per vessel per day. All fees payable to Globus Shipmanagement for vessels that we own are eliminated upon consolidation of our accounts.

After its sale to an unrelated third party, Kelty Marine Ltd., owner of them/v Energy Globe, payspaid Globus Shipmanagement $900 per day to manage its vessel.vessel under an agreement that expired June 27, 2017. These fees were not eliminated upon consolidation of our accounts, as Kelty Marine Ltd. was no longer owned by Globus Maritime Limited.

On June 28, 2016, our Manager entered into a consultancy agreement with an affiliated ship-management company and receives a $1,000 per day fee for these services. The agreement has an initial one year term. These fees will not be eliminated upon consolidation of our accounts, as Kelty Marine Ltd. is no longer owned by Globus Maritime Limited.accounts.

Termination

We are generally entitled to suspend performance under the time charter if the customer defaults in its payment obligations. Either party may terminate the charter in the event of war in specified countries.

Commissions

During the year ended December 31, 2015,2016, we paid commissions ranging from 1.25% to 5.00%6.25% relevant to each time charter agreement then in effect.

Bareboat Charter

A bareboat charter is a contract pursuant to which the vessel owner provides the vessel to the charterer for a fixed period of time at a specified daily rate, and the charterer provides for all of the vessel’s operating expenses. The charterer undertakes to maintain the vessel in a good state of repair and efficient operating condition and drydock the vessel during this period as per the classification society requirements. We had a bareboat charter with Eastern Media International Corporation and Far Eastern Silo & Shipping (Panama) S.A. with reference tom/vEnergy Globe (formerly calledm/vJin Star) which expired in January 2015.

Redelivery

Upon the expiration of a bareboat charter, typically the charterer must redeliver the vessel in as good structure, state, condition and class as that in which the vessel was delivered.

Ship Management and Maintenance

Under a bareboat charter, the charterer is responsible for all of the vessel’s operating expenses, including crewing, insuring, maintaining and repairing the vessel, any drydocking costs, and the stores, lube oils and communication expenses. Under a bareboat charter, the charterer is also responsible for the voyage costs, and generally assumes all risk of operation. The charterer covers the costs associated with the vessel’s special surveys and related drydocking falling within the charter period.

Commissions

We paid a 3.75% commissionCommissions on a bareboat charter that ended in January 2015, although the amounts of commissions on future bareboat charters may change.typically range from 0% to 3.75%.

Our Customers

We seek to charter our vessels to customers who we perceive as creditworthy thereby minimizing the risk of default by our charterers. We also try to select charterers depending on the type of product they want to carry and the geographical areas in which they tend to trade.

Our assessment of a charterer’s financial condition and reliability is an important factor in negotiating employment for our vessels. We generally charter our vessels to operators, trading houses (including commodities traders), shipping companies and producers and government-owned entities and generally avoid chartering our vessels to companies we believe to be speculative or undercapitalized entities. Since our operations began in September 2006, our customers have included COSCO Bulk Carrier Co., Ltd, Dampskibsselskabet NORDEN A/S, ED & F Man Shipping Limited, Transgrain, Far Eastern Silo and Shipping (Panama) S.A., and Hyundai Merchant Marine Co. Ltd. In addition, during the periods when some of our vessels were trading on the spot market, they have been chartered to charterers such as Cargill International SA, Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co. KG, Western Bulk Carriers KS and others, thus expanding our customer base.

Competition

Our business fluctuates in line with the main patterns of trade of the major dry bulk cargoes and varies according to changes in the supply and demand for these items. We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on our reputation as an owner and operator. We compete with other owners of dry bulk vessels in the Panamax, Supramax and Kamsarmax dry bulk vessels, but we also compete with owners for the purchase and sale of vessels of all sizes. Those competitors may be better capitalized or have more liquidity than we do. In this period of significantly depressed pricing and over capacity, better liquidity may be a major competitive advantage, and we believe that some of our competitors may be better capitalized than we are.

Ownership of dry bulk vessels is highly fragmented. It is likely that we will face substantial competition for long-term charter business from a number of experienced companies. Many of these competitors will have larger dry bulk vessel fleets and greater financial resources than us, which may make them more competitive. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into our transportation sectors, including in the dry bulk sector. Many of these competitors have strong reputations and extensive resources and experience. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long-term charters. We believe that no single competitor has a dominant position in the markets in which we compete.

The process for obtaining longer term time charters generally involves a lengthy and intensive screening and vetting process and the submission of competitive bids. In addition to the quality and suitability of the vessel, longer term shipping contracts may be awarded based upon a variety of other factors relating to the vessel operator, including:

As a result of these factors, we may be unable to expand our relationships with existing customers or obtain new customers for long-term time charters on a profitable basis, if at all. However, even if we are successful in employing our vessels under longer term charters, our vessels will not be available for trading on the spot market during an upturn in the market cycle, when spot trading may be more profitable. If we cannot successfully employ our vessels in profitable charters, our results of operations and operating cash flow could be materially adversely affected.

The Dry Bulk Shipping Industry

The world dry bulk fleet is generally divided into six major categories, based on a vessel’s cargo carrying capacity. These categories consist of: Handysize, Handymax/Supramax, Panamax, Kamsarmax, Capesize and Very Large Ore Carrier.

Ø     Handysize. Handysize vessels have a carrying capacity of up to 39,999 dwt. These vessels are primarily involved in carrying minor bulk cargoes. Increasingly, vessels of this type operate on regional trading routes, and may serve as trans-shipment feeders for larger vessels. Handysize vessels are well suited for small ports with length and draft restrictions. Their cargo gear enables them to service ports lacking the infrastructure for cargo loading and unloading.

Ø     Handymax/Supramax. Handymax vessels have a carrying capacity of between 40,000 and 59,999 dwt. These vessels operate on a large number of geographically dispersed global trade routes, carrying primarily iron ore, coal, grains and minor bulks. Within the Handymax category there is also a sub-sector known asSupramax. Supramax bulk vessels are vessels between 50,000 to 59,999 dwt, normally offering cargo loading and unloading flexibility with on-board cranes, while at the same time possessing the cargo carrying capability approaching conventional Panamax bulk vessels. Hence, the earnings potential of a Supramax dry bulk vessel, when compared to a conventional Handymax vessel of 45,000 dwt, is greater.

Ø     Panamax. Panamax vessels have a carrying capacity of between 60,000 and 79,999 dwt. These vessels carry coal, grains, and, to a lesser extent, minor bulks, including steel products, forest products and fertilizers. PanamaxThe term “Panamax” refers to vessels arethat were able to pass through the Panama Canal making thembefore the Panama Canal was expanded in June 2016 (to allow vessels of up to 120,000 dwt). Panamax vessels are more versatile than larger vessels.

Ø     Kamsarmax(also known as Post Panamax). Kamsarmax vessels typically have a carrying capacity of between 80,000 and 109,999 dwt. These vessels tend to be shallower and have a larger beam than a standard Panamax vessel with a higher cubic capacity. They have been designed specifically for loading high cubic cargoes from draught restricted ports. The term Kamsarmax stems from Port Kamsar in Guinea, where large quantities of bauxite are exported from a port with only 13.5 meter draught and a 229 meter length overall restriction, but no beam restriction.

Ø     Capesize. Capesize vessels have carrying capacities of between 110,000 and 199,999 dwt. Only the largest ports around the world possess the infrastructure to accommodate vessels of this size. Capesize vessels are mainly used to transport iron ore or coal and, to a lesser extent, grains, primarily on long-haul routes.

Ø     VLOC. Very large ore carriers are in excess of 200,000 dwt. VLOCs are built to exploit economies of scale on long-haul iron ore routes.

The supply of dry bulk shipping capacity, measured by the amount of suitable vessel tonnage available to carry cargo, is determined by the size of the existing worldwide dry bulk fleet, the number of new vessels on order, the scrapping of older vessels and the number of vessels out of active service (i.e., laid up or otherwise not available for hire). In addition to prevailing and anticipated freight rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to scrap prices, costs of bunkers and other voyage expenses, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance and insurance coverage, the efficiency and age profile of the existing fleets in the market and government and industry regulation of marine transportation practices. The supply of dry bulk vessels is not only a result of the number of vessels in service, but also the operating efficiency of the fleet. Dry bulk trade is influenced by the underlying demand for the dry bulk commodities which, in turn, is influenced by the level of worldwide economic activity. Generally, growth in gross domestic product and industrial production correlate with peaks in demand for marine dry bulk transportation services.

Dry bulk vessels are one of the most versatile elements of the global shipping fleet in terms of employment alternatives. They seldom operate on round trip voyages with high ballasting times. Rather, they often participate in triangular or multi-leg voyages.

Charter Rates

In the time charter market, rates vary depending on the length of the charter period and vessel specific factors such as age, speed, size and fuel consumption. In the voyage charter market, rates are influenced by cargo size, commodity, port dues and canal transit fees, as well as delivery and redelivery regions. In general, a larger cargo size is quoted at a lower rate per ton than a smaller cargo size. Routes with costly ports or canals generally command higher rates. Voyages loading from a port where vessels usually discharge cargo, or discharging from a port where vessels usually load cargo, are generally quoted at lower rates. This is because such voyages generally increase vessel efficiency by reducing the unloaded portion (or ballast leg) that is included in the calculation of the return charter to a loading area.

Within the dry bulk shipping industry, the freight rate indices issued by the Baltic Exchange in London are the references most likely to be monitored. These references are based on actual charter hire rates under charters entered into by market participants as well as daily assessments provided to the Baltic Exchange by a panel of major shipbrokers. The Baltic Exchange, an independent organization comprised of shipbrokers, shipping companies and other shipping players, provides daily independent shipping market information and has created freight rate indices reflecting the average freight rates (that incorporate actual business concluded as well as daily assessments provided to the exchange by a panel of independent shipbrokers) for the major bulk vessel trading routes. These indices include the Baltic Panamax Index, the index with the longest history and, more recently, the Baltic Capesize Index.

Charter (or hire) rates paid for dry bulk vessels are generally a function of the underlying balance between vessel supply and demand. Over the past 25 years, dry bulk cargo charter rates have passed through cyclical phases and changes in vessel supply and demand have created a pattern of rate “peaks” and “troughs.” Generally, spot/voyage charter rates will be more volatile than time charter rates, as they reflect short term movements in demand and market sentiment. The BDI declined from a high of 11,793 in May 2008 to a low of 663 in December 2008, which represents a decline of 94.0% within a single calendar year. During 2009, 2010 and 2011, the BDI remained volatile. During 2009, the BDI reached a low of 772 in January 2009 and a high of 4,661 in November 2009. During 2010, the BDI reached a high of 4,209 in May 2010 and a low of 1,700 in July 2010. During 2011, the BDI remained volatile, ranging from a low of 1,042 on February 4, 2011 to a high of 2,173 on October 14, 2011. The BDI continued to decline during the start of 2012 reaching a 26-year low of 647 on February 3, 2012 and thereafter increased to a high of 1,165 on May 8, 2012. During 2013, the BDI remained volatile reaching a low of 698 on January 2, 2013 and improved to 2,337 as of December 12, 2013, while volatility continued during 2014 with BDI reaching its highs of 2,113 in January 2, 2014 and its lows of 723 in July 22, 2014. The BDI reached as high as 1,222 in August 5, 2015 and a new all-time low of 471 in December 16, 2015. From January 1 to March 31,During 2016, the BDI has ranged from a high of 473 on January 4, 2016 toreached a new all-time low of 290 on February 11,10, 2016 and as high as 1,257 on November 18, 2016. The BDI ranged from 685 to 983 during January and February 2017.

Vessel Prices

New-building prices increased significantly after 2002, due to tightness in shipyard capacity, high steel prices, rising labor cost, high levels of new ordering and stronger freight rates. However, with the sudden and steep decline in freight rates after August 2008 and lack of new vessel ordering, new-building vessel values entered a downward trend and have continued to gradually decline.

In broad terms, the secondhand market is affected by both the newbuilding prices as well as the overall freight expectations and sentiment observed at any given time. The steep increase in newbuilding prices and the strength of the charter market have also affected values, to the extent that prices rose sharply in 2004 and 2005, before dipping in the early part of 2006, only to rise thereafter to new highs in the first half of 2008. However, the sudden and sharp downturn in freight rates since August 2008 has also had a very negative impact on secondhand values which have continued to gradually decline.

Seasonality

Our fleet consists of dry bulk vessels that operate in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter rates. The dry bulk sector is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of coal and other raw materials in the northern hemisphere during the winter months. Such seasonality will affect the rates we obtain on the vessels in our fleet that operate on the spot market.

Permits and Authorizations

We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required depend upon several factors, including the commodity transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel’s crew and the age of a vessel. We have been able to obtain all permits, licenses and certificates currently required to permit our vessels to operate. Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of us doing business.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every oceangoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in class,” signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned. For maintenance of the class certification, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery, including the electrical plant, and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

All areas subject to survey as defined by the classification society are required to be surveyed at least once per class period, unless shorter intervals between surveys are prescribed elsewhere. The period between two subsequent surveys of each area must not exceed five years.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as “in class” by a classification society that is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies. All the vessels that we own and operate or that we manage are certified as being “in class” by Nippon Kaiji Kyokai (Class NK), DNV GL, Bureau Veritas or Rina Services SPA. Typically, all new and secondhand vessels that we purchase must be certified “in class” prior to their delivery under our standard purchase contracts and memoranda of agreement. Under our standard purchase contracts, unless negotiated otherwise, if the vessel is not certified on the date of closing, we would have no obligation to take delivery of the vessel. Although we may not have an obligation to accept any vessel that is not certified on the date of closing, we may determine nonetheless to purchase the vessel, should we determine it to be in our best interests. If we do so, we may be unable to charter such vessel after we purchase it until it obtains such certification, which could increase our costs and affect the earnings we anticipate from the employment of the vessel.

Vessels are drydocked during intermediate and special surveys for repairs of their underwater parts. If “in water survey” notation is assigned, the vessel owner has the option of carrying out an underwater inspection of the vessel in lieu of drydocking, subject to certain conditions. In the event that an “in water survey” notation is assigned as part of a particular intermediate survey, drydocking would be required for the following special survey thereby generally achieving a higher utilization for the relevant vessel. Drydocking can be undertaken as part of a special survey if the drydocking occurs within 15 months prior to the special survey deadline.

The following table lists the dates by which we expect to carry out the next drydockings and special surveys for the vessels in our fleet:

Following an incident or a scheduled survey, if any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a “recommendation or condition of class” which must be rectified by the vessel owner within the prescribed time limits.

Risk Management and Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel embraces a wide variety of risks, including the following:

The value of such losses or damages may vary from modest sums, for example for a small cargo shortage damage claim, to catastrophic liabilities, for example arising out of a marine disaster, such as a serious oil or chemical spill, which may be virtually unlimited. While we maintain the traditional range of marine and liability insurance coverage for our fleet (hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance and protection and indemnity coverage) in amounts and to extents that we believe are prudent to cover normal risks in our operations, we cannot insure against all risks, and we cannot be assured that all covered risks are adequately insured against. Furthermore, there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid by the insurer or that it will always be possible to obtain insurance coverage at reasonable rates. Any uninsured or under-insured loss could harm our business and financial condition.

Hull and Machinery and War Risks

The principal coverages for marine risks (covering loss or damage to the vessels, rather than liabilities to third parties) are hull and machinery insurance and war risk insurance. These address the risks of the actual or constructive total loss of a vessel and accidental damage to a vessel’s hull and machinery, for example from running aground or colliding with another ship. These insurances provide coverage which is limited to an agreed “insured value” which, as a matter of policy, is never less than the particular vessel’s fair market value. Reimbursement of loss under such coverage is subject to policy deductibles that vary according to the vessel and the nature of the coverage. Hull and machinery deductibles may, for example, be between $75,000 and $150,000 per incident whereas the war risks insurance has a more modest incident deductible of, for example, $30,000.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance provided by mutual marine protection and indemnity associations, or “P&I Clubs,” formed by vessel owners to provide protection from large financial loss to one club member by contribution towards that loss by all members.

Each of the vessels that we operate is entered in the Gard P&I (Bermuda) Ltd. which we refer to as the Club, for third party liability marine insurance coverage. The Club is a mutual insurance vehicle. As a member of the Club, we are insured, subject to agreed deductibles and our terms of entry, for our legal liabilities and expenses arising out of our interest in an entered ship, out of events occurring during the period of entry of the ship in the Club and in connection with the operation of the ship, against specified risks. These risks include liabilities arising from death of crew and passengers, loss or damage to cargo, collisions, property damage, oil pollution and wreck removal.

The Club benefits from its membership in the International Group of P&I Clubs, or the International Group, for its main reinsurance program, and maintains a separate complementary insurance program for additional risks.

The Club’s policy year commences each February. The mutual calls are levied by way of Estimated Total Premiums, or ETP, and the amount of the final installment of the ETP varies in accordance with the actual total premium ultimately required by the Club for a particular policy year. Members have a liability to pay supplementary calls which may be levied by the Club if the ETP is insufficient to cover the Club’s outgoings in a policy year.

Cover per claim is generally limited to an unspecified sum, being the amount available from reinsurance plus the maximum amount collectable from members of the International Group by way of overspill calls. Certain exceptions apply, including a $1.0 billion limit on claims in respect of oil pollution, a $3.0 billion limit on cover for passenger and crew claims and a sub-limit of $2.0 billion for passenger claims.

To the extent that we experience either a supplementary or an overspill call, our policy is to expense such amounts. To the extent that the Club depends on funds paid in calls from other members in our industry, if there were an industry-wide slow-down, other members might not be able to meet the call and we might not receive a payout in the event we made a claim on a policy.

Uninsured Risks

Not all risks are insured and not all risks are insurable. The principal insurable risks which nevertheless remain uninsured across our fleet are “loss of hire” and “strikes.” We will not insure these risks because we regard the costs as disproportionate. These insurances provide, subject to a deductible, a limited indemnity for hire that is not receivable by the shipowner for reasons set forth in the policy. For example, loss of hire risk may be covered on a 14/90/90 basis, with a 14 days deductible, 90 days cover per incident and a 90-day overall limit per vessel per year. Should a vessel on time charter, where the vessel is paid a fixed hire day by day, suffer a serious mechanical breakdown, the daily hire will no longer be payable by the charterer. The purpose of the loss of hire insurance is to secure the loss of hire during such periods.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Sources of Applicable Rules and Standards

Shipping is one of the world’s most heavily regulated industries, and it is subject to many industry standards. Government regulation significantly affects the ownership and operation of vessels. These regulations consist mainly of rules and standards established by international conventions, but they also include national, state and local laws and regulations in force in jurisdictions where vessels may operate or are registered, and which may be more stringent than international rules and standards. This is the case particularly in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe.

A variety of governmental and private entities subject vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include local port authorities (the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor masters or equivalent entities), classification societies, flag state administration (country vessel of registry), and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require vessel owners to obtain permits, licenses and certificates for the operation of their vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require a vessel owner to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of its vessels.

Heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers continue to lead to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to stricter environmental standards. Vessel owners are required to maintain operating standards for all vessels that will emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of officers and crews and compliance with U.S. and international regulations. Because laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

The following is an overview of certain material conventions, laws and regulations that affect our business and the operation of our vessels. It is not a comprehensive summary of all the conventions, laws and regulations to which we are subject.

The International Maritime Organization, or IMO, is a United Nations agency setting standards and creating a regulatory framework for the shipping industry and has negotiated and adopted a number of international conventions. These fall into two main categories, consisting firstly of those concerned generally with vessel safety and security standards, and secondly of those specifically concerned with measures to prevent pollution from vessels.

Ship Safety Regulation

A primary international safety convention is the Safety of Life at Sea Convention of 1974, as amended, or SOLAS, including the regulations and codes of practice that form part of its regime. Much of SOLAS is not directly concerned with preventing pollution, but some of its safety provisions are intended to prevent pollution as well as promote safety of life and preservation of property. These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended as new and higher safety standards are introduced with which we are required to comply.

An amendment of SOLAS introduced in 1993 the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code, which has been mandatory since July 1998. The purpose of the ISM Code is to provide an international standard for the safe management and operation of vessels and for pollution prevention. Under the ISM Code, the party with operational control of a vessel is required to develop, implement and maintain an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and protecting the environment and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a Safety Management Certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate issued after verification that the vessel’s operator and its shipboard management operate in accordance with the approved safety management system and evidences that the vessel complies with the requirements of the ISM Code. No vessel can obtain a Safety Management Certificate unless its operator has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by the respective flag state for the vessel, under the ISM Code.

Another amendment of SOLAS, made after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, introduced special measures to enhance maritime security, including the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, or ISPS Code, which sets out measures for the enhancement of security of vessels and port facilities.

The vessels that we operate maintain ISM and ISPS certifications for safety and security of operations.

Regulations to Prevent Pollution from Ships

In the second main category of international regulation which deals with prevention of pollution, the primary convention is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships 1973 as amended by the 1978 Protocol, or MARPOL, which imposes environmental standards on the shipping industry set out in its Annexes I-VI. These contain regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil (Annex I), by noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II), by harmful substances in packaged forms within the scope of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (Annex III), by sewage (Annex IV), by garbage (Annex V) and by air emissions (Annex VI).

These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended and supplemented as new and higher standards of pollution prevention are introduced with which we are required to comply.

For example, MARPOL Annex VI sets limits on Sulphur Oxides (SOx) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) and particulate matter emissions from vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances. It also regulates the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from cargo tankers and certain gas carriers, as well as shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulphur content of fuel oil with a lower cap on the sulphur content applicable inside special areas, the “Emission Control Areas” or ECAs. Already established ECAs include the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, including the English Channel, the North American area and the US Caribbean Sea area. The global cap on the sulphur content of fuel oil is currently 3.5% to bewas reduced to 0.5% from January 1, 2010. From January 1, 2015 the cap on the sulphur content of fuel oil for vessels operating in ECAs has been 0.1%. Annex VI also provides for progressive reductions in NOx emissions from marine diesel engines installed in vessels. Limiting NOx emissions is set on a three tier reduction, the final one of which (“Tier III”) to apply to engines installed on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2016 and which operate in the North American ECA or the US Caribbean Sea ECA. The Tier III requirements would also apply to engines of vessels operating in other ECAs as may be designated in the future by the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (or MEPC) for Tier III NOx control. The Tier III requirements do not apply to engines installed on vessels constructed prior to January 1, 2021, if they are of less than 500 gross tons, of 24 m or over in length, and have been designed and used solely for recreational purposes. We anticipate incurring costs at each stage of implementation on all these areas. Currently we are compliant in all our vessels.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping do not come under the Kyoto Protocol. . In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the United States, entered into the Copenhagen Accord. The Copenhagen Accord is non-binding, but is intended to pave the way for a comprehensive, international treaty on climate change. On December 12, 2015 the Paris Agreement was adopted by 195 countries. The Paris Agreement (which is also non-binding) deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and targets from 2020 in order to limit the global temperature increases above pre-industrial levels to well below 2˚ Celsius. Although shipping was ultimately not included in the Paris Agreement, it is expected that the adoption of the Paris Agreement may lead to regulatory changes in relation to curbing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping. The Paris Agreement has been ratified by a large number of countries and entered into force on November 4, 2016. In July 2011 the IMO adopted regulations imposing technical and operational measures for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. These new regulations formed a new chapter in Annex VI of MARPOL and became effective on January 1, 2013. The new technical and operational measures include the “Energy Efficiency Design Index,” which is mandatory for newbuilding vessels, and the “Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan,” which is mandatory for all vessels. In addition, the IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, which may include market-based instruments or a carbon tax. In October 2014 the IMO’s MEPC agreed in principle to develop a system of data collection regarding fuel consumption of vessels.Workvessels. Work on the development of such a system continued during 2015.2015 and 2016. Currently IMO requires monitoring plans to be onboard by 2017 and monitoring to commence in 2019. The IMO has also approved a roadmap for the development of a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships with an initial strategy to be adopted in 2018 and a revised strategy to be adopted in 2023.

The EU also has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of an existing EU emissions trading regime to include emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels, and individual countries in the EU may impose additional requirements. The EU recently adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/757 on the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from vessels (or the MRV Regulation), which was published in the Official Journal on May 19, 2015 and entered into force on July 1, 2015.2015 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2071). The MRV Regulation is to apply to all vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage (except for a few types, such as, amongst others, warships and fish catching or fish processing vessels), irrespective of flag, in respect of carbon dioxide emissions released during intra-EU voyages and EU incoming and outgoing voyages. The first reporting period will commence on January 1, 2018..2018. The monitoring, reporting and verification system adopted by the MRV Regulation may be the precursor to a market-based mechanism to be adopted in the future. The EU is currently considering a proposal for the inclusion of shipping in the EU Emissions Trading System as from 2021 in the absence of a comparable system operating under the IMO. In the United States, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, issued an “endangerment finding” regarding greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act. While this finding in itself does not impose any requirements on our industry, it authorizes the EPA to regulate directly greenhouse gas emissions through a rule-making process. Any passage of new climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, EU, the United States or other countries or states where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could have a significant financial and operational impact on our business through increased compliance costs or additional operational restrictions that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Anti-Fouling Requirements

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, or the Anti-fouling Convention. The Anti-fouling Convention, which entered into force in September 2008, prohibits and/or restricts the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages must obtain an International Anti-Fouling System Certificate and undergo a survey before the vessel is put into service or before the Anti-fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time and when the anti-fouling systems are altered or replaced.

Other International Regulations to Prevent Pollution

In addition to MARPOL, other more specialized international instruments have been adopted to prevent different types of pollution or environmental harm from vessels.

In February 2004, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention. The BWM Convention aims to prevent the spread of harmful aquatic organisms from one region to another, by establishing standards and procedures for the management and control of vessels’ ballast water and sediments. The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations require vessels to conduct ballast water management in accordance with the standards set out in the convention, which include performance of ballast water exchange in accordance with the requirements set out in the relevant regulation and the gradual phasing in of a ballast water performance standard which requires ballast water treatment and the installation of ballast water treatment systems on board the vessels. The BWM Convention will not enter intois now in force until 12 monthsand vessels are required to retrofit a Ballast Water Management System on each IOPP survey renewal after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35.0% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. Under the BWM Convention,September 8, 2017. According to IMO, vessels are required to implement a Ballast Water and Sediments Management Plan, carry a Ballast Water Record Book and an International Ballast Water Management Certificate. The BWM Convention has not come into force yet as although more than 30 states have adopted it to date, their combined merchant fleets currently constitute less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet.

The Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships adopted by the IMO in 2009, or the Recycling Convention, deals with issues relating to ship recycling and aims to address the occupational health and safety, as well as environmental risks relating to ship recycling.Itrecycling. It contains regulations regarding the design, construction, operation, maintenance and recycling of vessels, as well as regarding their survey and certification to verify compliance with the requirements of the Recycling Convention. The Recycling Convention, amongst other things, prohibits and/or restricts the installation or use of hazardous materials on vessels and requires vessels to have on board an inventory of hazardous materials specific to each vessel. It also requires ship recycling facilities to develop a ship-recycling plan for each vessel prior to its recycling. Parties to the Recycling Convention are to ensure that ship-recycling facilities are designed, constructed and operated in a safe and environmentally sound manner and that they are authorized by competent authorities after verification of compliance with the requirements of the Recycling Convention. The Recycling Convention (which is not effective yet) is to enter into force 24 months after a specified minimum number of states with a combined gross tonnage and maximum annual recycling volume during the preceding 10 years have ratified it.

A MARPOL regulation and the International Convention on Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Co-operation, 1990 also require owners and operators of vessels to adopt Shipboard Oil Pollution Emergency Plans. Another MARPOL regulation sets out similar requirements for the adoption of shipboard marine pollution emergency plans for noxious liquid substances with respect to vessels carrying such substances in bulk. Periodic training and drills for response personnel and for vessels and their crews are required.

European Regulations

European regulations in the maritime sector are in general based on international law most of which were promulgated by the IMO and then adopted by the Member States. However, since theErika incident in 1999, when theErika broke in two off the coast of France while carrying heavy fuel oil, the European Union (or EU) has become increasingly active in the field of regulation of maritime safety and protection of the environment. It has been the driving force behind a number of amendments of MARPOL (including, for example, changes to accelerate the timetable for the phase-out of single hull tankers, and prohibiting the carriage in such tankers of heavy grades of oil), and if dissatisfied either with the extent of such amendments or with the timetable for their introduction it has been prepared to legislate on a unilateral basis. In some instances where it has done so, international regulations have subsequently been amended to the same level of stringency as that introduced in the EU, but the risk is well established that EU regulations (and other jurisdictions) may from time to time impose burdens and costs on shipowners and operators which are additional to those involved in complying with international rules and standards.

In some areas of regulation the EU has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment of international law. Notably, it adopted in 2005 a directive on ship-source pollution (which has been amended in 2009), imposing criminal sanctions for discharges of oil and other noxious substances from vessels sailing in its waters, irrespective of their flag not only where such pollution is caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offense under MARPOL), but also where it is caused by “serious negligence.” The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where it would not be incurred under international law. Experience has shown that in the emotive atmosphere often associated with pollution incidents, retributive attitudes towards vessel interests have found expression in negligence being alleged by prosecutors and found by courts on grounds which the international maritime community has found hard to understand. Moreover, there is skepticism that the notion of “serious negligence” is likely to prove any narrower in practice than ordinary negligence. Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable.

The EU has also adopted legislation requiring the use of low sulphur fuel. Under Council Directive 1999/32/EC as subsequently amended (most recently by Directive 2012/33/EU), from January 1, 2015, vessels are required to burn fuel with a sulphur content not exceeding 0.1%while within EU member states’ territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones falling within sulphur oxide (SOx) Emission Control Areas (or SECAs), such as the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, including the English Channel. Further sea areas may be designated as SECAs in the future by the IMO in accordance with MARPOL Annex VI.

The EU has also adopted legislation (Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control, as subsequently amended) which requires the Member States to refuse access to their ports to certain sub-standard vessels according to various factors, such as the vessel’s condition, flag and number of previous detentions within certain preceding periods; creates obligations on the part of EU member port states to inspect minimum percentages of vessels using their ports annually; and provides for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment. If deficiencies are found that are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, the state is required to detain the vessel or stop loading or unloading until the deficiencies are addressed. Member states are also required to implement their own separate systems of proportionate penalties for breaches of these standards. Further, another EU directive (Directive 2000/59/EC) requires all ships (except for warships, naval auxiliary or other state-owned or state-operated ships on non-commercial service), irrespective of flag, calling at, or operating within, ports of Member States to deliver all ship-generated waste and cargo residues to port reception facilities. Under this directive, a fee is payable by the ships for the use of the port reception facilities, including the treatment and disposal of the waste. The ships may be subject to an inspection for verification of their compliance with the requirements of the directive and penalties may be imposed for their breach.

Commission Regulation (EU) No 802/2010, which was adopted by the European Commission in September 2010, as part of the implementation of the Port State Control Directive and came into force on January 1, 2011, as subsequently amended by Regulation 1205/2012 of December 14, 2012, introduced a ranking system (published on a public website and updated daily) displaying shipping companies operating in the EU with the worst safety records. The ranking is judged upon the results of the technical inspections carried out on the vessels owned by a particular shipping company. Those shipping companies that have the most positive safety records are rewarded by being subjected to fewer inspections, whilst those with the most safety shortcomings or technical failings recorded upon inspection are to be subjected to a greater frequency of official inspections of their vessels.

By Directive 2009/15/EC of April 23, 2009 (on common rules and standards for ship inspection and survey organizations and for the relevant activities of maritime administrations) as amended by Directive 2014/111/EU of December 17, 2014, the European Union has established measures to be followed by the Member States for the exercise of authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of classification societies that are negligent in their duties.

The EU has also adopted Regulation (EU) No 1257/2013 which lays down rules in relation to ship recycling and management of hazardous materials on vessels. The Regulation lays down requirements for the recycling of vessels in an environmentally sound manner at approved recycling facilities which meet certain requirements, so as to minimize the adverse effects of recycling on human health and the environment. The Regulation also lays down rules for the control and proper management of hazardous materials on vessels and prohibits or restricts the installation or use of certain hazardous materials on vessels. The Regulation aims at facilitating the ratification of the Recycling Convention. It applies to vessels flying the flag of a Member State and certain of its provisions apply to vessels flying the flag of a third country calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State. For example, when calling at a port or anchorage of a Member State, the vessels flying the flag of a third country will be required, amongst other things, to have on board an inventory of hazardous materials which complies with the requirements of the Regulation and to be able to submit to the relevant authorities of that Member State a copy of a statement of compliance issued by the relevant authorities of the country of their flag and verifying the inventory. The Regulation is to apply not earlier than December 31, 2015 and not later than December 31, 2018, although certain of its provisions are to apply from December 31, 2014 andat different stages, with certain othersof them applicable from December 31, 2020. Pursuant to this Regulation, the EU Commission has recently published the first version of a European List of approved ship recycling facilities meeting the requirements of the regulation, as well as four further implementing decisions dealing with certification and other administrative requirements set out in the Regulation.

Compliance Enforcement

The flag state, as defined by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, has overall responsibility for the implementation and enforcement of international maritime regulations for all vessels granted the right to fly its flag. The “Shipping Industry Guidelines on Flag State Performance” issued by the International Chamber of Shipping in cooperation with other international shipping associations evaluates flag states based on factors such as port state control record, ratification of major international maritime treaties, use of recognized organizations conducting survey work on their behalf which comply with the IMO guidelines, age of fleet, compliance with reporting requirements and participation at IMO meetings. The vessels that we operate are flagged in the Marshall Islands and Malta. Marshall Islands- and Malta-flagged vessels have historically received a good assessment in the shipping industry.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or bareboat charterer to increased liability and, if the implementing legislation so provides, to criminal sanctions, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels or may invalidate or result in the loss of existing insurance cover and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have, for example, indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively. As of the date of this annual report on Form 20-F, each of our vessels is ISM Code certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certificate will be maintained.

The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations may have on our operations.

United States Environmental Regulations and Laws Governing Civil Liability for Pollution

Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which shipowners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution.

U.S. federal legislation, including notably the OPA, establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including bunker oil spills from dry bulk vessels as well as cargo or bunker oil spills from tankers. The OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under the OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable without regard to fault (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or substantial threats of discharges of oil from their vessels. The OPA expressly allows the individual states of the United States to impose their own liability regimes for the discharge of petroleum products. In addition to potential liability under the OPA as the relevant federal legislation, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred.

The OPA requires the owner or operator of any non-tank vessel of 400 gross tons or more that carries oil of any kind as a fuel for main propulsion, including bunkers, to prepare and submit a response plan for each vessel. The vessel response plans must include detailed information on actions to be taken by vessel personnel to prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge of oil from the vessel.

The OPA limits the liability of responsible parties to the greater of $1,100 per gross ton or $939,800 per non-tank vessel (subject to possible adjustment for inflation). However, these limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by violation of applicable United States federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities.

In addition, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances (other than oil) whether on land or at sea, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $0.5 million for vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue ($5.0 million for vessels carrying hazardous substances) unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.

We maintain, for each of our vessels, protection and indemnity coverage against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion per event. This insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions. If any liabilities or expenses fall within an exclusion from coverage, or if damages from a catastrophic incident exceed the $1.0 billion limitation of coverage per event, our cash flow, profitability and financial position could be adversely impacted.

We believe our insurance and protection and indemnity coverage as described above meets the requirements of the OPA.

The OPA requires owners and operators of all vessels over 300 gross tons, even those that do not carry petroleum or hazardous substances as cargo, to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under the OPA. The U.S. Coast Guard has implemented regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility for containerships in the amount of $1,400 per gross ton, which includes the OPA limitation on liability of $1,100 per gross ton and the CERCLA liability limit of $300 per gross ton for vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue. Under the regulations, vessel owners and operators may evidence their financial responsibility by showing proof of insurance, surety bond, self-insurance or guaranty.

Under the OPA, an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet having the greatest limited liability under the OPA.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s regulations concerning certificates of financial responsibility provide, in accordance with the OPA, that claimants may bring suit directly against an insurer or guarantor that furnishes the guaranty that supports the certificates of financial responsibility. In the event that such insurer or guarantor is sued directly, it is prohibited from asserting any contractual defense that it may have had against the responsible party and is limited to asserting those defenses available to the responsible party and the defense that the incident was caused by the willful misconduct of the responsible party.

The OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills. In some cases, states that have enacted such legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessels owners’ responsibilities under these laws. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

The United States Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under CERCLA.

The EPA enacted rules governing the regulation of ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of vessels within U.S. waters. Under the rules, commercial vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels), or Regulated Vessels, are required to obtain a CWA permit regulating and authorizing such normal discharges. This permit, which the EPA has designated as the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or VGP, incorporates the current U.S. Coast Guard requirements for ballast water management as well as supplemental ballast water requirements, and includes limits applicable to specific discharge streams, such as deck runoff, bilge water and gray water.

For each discharge type, among other things, the VGP establishes effluent limits pertaining to the constituents found in the effluent, including best management practices, or BMPs, designed to decrease the amount of constituents entering the waste stream. Unlike land-based discharges, which are deemed acceptable by meeting certain EPA-imposed numerical effluent limits, each of the VGP discharge limits is deemed to be met when a Regulated Vessel carries out the BMPs pertinent to that specific discharge stream. The VGP imposes additional requirements on certain Regulated Vessel types that emit discharges unique to those vessels. Administrative provisions, such as inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements are also included for all Regulated Vessels.

The VGP application procedure, known as the Notice of Intent, or NOI, may be accomplished through the “eNOI” electronic filing interface. We submitted NOIs for all our vessels to which the CWA applies. The Vessel General Permit contains limits on effluents, and specific measures with respect to ships operating on the Great Lakes.

In addition, pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA, which requires each state to certify federal discharge permits such as the VGP, certain states have enacted additional discharge standards as conditions to their certification of the VGP. These local standards bring the VGP into compliance with more stringent state requirements, such as those further restricting ballast water discharges and preventing the introduction of non-indigenous species considered to be invasive. The VGP and related state-specific regulations and any similar restrictions enacted in the future will increase the costs of operating in the relevant waters.

The U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, was enacted in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. ports through ballast water taken on by vessels in foreign ports. NISA established a ballast water management program for vessels entering U.S. waters. Under NISA, mid-ocean ballast water exchange is voluntary, except for vessels heading to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay, or vessels engaged in the foreign export of Alaskan North Slope crude oil. However, NISA’s reporting and record keeping requirements are mandatory for vessels bound for any port in the United States.

In March 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard issued a final rule establishing standards for the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged in U.S. waters and requiring the phase-in of Coast Guard approved ballast water management systems. The rule went into effect in June 2012, and adopts ballast water discharge standards for vessels calling on U.S. ports and intending to discharge ballast water equivalent to those set in IMO’s Ballast Water Management Convention. The final rule requires that ballast water discharge have no more than 10 living organisms per milliliter for organisms between 10 and 50 micrometers in size. For organisms larger than 50 micrometers, the discharge can have 10 living organisms per cubic meter of discharge. The U.S. Coast Guard will reviewhad reviewed the practicability of implementing a more stringent ballast water discharge standard. The rule requires installation of Coast Guard approved ballast water management systems by new vessels constructed on or after December 1, 2013, and existing vessels as of their first drydocking after January 1, 2016. If Coast Guard type approved technologies arewere not available by a vessel’s compliance date, the vessel may request an extension to the deadline from the U.S. Coast Guard. On December 2, 2016 the U.S. Marine Safety Center announced the approval of the first Coast Guard type approved ballast water management systems. Existing letters extending dates for vessels to comply with the ballast water management system requirements remain valid, and the Coast Guard will consider requests for additional extensions if evidence is shown by the owner or operator as to why compliance is not possible.

Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. In November 2002, the MTSA came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect on July 1, 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. The vessels in our fleet that we operate have on board valid International Ship Security Certificates and, therefore, will comply with the requirements of the MTSA.

International Laws Governing Civil Liability to Pay Compensation or Damages

Although the United States is not a party to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by the 1992 Protocol and further amended in 2000, or the CLC (which has been adopted by the IMO and sets out a liability regime in relation to oil pollution damage), many countries are parties and have ratified either the original CLC or its 1992 Protocol. Under the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters or, under the 1992 Protocol, in the exclusive economic zone or equivalent area, of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain defenses and subject to the right to limit liability. The original CLC applies to vessels carrying oil as cargo and not in ballast, whereas the CLC as amended by the 1992 Protocol applies to tanker vessels and combination carriers (i.e., vessels which sometimes carry oil in bulk and sometimes other cargoes) but only when the latter carry oil in bulk as cargo and during any voyage following such carriage (to the extent they have oil residues on board). The limits on liability are based on the use of the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights, or SDR. Under the 2000 amendment to the 1992 Protocol that became effective on November 1, 2003, for vessels between 5,000 and 140,000 gross tons (a unit of measurement for the total enclosed spaces within a vessel), liability is limited to approximately 4.51 million SDR plus 631 SDR for each additional gross ton over 5,000. For vessels of over 140,000 gross tons, liability is limited to 89.77 million SDR. The exchange rate between SDRs and U.S. dollars was 0.7101810.739368 per dollar on April 26, 2016.10, 2017. Under the original CLC, the right to limit liability is forfeited where the incident causing the damage is caused by the owner’s actual fault or privity and under the 1992 Protocol where the relevant incident is caused by the owner’s personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result. Vessels trading with states that are parties to these conventions must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that of the convention. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the regime adopted by the IMO.

The CLC is supplemented by the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage 1971, as amended (or the Fund Convention). The purpose of the Fund Convention was the creation of a supplementary compensation fund (the International Oil Pollution Compensation Fund, or IOPC Fund) which provides additional compensation to victims of a pollution incident who are unable to obtain adequate or any compensation under the CLC.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, which covers liability and compensation for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters or the exclusive economic zone or equivalent area of ratifying states by discharges of “bunker oil.” The Bunker Convention defines “bunker oil” as “any hydrocarbon mineral oil, including lubricating oil, used or intended to be used for the operation or propulsion of the ship, and any residues of such oil.” The Bunker Convention imposes strict liability (subject to certain defenses) on the shipowner (which term includes the registered owner, bareboat charterer, manager and operator of the vessel). It also requires registered owners of vessels over a certain size to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended by the 1996 Protocol to it, or the 1976 Convention). The Bunker Convention entered into force in November 2008. In other jurisdictions, liability for spills or releases of oil from vessels’ bunkers continues to be determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

The IMO’s International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea 1996, as superseded by the 2010 Protocol, or the HNS Convention, sets out a liability regime for loss or damage caused by hazardous or noxious substances carried on board a vessel. These substances are listed in the convention itself or defined by reference to lists of substances included in various IMO conventions and codes. The HNS Convention covers loss or damage by contamination to the environment, costs of preventive measures and further damage caused by such measures, loss or damage to property outside the ship and loss of life or personal injury caused by such substances on board or outside the ship. It imposes strict liability (subject to certain defenses) on the registered owner of the vessel and provides for limitation of liability and compulsory insurance. The owner’s right to limit liability is lost if it is proved that the damage resulted from the owner’s personal act or omission, committed with the intent to cause such damage, or recklessly and with knowledge that such damage would probably result. The HNS Convention has not entered into force yet.

Outside the United States, national laws generally provide for the owner to bear strict liability for pollution, subject to a right to limit liability under applicable national or international regimes for limitation of liability. The most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability is the 1976 Convention. However, claims for oil pollution damage within the meaning of the CLC or any Protocol or amendment to it are expressly excepted from the limitation regime set out in the 1976 Convention. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited where it is proved that the loss resulted from the shipowner’s personal act or omissions, committed with the intent to cause such loss, or recklessly and with knowledge that such loss would probably result. Some states have ratified the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Convention, which provides for liability limits substantially higher than those set forth in the original 1976 Convention to apply in such states. Finally, some jurisdictions are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the 1996 Protocol, and some are parties to other earlier limitation of liability conventions and, therefore, shipowners’ rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be different or uncertain.

The Maritime Labour Convention

The International Labour Organization’s Maritime Labour Convention was adopted in 2006 (“MLC 2006”). The basic aims of the MLC 2006 are to ensure comprehensive worldwide protection of the rights of seafarers and to establish a level playing field for countries and ship owners committed to providing decent working and living conditions for seafarers, protecting them from unfair competition on the part of substandard ships. The Convention was ratified on August 20, 2012, and all our vessels have been certified, as required. We do not expect that the MLC 2006 requirements will have a material effect on our operations.

C.  Organizational Structure

Globus Maritime Limited is a holding company. As of April 22, 2016,the date of this annual report, Globus wholly owns six operational subsidiaries, five of which are Marshall Islands corporations and one of which is incorporated in Malta. Five of our operational subsidiaries each own one vessel and our sixth operational subsidiary, our Manager, provides the technical and day-to-day commercial management of our fleet and to one vessel that we soldalso provides consultancy services to an unrelated third party in March 2016.affiliated ship-management company. Our Manager maintains ship management agreements with each of our vessel-owning subsidiaries as well as a consultancy agreement with the third party vessel that it manages. For additional information about these subsidiaries, see “Exhibit 8.1 Subsidiaries of Globus Maritime Limited”.an affiliated ship-management company.

D.  Property, Plants and Equipment

In August 2006, our Manager entered into a rental agreement for 350 square meters of office space for our operations within a building owned by Cyberonica S.A., a company related party to us through common control.us. Rental expense was €14,578 per month until December 31, 2015. The rental agreement provided for an annual increase in rent of 2% above the rate of inflation as set by the Bank of Greece. The contract ran for nine years and could have been terminated by us with six

months’ notice, and terminated at the end of 2015. WeIn 2016 we renewed the rental agreement at a monthly rate of €10,360, but otherwise on substantially similar terms.€10,360($10,900) with a lease period ending January 2, 2025. We do not presently own any real estate. As of December 31, 2015,2016, we owed Cyberonica approximately $191,000$313,000 of back rent.

For information about our vessels and how we account for them, see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects. A. Operating Results – Results of Operations – Critical Accounting Policies – Impairment of Long-Lived Assets.” Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property. Our vessels are subject to priority mortgages, which secure our obligations under our various loan and credit facilities.

For further details regarding our loan agreements and credit facilities, please see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects — B. Liquidity and Capital Resources — Indebtedness.”

We have no manufacturing capacity, nor do we produce any products.