UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

OR

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 20172019

OR

OR

Date of event requiring this shell company report _____________________

For the transition period from _______ to _______

Commission file number 001-33725

Textainer Group Holdings Limited

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

Not Applicable

(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Bermuda

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

Century House

, 16 Par-La-Ville Road,

Hamilton HM 08

, Bermuda

(Address of principal executive offices)

Michael J. Harvey

Textainer Group Holdings Limited

Century House,

16 Par-La-Ville Road,

Hamilton HM 08,

Bermuda

(441) 296-2500

mjh@textainer.com

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number and Address of Company Contact Person)

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act.

Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act.

None

(Title of Class)

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act.

None

(Title of Class)

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report.

57,097,22056,817,918 Common Shares

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically, and posted on its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files).    Yes  ☒    No  ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer, or an emerging growth company. See definitions of “accelerated filer”, “large accelerated filer” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

Large accelerated filer  ☐            Accelerated filer ☒            Non-accelerated filer  ☐   Emerging growth company  ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing:

U.S. GAAP    ☒    International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board  ☐    Other  ☐

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow.     Item 17  ☐    Item 18  ☐

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ☐    No  ☒

TABLE OF CONTENTS

In this Annual Report on Form 20-F, unless indicated otherwise, references to:  (1) “Textainer,” “TGH,” “the Company,” “we,” “us” and “our” refer, as the context requires, to Textainer Group Holdings Limited, which is the registrant and the issuer of the class of common shares that has been registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or Textainer Group Holdings Limited and its subsidiaries; (2) “TEU” refers to a “Twenty-Foot Equivalent Unit,” which is a unit of measurement used in the container shipping industry to compare shipping containers of various lengths to a standard 20′ dry freight container, thus a 20′ container is one TEU and a 40′ container is two TEU; (3) “CEU” refers to a Cost Equivalent Unit, which is a unit of measurement based on the approximate cost of a container relative to the cost of a standard 20′ dry freight container, so the cost of a standard 20′ dry freight container is one CEU; the cost of a 40′ dry freight container is 1.6 CEU; the cost of a 40′ high cube dry freight container (9′6″ high) is 1.7 CEU; and the cost of a 40’ high cube refrigerated container is 8.0 CEU; (4) “our owned fleet” means the containers we own; (5) “our managed fleet” means the containers we manage that are owned by other container investors;Container Investors; (6) “our fleet” and “our total fleet” mean our owned fleet plus our managed fleet plus any containers we lease from other lessors; (7) “container investors”“Container Investors” means the owners of the containers in our managed fleet; and (8) “Trencor” refers to Trencor Ltd., a public South African investment holding company, previously listed on the JSE Limited in Johannesburg Stock Exchange, South Africa, which, indirectly ownsdirectly owned approximately 47.8%47.5% and 5.3% of our common shares (such interest, “beneficiary interest”) through its wholly-owned subsidiary.as of December 31, 2018 and 2019, respectively.  See Item 4, “Information on the Company” for an explanation of the relationship between Trencor and us.

Dollar amounts in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are expressed in thousands, unless otherwise indicated.

INFORMATION REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKINGFORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS; CAUTIONARY LANGUAGE

This Annual Report on Form 20-F, including the sections entitled Item 3, “Key Information -- Risk Factors,” and Item 5, “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects,” contains forward-looking statements within the “safe harbor” provisions of the U.S. Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Forward-looking statements include all statements that are not statements of historical facts and may relate to, but are not limited to, expectations or estimates of future operating results or financial performance, capital expenditures, introduction of new products, regulatory compliance, plans for growth and future operations, as well as assumptions relating to the foregoing. In some cases, you can identify forward-looking statements by terminology such as “may,” “will,” “should,” “could,” “expect,” “plan,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “estimate,” “predict,” “intend,” “potential,” “continue” or the negative of these terms or other similar terminology. Forward-looking statements include, among others, statements regarding: (i) our expectation that the favorable market conditions driven by solid trade growth, shipping lines preference to lease and minimal depot inventory to continue into 2018; (ii) our belief that the container trade grows at an even faster rate than the around 4% 2018 forecasted GDP; (iii) our expectation that new container prices to remain stable given the recent increase in steel prices and ongoing demand; (iv) our expectation that resale prices to remain high given the level of new container prices and the limited supply of containers placed on sale as a result of near full utilization; and (v) our expectation that new lease returns to remain at attractive levels assuming disciplined ordering by lessors and shipping lines .

Although we do not make forward-looking statements unless we believe we have a reasonable basis for doing so, we cannot guarantee their accuracy, and actual results may differ materially from those we anticipated due to a number of uncertainties, many of which cannot be foreseen. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements for many reasons, including, among others, the risks we face that are described in the section entitled Item 3, “Key Information -- Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

We believe that it is important to communicate our future expectations to potential investors, shareholders and other readers. However, there may be events in the future that we are not able to accurately predict or control and that may cause actual events or results to differ materially from the expectations expressed in or implied by our forward-looking statements. The risk factors listed in Item 3, “Key Information -- Risk Factors,” as well as any cautionary language in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, provide examples of risks, uncertainties and events that may cause our actual results to differ materially from the expectations we describe in our forward-looking statements. Before you decide to buy, hold or sell our common shares, you should be aware that the occurrence of the events described in Item 3, “Key Information -- Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F could negatively impact our business, cash flows, results of operations, financial condition and share price. Potential investors, shareholders and other readers should not place undue reliance on our forward-looking statements.

Forward-looking statements regarding our present plans or expectations involve risks and uncertainties relative to return expectations and related allocation of resources and changing economic or competitive conditions which could cause actual results to differ from present plans or expectations, and such differences could be material. Similarly, forward-looking statements regarding our present expectations for operating results and cash flow involve risks and uncertainties related to factors such as utilization rates, per diem rates, container prices, demand for containers by container shipping lines, supply and other factors discussed under Item 3, “Key Information -- Risk Factors” or elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, which could also cause actual results to differ from present plans. Such differences could be material.

All future written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are expressly qualified in their entirety by the cautionary statements contained or referred to in this section. New risks and uncertainties arise from time to time, and we cannot predict those events or how they may affect us. We assume no obligation to, and do not plan to, update any forward-looking statements after the date of this Annual Report on Form 20-F as a result of new information, future events or developments, except as required by federal securities laws. You should read this Annual Report on Form 20-F and the documents that we reference and have filed as exhibits with the understanding that we cannot guarantee future results, levels of activity, performance or achievements and that actual results may differ materially from what we expect.

Industry data and other statistical information used in this Annual Report on Form 20-F are based on independent publications, reports by market research firms or other published independent sources. SomeGood faith estimates are used for some data are also based on our good faith estimates,that is derived from our review of internal surveys and the independent sources listed above. Although we believe these sources are reliable, we have not independently verified the information.

In this Annual Report on Form 20-F, unless otherwise specified, all monetary amounts are in U.S. dollars. To the extent that any monetary amounts are not denominated in U.S. dollars, they have been translated into U.S. dollars in accordance with our accounting policies as described in Item 18, “Financial Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

PARTPART I

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

The selected financial data presented below under the heading “Statement of Income Data” for the years ended December 31, 2017, 20162019, 2018 and 20152017 and under the heading “Balance Sheet Data” as of December 31, 20172019 and 20162018 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included in Item 18, “Financial Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. The selected financial data presented below under the heading “Statement of Income Data” for the years ended December 31, 20142016 and 20132015 and under the heading “Balance Sheet Data” as of December 31, 2015, 20142017, 2016 and 20132015 are audited and have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. The data presented below under the heading “Other Financial and Operating Data” have not been audited. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations to be expected in future periods. You should read the selected consolidated financial data and operating data presented below in conjunction with Item 5, “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and with Item 18, “Financial Statements” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

An investment in our common shares involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, together with the other information contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, including our financial statements and the related notes thereto, before you decide to buy, hold or sell our common shares. Any of the risk factors we describe below could adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. The market price of our common shares could decline and you may lose some or all of your investment if one or more of these risks and uncertainties develop into actual events. 

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

The demand and pricing for leased containers depends on many factors beyond our control.

Substantially all of our revenue derives from activities related to the leasing, managing and selling of containers. Our ability to continue successfully leasing containers to container shipping lines, earning management fees on leased containers, selling used containers and sourcing capital required to purchase new and used containers depends, in part, upon the continued demand to lease new and usedcontainers and purchase used containers.

Demand for leased containers depends largely on the rate of growth of world trade and economic growth, with worldwide consumer demand being the most critical factor affecting this growth. Demand for leased containers is also driven by our customers’ “lease vs. buy” decisions. In the past, economic downturns in the U.S., Europe, Asia and countries with consumer-oriented economies have resulted in a reduction in the rate of growth of world trade and demand by container shipping lines for leased containers and it is likely that any future downturns would have similar results. Thus, a decrease in world trade can and has adversely affected our utilization and per diem rates and leadled to reduced revenue and increased operating expenses (such as storage and repositioning costs), and can have an adverse effect on our financial performance. We cannot predict whether, or when, such downturns will occur.occur or the severity or duration of any downturn. Other material factors affecting demand for leased containers, utilization and per diem rates include the following:

Many of these and other factors affecting the container industry are inherently unpredictable and beyond our control. These factors will vary over time, often quickly and unpredictably, and any change in one or more of these factors may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, many of these factors also influence the decision by container shipping lines to lease or buy containers. Should one or more of these factors influence container shipping lines to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate and/or per diems could decrease, resulting in decreased revenue and increased storage and repositioning costs, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Global economic weakness has in the past and may in the future materially and negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and future prospects.

While domestic and global economic growth resumed and has continued following the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, the continued sustainability of the international economic growth is uncertain particularly following the recent declaration of a Novel Coronavirus pandemic. Any slowdown or reversal of the U.S. and global trade growth could heighten a number of material risks to our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, as well as our future prospects, including the following:

Lease and/or utilization rates may decrease, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We compete mostly on the pricing and the availability of containers. Lease rates for our containers depend on a large number of factors, including the following:

Most of these factors are beyond our control. In particular the price of steel declined materially in 2015 and continued to decline in the beginning of 2016 and this was a significant factor in the decline in new container prices and lease rates at that time. New container prices and lease rates reached historically low levels in the beginning of 2016, but starting in the second half of 2016 and until late 2018 steel prices, container prices and lease rates all increased materially. Since late 2018 steel prices, container prices and lease rates have generally all declined and demand for new containers has also declined. In addition, lease rates can be negatively impacted by, among other things, the entrance of new leasing companies or container factories, overproduction of new containers by factories and the over-buying by shipping lines, leasing companies and tax-driven container investors. In 2012 and continuing

in 2013 and 2014, container leasing companies, including us, raised substantial amounts of new funds in the debt and equity markets and were able to repeatedly refinance existing debt on ever more favorable terms. This increased availability and reduced cost of debt, which given a limited demand for containers, contributed to downward pressure on lease rates. The impact on us of the market downturn that ended in the second half of 2016 was more severe than in the past due to the substantial growth in our owned fleet in the past few years and the relatively high prices paid for new containers in the period from 2010 to 2012 that were initially leased at historically high rates on leases that matured during this period of low lease rates. If future market lease rates continue to decrease or return to historically low levels, revenues generated by our fleet will be adversely affected, which will harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. Container utilization rates for us and our competitors declined in 2019 but are currently at high levels by historical standards.  If future container utilization rates decrease, revenues generated by our fleet will be adversely affected, which will harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

We face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long-term lease.

We estimate the useful lives of our standard dry freight containers to be 13 to 14 years, open-top and flat-rack containers to be 14 to 16 years, refrigerated containers to be 12 years and tank containers to be 20 years. When we purchase newly produced containers, we typically lease them out under long-term leases with terms of 5 or more years at a lease rate that is correlated to the price paid for the container and prevailing interest rates. As containers leased under term leases are not leased out for their full economic life, we face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long-term lease. If prevailing container lease rates decline significantly between the time a container is initially leased out and when its initial long-term lease expires, or if overall demand for containers declines, we may be unable to earn a similar lease rate from the re-leasing of containers when their initial term leases expire which could materially adversely impact our results and financial performance. Additionally, for containers purchased new in 2015 and 2016, many of these containers are on long-term leases with low per diems that are below current lease rates. Our ability to improve our financial performance depends in part on the ability to renew or re-lease these containers at the time of the expiration of their initial leases at higher rates than the per diems these containers were originally leased out. If container lease rates decline below levels that prevailed in 2015 and 2016 and we are unable to renew these leases at higher rates our financial results may not improve or may weaken.

The bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co. in August 2016 substantially impacted us.

On August 31, 2016 Hanjin’sHanjin filed for bankruptcy protection in South Korea. In the following months its services ceased operation. The insolvency of Hanjin severely disrupted container trade and the container shipping industry. At the time of the insolvency, containers leased to Hanjin with ownership interests attributable to Textainer represented approximately 4.8% of the total owned and managed fleet in TEU. We incurred substantial costs from the Hanjin insolvency, arising from container recovery expenses, unpaid current and future rental income from Hanjin, container repair expenses, container repositioning expenses, re-leasing expenses and the loss of unreturned containers. Additionally, many containers formerly leased to Hanjin were re-leased at substantially lower lease rates than the rates in the leases with Hanjin and other containers were disposed, often at prices below the book value for the containers. We have recovered 93%94% of the containers formerly leased to Hanjin, with the balance of the containers uneconomic or impossible to recover. We maintain insurance that covers certain costs and losses from customer defaults. At the time of the Hanjin default our policy provided for $80 million of coverage after a $5 million deductible was met. We have collected $50 millionsubstantially all of our insurance claim and are working with our insurance companiesrelated to finalize the remaining payout amount up to our $80 million coverage limit However even if we receive the full amount of our insurance, it will beHanjin insolvency, however this was insufficient to cover all of our losses and disruptions related to Hanjin. At the time of its insolvency Hanjin was the 7^th largest container shipping line in the world and the bankruptcy of Hanjin substantially impacted us, including as follows:

Global economic weakness has in the past and may in the future materially and negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and future prospects.

While domestic and global economic growth resumed and has continued following the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, the continued sustainability of the US and international growth is uncertain. Any slowdown or reversal of the US and global economic recoveries and trade growth could heighten a number of material risks to our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, as well as our future prospects, including the following:

Lease and/or utilization rates may decrease, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We compete mostlycondition, even if low new container prices allow us to purchase new containers at a lower cost. Our future financial performance and profitability depends in part on the pricing and the availability of containers. Lease rates for our containers depend on a large number of factors, including the following:

Mostincreasing for current leases that expire during the several years as many of these factors are beyond our control. In particular the price of steel declined materially in 2015 and continued to decline in the beginning of 2016 and this was a significant factor in the decline inleases were concluded with low initial lease rates. Low new container prices and lease rates at that time. New container prices andwill increase the difficulty of raising lease rates reached historically low levelson long-term container leases that expire in the beginning of 2016, but starting in the second half of 2016 and continuing during 2017 steel prices, container prices and lease rates all increased materially. In addition, lease rates can be negatively impacted by, among other things, the entrance of new leasing companies, overproduction of new containers by factories and the over-buying by shipping lines, leasing companies and tax-driven container investors. In 2012 and continuing in 2013 and 2014, container leasing companies, including us, raised substantial amounts of new funds in the debt and equity markets and were able to repeatedly refinance existing debt on ever more favorable terms. This increased availability and reduced cost of debt, which given a limited demand for containers, contributed to downward pressure on lease rates. The impact on us of the decline in lease rates that ended in the second half of 2016 has been more severe than past rate decreases due to the substantial growth in our owned fleet in the past few years and the relatively high prices paid for new containers in the period from 2010 to 2012 that were initially leased at historically high rates on leases that matured during this period of low lease rates. If future market lease rates again decrease or return to historically low levels, revenues generated by our fleet will be adversely affected, which will harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.future.

We face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long term lease.

We estimate the useful lives of our non-refrigerated containers other than open-top and flat-rack containers to be 13 to 14 years, open-top and flat-rack containers to be 14 to 16 years, refrigerated containers to be 12 years and tank containers to be 20 years. When we purchase newly produced containers, we typically lease them out under long-term leases with terms of three to five years at a lease rate that is correlated to the price paid for the container and prevailing interest rates. As containers leased under term leases are not leased out for their full economic life, we face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long term lease at a rate that continues to provide a reasonable economic return based on the initial purchase price of the container. For leases that are currently expiring we might be re-leasing the containers at lower lease per diems as prevailing container lease rates have declined from the lease rates available three to five years ago when these containers were initially leased. If prevailing container lease rates decline significantly between the time a container is initially leased out and when its initial long term lease expires, or if overall demand for containers declines, we may be unable to earn a similar lease rate from the re-leasing of containers when their initial term leases expire which could materially adversely impact our results and financial performance. Additionally, for containers purchased new in 2015 and 2016, many of these containers are on long term leases with low per diems that are below current lease rates. Our ability to improve our financial performance depends in part on the ability to renew or re-lease these containers at the time of the expiration of their initial leases at higher rates than the per diems these containers were originally leased out. If container lease rates decline and we are unable to renew these leases at higher rates our financial results will be adversely impacted.

Gains and losses associated with the disposition or trading of used equipment may fluctuate and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We regularly sell used containers at the end of their useful lives in marine service or when we believe it maximizes the projected financial return, considering the location, sale price, cost of repair, possible repositioning expenses, earnings prospects and remaining useful life. The realized residual value of these containers affects our profitability. The volatility of the residual values of used containers may be significant. These values depend upon, among other factors, demand for used containers for secondary purposes, comparable new container costs, used container availability, condition and location of the containers, and market conditions. Most of these factors are outside of our control. Additionally, if shipping lines or our leasing company competitors determine to sell their used containers at a younger age than we believe to be the useful life of our equipment, our containers may be more difficult to sell or may sell for less than containers that were more recently manufactured.

Gains or losses on the disposition of used container equipment and the sales fees earned on the disposition of managed containers fluctuate and may be significant if we sell large quantities of used containers. In 2016,2019, 2018 and 2017, we incurred approximately $67$14 million, $14 million and $4 million, respectively, of container impairments due to the fact that when we determined to dispose of containers their book value exceeded the fair market value.

Low disposal prices and the high volume of containers being disposed of can cause an elevated level of container impairments to occur. Continued low disposal prices and/or disposal volumes could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. See Item 5, “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” for a discussion of our gains or losses on the disposition of used container equipment.

In addition to disposing of our fleet’s used containers at the end of their useful life, we opportunistically purchase used containers for resale from our shipping line customers and other sellers. Shipping lines either enter into trading dealsarrangements with us at the time they are ready to dispose of older containers or enter into purchase leaseback transactions with us where they sell us older containers and then lease them back until the shipping line is ready to dispose of the containers. We face resale price risk with both transactions since by the time the container is provided to us from the shipping line the prevailing prices for older containers may have declined from the value we assumed at the time of purchase.

If the supply of trading equipment becomes limited because these sellers develop other means for disposing of their equipment or develop their own sales network, our equipment trading revenues and our profitability could be negatively impacted. If selling prices rapidly deteriorate and we are holding a large inventory that was purchased when prices for trading equipment were higher or if prices decline over the life of our purchase leaseback transactions, then our gross margins from trading and the sale of containers acquired through purchase leaseback transactions will decline or become negative. Low resale prices coupled with the higher prices paid for purchase leaseback transactions completed several years ago have caused some purchase leaseback transactions to be unprofitable.

Reductions in the pricesThe impact of new low sulphur emission rules is uncertain and may adversely affect us and the container shipping industry.

Effective January 1, 2020, under the rules of the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) the permitted level of sulphur oxide emissions from ships, including container ships, was reduced from 3.5% of emission mass to 0.5% of emissions mass. In order to comply with these regulations our shipping line customers are either switching to low sulphur diesel fuels, installing emissions scrubbers on vessels to remove sulphur oxide from emissions gases or switching to alternative fuels like natural gas for their ships. Shipping lines compliance strategies may include a mix of the compliance approaches and may evolve depending on the cost of complying with each approach. The cost for low sulphur diesel fuel is substantially more than what shipping lines previously paid for bunker fuel and it is expected that there may be shortages of low sulphur fuel initially in certain locations.  Installing gas scrubbers is an expensive capital expenditure to a ship and requires extensive retrofitting which removes vessels from service for a period of time.  As the rules have only recently become effective, it is difficult to predict what the long-term impact will be on our customers and us from these regulations. If the higher fuel and environmental compliance costs from these rules are not successfully passed on via higher freight rates to shippers, or if freight demand declines due to higher shipping costs, our shipping line customers’ financial performance may weaken and the risk of default by our customers could increase.  If higher freight rates cause lower cargo demand, the demand for our containers may decline and/or container lease rates and used container prices may decline, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Lease rates for new containers are positively correlated to the price of new containers, which is positively correlated with the price of steel, a major component used in the manufacture of new containers. In the past five years, prices for new standard 20’ dry freight containers have moved in a wide range, with prices ranging between approximately $1,185 and $2,425 during this time. Our average new container cost per CEU increased 56% during 2017 compared to 2016. Container prices have substantially increased since late 2016, but if new container prices return to very low levels, the lease rates of older, off-lease containers will also decrease and the prices obtained for containers sold at the end of their useful lives will also decrease. Since the beginning of 2013 until the second half of 2016 we saw new container pricing and the sale prices of our containers sold at the end of their useful lives decline.  Low new container prices cause low market lease rates and low resale values for containers, which have and may in the future adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, even if low new container prices allow us to purchase new containers at a lower cost. Our future financial performance and profitability depends in part on the lease rates increasing for current leases that expire during the next three years as many of these leases were concluded with low initial lease rates. A reversal in the current recovery of new container prices

and lease rates would increase the difficulty of raising lease rates on long term container leases that expire in the future.

Lessee defaults have and may continue to harm our business, results of operations and financial condition by decreasing revenue and increasing storage, repositioning, collection, insurance and recovery expenses.

Our containers are leased to numerous container lessees. Lessees are required to pay rent and to indemnify us for damage to or loss of containers. Lessees may default in paying rent and performing other obligations under their leases. A delay or diminution in amounts received under the leases (including leases on our managed containers), or a default in the performance of maintenance or other lessee obligations under the leases could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make payments on our debt.

We experienced several lessee defaults in 2016, including the default of Hanjin discussed above, which severely negatively impacted our financial performance and we believe that there is the continued risk of lessee defaults in the future. In 2019 we also experienced lessee defaults, with the largest matter arising from fraudulent conduct by the owners of a regional shipping line. During the last several years shipping lines have made a number

of efforts to raise freight rates on the major trade lanes, however rate increases have generally not been sustainable for long periods of time.  Excess vessel capacity due to new ship production, including the production of very large ships, and the re-activation of previously laid up vessels will continue to be a factor in the future, especially if older vessels are not scrapped. Major shipping lines are expected to be slightly profitable overall for 2017,2019, however reliable information about the financial position and resources of many shipping lines can be difficult to obtain. While containerized trade grew in 2017,2019, it was not sufficient to fully utilize vessel capacity and major shipping lines both took delivery of, and resumed ordering, large vessels. Existing excess vessel capacity and continued new vessel deliveries, especially the delivery of very large vessels, are expected tomay continue to pressure freight rates for some time. The current level of excess vessel capacity may currently be artificially understated as a number of ships are out of service as they undergo retrofits for scrubbers to comply with the IMO 2020 sulphur oxide emissions rules noted above. Additionally, the commencement of various tariff and trade restriction actions between major trading nations in 2018 which continued and accelerated in 2019 has increased uncertainty about container trade growth and demand and may increase default risk if tariff actions continue and/or increase. While certain trade disputes were resolved at the end of 2019 the duration of these tariff actions may have altered trade pattern and may have lasting impacts on container demand. The implementation of low sulphur oxide emissions rules noted above may weaken the financial performance of our customers and increase their risk of default. The recent declaration of a Novel Coronavirus pandemic has added to uncertainty about container trade demand, freight rates and our lessees’ financial performance. As a result, we continue to face heightened risk that our financial performance and cash flow could be severely affected by defaults by our customers.

When lessees default, we may fail to recover all of our containers, and the containers that we do recover may be recovered in locations where we will not be able to quickly re-lease or sell them on commercially acceptable terms. In recovery actions we must locate the containers and often need to pay accrued storage and handling charges to depots and terminals, which may include debts incurred by the defaulting shipping line. We also may have to reposition these containers to other places where we can re-lease or sell them, which could be expensive, depending on the locations and distances involved. Following repositioning, we may need to repair the containers and pay container depots for storage until the containers are re-leased. These recovery and repair costs, and repositioning costs generally are reflected in our financial statements under container lessee default expense, net and direct container expense.expense – owned fleet, respectively. Accordingly, the amount of our bad debt expense may not capture the total adverse financial impact on us from a shipping line’s default. For our owned containers, these costs directly reduce our income and for our managed containers, lessee defaults decrease rental revenue and increase operating expenses,direct container expense, and thus reduce our management fee revenue. While we maintain insurance to cover some defaults, it is subject to large deductible amounts and significant exclusions and, therefore, may not be sufficient to prevent us from suffering material losses. In 2015 and 2016 we filed significant insurance claims for lessee defaults we experienced. We also filed a pending insurance claim for the regional shipping line default we experienced in 2019. As a result of these insurance claims, potential future insurance claims or changes in the perceived risk of providing default insurance, such insurance might not be available to us in the future on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In the renewals of our default insurance following the Hanjin bankruptcy, the policy premium washas significantly increased and coverage washas been reduced. In any insurance claim our insurers may not agree with our determination that we have suffered an insured loss or our calculation of the amount of the insured loss. Any such future defaults could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Historically we have recovered a very high percentage of the containers from defaulted lessees. However, in the last fivesix years we encountered defaults from several smaller lessees and lessees in locations where recoveries did not track to our historical experience and significant losses were incurred. These losses were due to a number of containers being unrecoverable as the containers were not in the control of the lessee or the containers were detained by depots or terminals that demanded storage charges in excess of the value of the detained containers after accounting for repair and repositioning costs. Additionally, in certain recent insolvencies, even when we have recovered the containers, they have generally been in very poor condition which limits their ability to be re-leased and reduces their disposal value, both of which add to the ultimate cost of the default. If a material amount of future recoveries from defaulted lessees continue to deviate from our historical recovery experience, our financial performance and cash flow could be severely adversely affected.

Asian economic instability could reduce demand for leasing, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our customers are substantially dependent upon shipments of goods exported from Asia. From time to time, there have been health scares, such as the novel coronavirus outbreak in China in early 2020, Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and avian flu, financial turmoil, natural disasters and political instability in Asia. In the past, these events have adversely affect our container lessees and the general demand for shipping and have led to reduced demand for leased containers or otherwise caused adverse affects on us. Ongoing or future events such as these may have similar or worse impacts on our business.  Any reduction in demand for leased containers would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Certain liens may arise on our containers.

Depot operators, manufacturers, repairmen, terminals, ship owners and transporters do come into possession of our containers from time to time and have amounts due to them from the lessees or sublessees of the containers. In the event of nonpayment of those charges by the lessees or sublessees, we may be delayed in, or entirely barred from, repossessing the containers, or be required to make payments or incur expenses to discharge such liens onthe lien to take possession of our containers.

We derive a substantial portion of our lease billings from a limited number of container lessees, and the loss of, or reduction in business, by any of these container lessees could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have derived, and believe that we will continue to derive, a significant portion of lease billings and cash flow from a limited number of container lessees. Lease billings from our 20 largest container lessees represented $429.7$546.4 million or 80.0%82.1% of the total fleet billings during 2017, with lease billings from our single2019. Our two largest container lessee accountingcustomers in 2019 were Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., which accounted for $80.2$102.8 million or 15.1%15.4% and CMA-CGM S.A., which accounted for $87.3 million or 13.1% of containerour total fleet’s lease billings during such fiscal year.billings. Due to the ongoing consolidation in the shipping line industry, our 20 largest container lessees are becoming an increasing percentage of our total revenue, with correspondingly increased concentration of credit risk. Given the high concentration of our customer base, a default by any of our largest customers would result in a major reduction in leasing revenue, large repossession expenses, potentially large lost equipment charges and a material adverse impact on our performance and financial condition. Our experience with the Hanjin bankruptcy that commenced on August 31, 2016 is an example of the occurrence of one of these materially adverse events.  

The introduction and use of very large container ships (18,000 TEU+) on the major trade lanes may lead to further industry consolidation and shipping line alliance participation, and even greater reliance by us on our largest customers, and negatively impact the performance of smaller and mid-size shipping lines. Several of the largest shipping lines have invested heavily in these very large ships and reportedly have achieved meaningful unit cost advantages and increased market shares on the major trade lanes. In response, some smaller shipping lines have started to exit the major trade lanes, while others are seeking to form closer operating partnerships.

Consolidation, shipping line alliances, and concentration in the container shipping industry could decrease the demand for leased containers.

We primarily lease containers to container shipping lines. The container shipping lines have historically relied on a large number of leased containers to satisfy their needs. The shipping industry has been consolidating for a number of years, and further consolidation is expected. In recent years two major German shipping lines have each acquired different South American shipping lines, a French shipping line acquired a Singaporean shipping line, two large Chinese shipping lines merged, a German shipping line merged with a Middle Eastern shipping line and a Danish shipping line acquired a German shipping line. Three major Japanese shipping lines will also complete their merger in April 2018.merged together. Additionally, Hanjin declared bankruptcy in August 2016, further reducing the number of large shipping lines. Historically, shipping lines have also formed a number of alliances to share vessel space and the creation of new alliances and changes in the membership of each alliance is ongoing. Consolidation of major container shipping lines and growth of alliances could create efficiencies and decrease the demand that container shipping lines have for leased containers because they may be able to fulfill a larger portion of their needs through their owned container

fleets. Consolidation could also create concentration of credit risk if the number of our container lessees decreases. If shipping line alliances are effective at making shipping lines more efficient, this could reduce the demand for containers. The growth of alliances may add pressure to those shipping lines that do not join an alliance as they may find it more difficult to cost effectively serve shippers needs and/or shippers may choose to only ship cargo with alliances due to solvency concerns or otherwise. Additionally, large container shipping lines with significant resources could choose to manufacture or purchase their own containers, which would decrease their demand for leased containers and could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our indebtedness reduces our financial flexibility and could impede our ability to operate.  

We have historically operated with, and anticipate continuing to operate with, a significant amount of debt.  As of December 31, 2017,2019, we had outstanding indebtedness of $3,014.4$3,827 million under our debt facilities. All of our outstanding indebtedness is secured debt collateralized primarily by our container assets.assets and finance leases. There is no assurance that we will be able to refinance our outstanding indebtedness on terms that we can afford or at all. If we are unable to refinance our outstanding indebtedness, or if we are unable to increase the amount of our borrowing capacity, it could limit our ability to grow our business.

The amount of our indebtedness, and the terms of the related indebtedness (including interest rates and covenants), could have important consequences for us, including the following:

We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to service and repay our debt and related obligations and have sufficient funds left over to achieve or sustain profitability in our operations, meet our working capital and capital expenditure needs and/or compete successfully in our industry. An uncured event of default in some or all of our debt facilities could cause some or all of our entities to be declared bankrupt or liquidated.

We will require a significant amount of cash to service and repay our outstanding indebtedness, fund future capital expenditures, and our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.

Our ability to make payments on and repay our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. Our business primarily generates cash from our container assets. Our lenders, rating agencies and the investors in our asset-backed debt securities look to the historical and anticipated performance of our container assets when deciding whether to lend to us and the terms for such lending.   It is possible that:

The terms of our debt facilities impose, and the terms of any future indebtedness may impose, significant operating, financial and other restrictions on us and our subsidiaries.

Restrictions imposed by our secured debt facilities, revolving credit facilities, term loan and bonds may limit or prohibit, among other things, our ability to:

We are also required to comply with certain financial ratio covenants. These restrictions could adversely affect our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs and pursue available business opportunities. A breach of any of these financial covenants and restrictions, due to weaker financial performance, reduced asset values or otherwise could result in a default in respect of the related indebtedness. If a default occurs, the relevant lenders could elect to declare the indebtedness, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against any collateral securing that indebtedness, which will constitute substantially all of our container assets.assets and finance leases. As a result of the Hanjin bankruptcy, coupled with the lower container returns provided in recent years due to increased competition and lower realized used container prices, in 2016 and 2017 we experienced difficulty in meeting certain of the financial covenants on our lending facilities. We obtained various covenant amendments and waivers to address this situation and subsequently refinanced the majority of our debt with revised covenants. If needed in the future we may be unable to obtain covenant amendments and waivers from our lenders and some or all of our indebtedness could be in default. Additionally, covenant amendments and waivers may limit our ability to access additional funds for container investment and the cost and expense of covenant amendments, waivers and/or refinancing may limit our available funds for container investment.  

If we are unable to enter into interest rate swaps, collars and caps on reasonable commercial terms or if a counterparty under our interest rate swap, collar and cap agreements defaults, our exposure associated with our variable rate debt could increase.

We have typically funded a significant portion of the purchase price of new containers through borrowings under our revolving credit facilities and our secured debt facilities and intend to use borrowings under our revolving credit facilities and our secured debt facilities for such funding in the future. All of our outstanding debt, other than the $874.8$1,693 million in aggregate principal amount under TMCL V’s Series 2017-1various asset backed notes and Series 2017-2 Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes areterm loans is subject to variable interest rates. We have entered into various interest rate swap collar and cap agreements to mitigate our exposure associated with variable rate debt. The swap agreements involve payments by us to counterparties at fixed rates in return for receipts based upon variable rates indexed to the London Inter Bank Offered Rate. There can be no assurance that interest rate swaps collars and caps will be available in the future, or if available, will be on terms satisfactory to us. Moreover, our interest rate swap agreements are subject to counterparty credit exposure, which is defined as the ability of a counterparty to perform its financial obligations under a derivative contract. While we monitor our counterparties’ credit ratings on an on-going basis, we cannot be certain that they will stay in compliance with the related derivative agreements and not default in the future. If we are unable to obtain interest rate swaps collars and caps or if a counterparty under our interest rate swap collar and cap agreements defaults, our exposure associated with our variable rate debt could increase.

Consolidation

The phase out of container manufacturersthe London Inter Bank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, may adversely impact us.

As noted above the disruptionsubstantial majority of manufacturingour debt is variable rate debt and this debt is generally priced under rates that are indexed to LIBOR. LIBOR will be discontinued after 2021. We have floating rate debt agreements that will be outstanding after 2021 which have rates set under LIBOR. We must agree with our lenders for the major manufacturers could result in higherrepricing of this debt under a new container prices and/or decreased supplyrate index prior to the discontinuance of LIBOR. Our interest rate hedges and swaps are also priced according to LIBOR and will also be impacted by this matter. None of our current debt agreements provide for the mechanics of a transition to a new containers. Any material increase ininterest rate index and the cost or reduction indebt markets acceptance of a replacement for LIBOR is uncertain and evolving. Given the supplyamount of new containers could harm our business, resultsfloating rate debt and our significant annual interest expense, the impact of operationsthe discontinuance of LIBOR may adversely effect us and financial condition.our financing structure.

Even with hedged variable rate debt and fixed rate debt, we face interest rate risk.

We currently purchase almost allgenerally hedge and fix our overall debt exposure to have a maturity similar to the average remaining lease term of our containers from manufacturers based inlong-term lease contracts. However if during the People’s Republicduration of China (the “PRC”).our hedging, interest rates increase but lease rate per diems do not also increase, as our hedges expire our financial performance may decline due to higher interest rates not being offset by higher per diems. If it were to become more expensive for us to procure containers in the PRC or to transport these containers at a low cost from the manufacturer to the locations where they are needed by our container lessees because of changes in exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar and Chinese Yuan, consolidation among container suppliers, increased tariffs imposed by the U.S. or other governments, changing trade patterns, increased fuel costs, increased labor costs, or for any other reason, we may have to seek alternative sources of supply andthis occurs we may not be able to make alternative arrangements quickly enoughgenerate sufficient cash flows to meetservice our container needs,debt obligations and/or we may breach our debt covenants, all of which would materially and the alternative arrangements may increase our costs.

The availability and price of containers depend significantly on the capacity and bargaining position of the major container manufacturers. Three major manufacturers have approximately 80% of that industry’s market share. This market structure and the commodity inputs used in manufacturing have led to significant variability in container prices. In particular, the increased focus on environmental matters in China may reduce the supply (and increase the cost) of steel used in our containers and the mandatory use of water borne paint by all container factories in China has already increased the cost of containers and created container production constraints. If an increased cost of purchasing containers is not matched by a corresponding increase in lease rates, or if we have difficulty in sourcing containers, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be harmed.adversely impact us.

We may incur significant costs to reposition our containers, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

When lessees return containers to locations where supply exceeds demand and when lessees default and we recover containers, we sometimes reposition containers to higher demand areas. Repositioning expenses vary depending on geographic location, distance, freight rates and other factors, and may not be fully covered by drop-off charges collected from the previous lessee of the containers or pick-up charges paid by the new lessee. We seek to limit the number of and impose surcharges on containers returned to low demand locations. Market conditions, however, may not enable us to continue such practices. In addition, we may not be able to accurately anticipate which locations will be characterized by higher or lower demand in the future, and our current contracts will not protect us from repositioning costs if locations that we expect to be higher demand locations turn out to be lower demand locations at the time the containers are returned. For example, the vast majority of our long-term leases require that a high percentage of the containers are returned in Asia, primarily in China. If long-term trade patterns change, it may not be economically desirable to have the bulk of our containers returned in China at the end of long termlong-term leases. Additionally, our customer default insurance that covers lessee insolvencies does not sufficiently insure us for container repositioning expense. Any such increases in costs to reposition our containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The demand for leased containers is partially tied to international trade. If this demand were to decrease due to increased barriers to trade, or for any other reason, it could reduce demand for intermodal container leasing, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

A substantial portion of our containers are used in trade involving goods being shipped from the PRCPeople’s Republic of China (the “PRC” or “China”) and other Asian countries to the United States, Europe, Latin America or other regions and within Asia. The willingness and ability of international consumers to purchase foreign goods is dependent on political support, in the United States, Europe Latin America and other countries, for an absence of government-imposed barriers to international trade in goods and services. For example, international consumer demand for foreign goods is related to price; if the price differential between foreign goods and domestically-produced goods were to decrease due to increased tariffs on foreign goods, strengthening in the applicable foreign currencies relative to domestic currencies, rising wages, increasing input or energy costs or other factors, demand for foreign goods could decrease, which could result in reduced demand for intermodal container leasing. A similar reduction in demand for intermodal container leasing could result from an increased use of quotas or other technical barriers to restrict trade. The current regimeIn 2018 a number of relatively freemajor trading economies implemented and increased tariffs and other trade may not continue.restrictions and significant renegotiations of existing trade agreements commenced. This continued in 2019 with partial resolutions to certain disputes seen at the end of the year, however it is too soon to tell if trade growth

will promptly resume. If these trade restrictions and tariffs continue or increase it may materially impact container demand and change trade patterns.

A contraction or slowdown in containerized cargo growth or negative containerized cargo growth would lead to a surplus of containers and a lack of storage space, which could negatively impact us.

We depend on third party depot operators to repair and store our equipment in port areas throughout the world. Growth in the world’s container fleet has significantly outpaced growth in depot capacity and even in the current period of historically high utilization, we continue to experience limited depot capacity in certain major port cities.  Additionally, the land occupied by depots is increasingly being considered prime real estate, as it is coastal land in or near major cities, and this land may be developed into other uses or there may be increasing restrictions on depot operations by local communities. This trend has already caused depot storage costs to increase and could further increase depots’ costs and in some cases force depots to relocate to sites further from the port areas. If these changes affect a large number of our depots, or if we experience a period of lower container utilization, it could significantly increase the cost of maintaining and storing our off-hire containers. Additionally, if depot space is unavailable, we may be unable to accept returned containers from lessees, which may cause us to breach our lease agreements.

We own a large number of containers in our fleet and are subject to significant ownership risk and increasing our owned fleet entails increasing our debt, which could result in financial instability.

Ownership of containers entails greater risk than management of containers for container investors. In 2017,2019, the percentage of containers in our fleet that we own decreasedincreased from 81.0%78.9% at the beginning of the year to 78.8%85.4% at the end of the year. This decrease is primarily due to our assumption of the management of containers formerly owned and managed by Magellan Maritime Services GmbH, a German container lessor that became insolvent. In the years prior to 2017 we have consistently increased the number of owned containers in our fleet as a percentage of the total fleet.fleet, however in 2017 we assumed management of a large fleet from an insolvent leasing company which caused the owned percentage of our fleet to decline a few percentage points. In December 2019 we purchased the fleet of containers we previously managed for Leased Assets Pool Company Limited, an affiliate of Trencor and this was primarily responsible for the increase in our owned fleet percentage in 2019. In October 2018 we purchased the 75% of TW Container Leasing Limited that we did not own from an affiliate of Wells Fargo and this caused the owned percentage of our fleet to increase 2 percentage points. The increased number of containers in our owned fleet increases our exposure to financing costs, financing risks, changes in per diem rates, re-leasing risk, changes in utilization rates, lessee defaults, repositioning costs, storage expenses, impairment charges and changes in sales prices upon the disposition of containers. The number of containers in our owned fleet fluctuates over time as we purchase new containers, sell containers into the secondary resale market, andadd third party container investors and/or acquire other fleets.

If we continue to increase the number of containers in our owned fleet, we will likely have more capital at risk and may need to maintain higher debt balances. Additional borrowings may not be available under our revolving credit facilities or our secured debt facilities, and we may not be able to refinance these facilities, if necessary, on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We may need to raise additional debt or equity capital in order to fund our business, expand our sales activities and/or respond to competitive pressures. We may not have access to the capital resources we desire or need to fund our business or may not have access on attractive terms. These factors, among others, may reduce our profitability and adversely affect our plans to maintain the container ownership portion of our business.

If we are unable to lease our new containers shortly after we purchase them, our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be harmed.

Lease rates for new containers are positively correlated to the fluctuations in the price of new containers, which is positively correlated with the price of steel, a major component used in the manufacture of new containers. If we are unable to lease the new containers that we purchase within a short period of time of such purchase, the market price of new containers and the corresponding market lease rates for new containers may decrease, regardless of the higher cost of the previously purchased containers. Additionally, if we believe new container prices are attractive, we may purchase more containers than we have immediate demand for if we expect container prices or lease rates may rise. If prices do not rise or new container demand weakens, we may be unable to lease this speculative inventory on attractive terms or at all. Declines in new container prices, lease rates, or the inability to lease new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Consolidation of container manufacturers or the disruption of manufacturing for the major manufacturers could result in higher new container prices and/or decreased supply of new containers. Any material increase in the cost or reduction in the supply of new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We currently purchase all of our containers from manufacturers based in the PRC. If it were to become more expensive for us to procure containers in the PRC or to transport these containers at a low cost from the manufacturer to the locations where they are needed by our container lessees because of changes in exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar and Chinese Yuan, consolidation among container suppliers, increased tariffs imposed by the U.S. or other governments, changing trade patterns, increased fuel costs, increased labor costs, or for any other reason, we may have to seek alternative sources of supply and we may not be able to make alternative arrangements quickly enough to meet our container needs, and the alternative arrangements may increase our costs.

The availability and price of containers depend significantly on the capacity and bargaining position of the major container manufacturers. Three major manufacturers have approximately 80% of that industry’s market share. Additionally, one of the major container manufacturers is under common ownership with a large container lessor, which may impact our ability to competitively source containers from this manufacturer. This market structure and the commodity inputs used in manufacturing have led to significant variability in container prices. In particular, the increased focus on environmental matters in China may reduce the supply (and increase the cost) of steel and other raw materials used in our containers and the mandatory use of water borne paint by all container factories in China has already increased the cost of containers and created container production constraints. If an increased cost of purchasing containers is not matched by a corresponding increase in lease rates, or if we have difficulty in sourcing containers, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be harmed.

Sustained reduction in the production of new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The lackContainer manufacturing shutdowns in China in the wake of newthe financial crisis drastically reduced the production of standard dry freight containers from the fourth quarter of 2008 through the end of 2009, combined with continued retirement of older containers in the ordinary course, led to a decline in the world container fleet of approximately 4% in 2009, creating a shortage of containers as worldwide cargo volumes

increased by 12.0% in 2010 and 8.6% in 2011. During the period of decline in the world container fleet,shutdowns, container manufacturers lost up to 60% of their skilled work force, due to long shutdowns, and had limited production capacity in 2010 as they had to hire and train a new skilled work force. Although manufacturers resumed production in 2011 and continued steady production from 2012 through 2017,2019, if there is a sustained reduction in the production of new containers, it could impact our ability to expand our fleet, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Terrorist attacks, the threat of such attacks or the outbreak of war and hostilities could negatively impact our operations and profitability and may expose us to liability.

Terrorist attacks and the threat of such attacks have contributed to economic instability in the U.S. and elsewhere, and further acts or threats of terrorism, violence, war or hostilities could similarly affect world trade and the industries in which we and our container lessees operate. For example, worldwide containerized trade dramatically decreased in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., which affected demand for leased containers. In addition, terrorist attacks, threats of terrorism, violence, war or hostilities may directly impact ports, depots, our facilities or those of our suppliers or container lessees and could impact our sales and our supply chain. A severe disruption to the worldwide ports system and flow of goods could result in a reduction in the level of international trade and lower demand for our containers.

Our lease agreements require our lessees to indemnify us for all costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of the use of our containers, including property damage to the containers, damage to third-party property and personal injury. However, our lessees may not have adequate resources to honor their indemnity obligations after a terrorist attack. Our insurance coverage is limited and is subject to large deductibles and significant exclusions and we have very limited insurance for liability arising from a terrorist attack. Accordingly, we may not be protected from liability (and expenses in defending against claims of liability) arising from a terrorist attack.

We face extensive competition in the container leasing industry.

We may be unable to compete favorably in the highly competitive container leasing and container management businesses. We compete with a relatively small number of major leasing companies, many smaller lessors, companies and financial institutions offering finance leases, and promoters of container ownership and leasing as a tax-efficient investment. Some of these competitors may have greater financial resources and access to capital than we do. Additionally, some of these competitors may have large, underutilized inventories of containers, which could, if leased, lead to significant downward pressure on per diem rates, margins and prices of containers. Competition among container leasing companies depends upon many factors, including, among others: per diem rates; supply reliability; lease terms, including lease duration, drop-off restrictions and repair provisions; customer service; and the location, availability, quality and individual characteristics of containers. In recent years several container leasing companies have acquired other container lessors and we may face increased competition from these merged firms. Following the completion of each consolidation, the new entity may face further pressure for fleet growth and may compete even more aggressively, causing further declines in rental rates available from container leases. New entrants into the leasing business may be attracted by the historically high rate of containerized trade growth, access to the capital markets and low pricing for containers. New entrants may be willing to offer pricing or other terms that we are unwilling or unable to match. Additionally, the management agreements under which we manage containers for other parties do not restrict these container ownersinvestors from having other container fleets managed by competing leasing companies or from directly competing with us.

Our lessees may decide to buy, rather than lease their containers.

We, like other suppliers of leased containers, are dependent upon decisions by shipping lines to lease rather than to buy their container equipment. Shipping lines own a significant amount of the world’s intermodal containers and effectively compete with us. In part due to constraints on their financing and need to allocate capital to new ship purchases and port terminals, in recent years, shipping lines have generally reduced their purchases of new containers. In 20172019 we believe that about 60% of all shipping containers were purchased by leasing companies. Although we believe that this percentage should somewhat rebalance itself we still expect leasing companies to be a majoritymajor purchaser of the new containers to be produced. Should shipping lines decide to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate would decrease, resulting in decreased leasing revenues, increased storage costs and increased positioningrepositioning costs. A decrease in the portion of leased containers would also reduce our investment opportunities and significantly constrain our growth.

For reporting periods beginning in 2019, the new accounting guidance under both generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) requires recognition of right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability of operating leases on the lessees’ balance sheet. Because the new leasing guidance virtually eliminates the financial statement benefit of entering into operating leases for the lessees, it could change our customers’ “lease vs. buy” decision and/or decision on lease structures and terms.

Our results of operations are subject to changes resulting from the political and economic policies of the PRC and economic activity in the PRC.

A substantial portion of our containers are leased out from locations in the PRC. The main manufacturers of containers are also located in the PRC. The political and economic policies of the PRC and the level of economic activity in the PRC may have a significant impact on our company and our financial performance.

Changes in the political leadership of the PRC may have a significant effect on laws and policies that impact economic growth and trade and the corresponding need for containers to ship goods from the PRC, including the introduction of measures to control inflation, changes in the rate or method of taxation, and the imposition of additional restrictions on currency conversion, remittances abroad, and foreign investment. Moreover, economic reforms and growth in the PRC have been more successful in certain provinces than in others, and the continuation of or increases in such disparities could affect the political or social stability of the PRC. Furthermore, the current high level of debt by some companies in China may lead to defaults which may not be supported by the Chinese government. In recent years the rate of economic growth in the PRC has declined. Additionally, government policies that reduce the emphasis on manufacturing and increase priorities for domestic consumption and services may alter trade patterns and reducedampen demand for containers. Chinese government environmental policies and practices may reduce steel production which would impact container costs and may limit factory production, which could impact trade growth and container demand.

A large number of our shipping line customers are domiciled either in the PRC (including Hong Kong) or in Taiwan. In 2017,2019, approximately 28.3%29.6% of our revenue was attributable to shipping line customers that were either domiciled in the PRC (including Hong Kong) or in Taiwan. Almost allAll container manufacturing facilities from which we purchased our containers in 20172019 are located in the PRC. A reduced rate of economic growth, changes to economic or trade policy or political instability in either the PRC or Taiwan could have a negative effect on our major customers, our ability to obtain containers and correspondingly, our results of operations and financial condition.

The legal systems in the PRC and other jurisdictions have inherent uncertainties that could limit the legal protections available to us and even if legal judgments are obtained, collection may be difficult.

We currently purchase almost all of our containers from manufacturers based in the PRC. In addition, a substantial portion of our containers are leased out from locations in the PRC. California law governs almost all of these agreements. However, disputes or settlements arising out of these agreements may need to be enforced in the PRC. The PRC legal system is based on written statutes. Prior court decisions may be cited for reference but have limited precedential value. Since 1979, PRC legislation and regulations have significantly enhanced the protections afforded to various forms of foreign investments in the PRC. However, since these laws and regulations are relatively new and the PRC legal system continues to evolve, the interpretations of many laws, regulations and rules are not always uniform and may be subject to considerable discretion, variation, or influence by external forces unrelated to the legal merits of a particular matter. The enforcement of these laws, regulations, and rules involves uncertainties that may limit remedies available to us. Any litigation or arbitration in the PRC may be protracted and may result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention. In addition, the PRC may enact new laws or amend current laws that may be detrimental to us, which may have a material adverse effect on our business operations. If we are unable to enforce any legal rights that we may have under our contracts or otherwise in the PRC, our ability to compete and our results of operations could be harmed.

In addition, as our containers are used in trade involving goods being shipped to locations throughout the world, it is not possible to predict, with any degree of certainty, the jurisdictions in which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. Litigation and enforcement proceedings have inherent uncertainties in any jurisdiction and are expensive. These uncertainties are enhanced in countries that have less developed legal systems where the interpretation of laws and regulations is not consistent, may be influenced by factors other than legal merits and may be cumbersome, time-consuming and even more expensive. For example, repossession from defaulting lessees may be difficult and more expensive in jurisdictions whose laws do not confer the same security interests and rights to creditors and lessors as those in the United States and where the legal system is not as well developed. Additionally, even if we are successful in obtaining judgments against defaulting lessees, these lessees may have limited owned assets and/or heavily encumbered assets and the collection and enforcement of a monetary judgment may be unsuccessful. As a result, the remedies available and the relative success and expedience of collection and enforcement proceedings with respect to the containers in various jurisdictions cannot be predicted.

Because substantially all of our revenues are generated in U.S. dollars, but a significant portion of our expenses are incurred in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.

The U.S. dollar is our primary operating currency. Almost all of our revenues are denominated in U.S. dollars, and approximately 75%77% of our direct container expenses -owned fleet were denominated in U.S. dollars for the year ended December 31, 2017.2019. Accordingly, a significant amount of our expenses are incurred in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. This difference could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the other currencies. During 2019, 2018 and 2017, 2016, and 2015, 25%23%, 36%21%, and 27%25%, respectively, of our direct container expenses – owned fleet were paid in up to 20 different foreign currencies. A decrease in the value of the U.S. dollar against non-U.S. currencies in which our expenses are incurred translates into an increase in those expenses in U.S. dollar terms, which would decrease our net income. While the prices of the used containers we trade or dispose are primarily quoted and billed in U.S. Dollars, declines in the currencies where these containers are sold relative to the U.S. Dollar can serve to reduce the market prices for used containers, which will decrease our net income. We do not engage in foreign currency hedging activities which might reduce the volatility associated with exchange rates.

Sustained Asian economic instability could reduce demand for leasing, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our customers are substantially dependent upon shipments of goods exported from Asia. From time to time, there have been health scares, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and avian flu, financial turmoil, natural disasters and political instability in Asia. If these events were to occur in the future, they could adversely affect our container lessees and the general demand for shipping and lead to reduced demand for leased containers or otherwise adversely affect us. Any reduction in demand for leased containers would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The international nature of the container shipping industry exposes us to numerous risks.

We are subject to risks inherent in conducting business across national boundaries, any one of which could adversely impact our business. These risks include:

One or more of these factors or other related factors may impair our current or future international operations and, as a result, harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely on our proprietary information technology systems to conduct our business. If these systems fail to perform their functions adequately, or if we experience an interruption in their operation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be harmed.

The efficient operation of our business is highly dependent on our proprietary information technology systems. We rely on our systems to record transactions, such as repair and depot charges, purchases and disposals of containers and movements associated with each of our owned or managed containers. We use the information provided by these systems in our day-to-day business decisions in order to effectively manage our lease portfolio, reduce costs and improve customer service. We also rely on these systems for the accurate tracking of the performance of our managed fleet for each container investor. In 2020 we commenced efforts to replace several legacy computer systems that are central to our business operations. The failure of our systems to perform as we expect, or any failure to successfully replace our legacy systems, could disrupt our business, adversely affect our results of operations and cause our relationships with lessees and container investors to suffer. Our information technology systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from circumstances beyond our control, including fire, natural disasters, power loss and computer systems failures and viruses or cyber-attacks. Even though we have developed redundancies and other contingencies to mitigate any disruptions to our information technology systems, these redundancies and contingencies may not completely prevent interruptions to our information technology

systems. In recent years we have moved various information technology systems and data to cloud-based storage providers and software vendors. We face additional risks from relying on third parties to store, process and manage our data and software. Any such interruptions could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Cyber attacks and/or information technology security breaches on us or our customers could materially and adversely affect us.  

If we, our customers or other third parties with which we do business were to fall victim to successful cyber-attacks or experience other cybersecurity incidents that cause system failure, downtime, or the loss of sensitive data, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences.  Our ability to handle the delivery and return of containers, lease billing, and the sale of older containers is dependent on the stable operation of our information technology systems.   Our customers’ ability to generate revenue and make timely payments to us is similarly dependent on the stable operation of their information technology systems.  Successful breaches, employee malfeasance, or human or technological error could result in, for example, unauthorized access to, disclosure, modification, misuse, loss, or destruction of company, customer, or other third party data or systems; theft of sensitive, regulated, or confidential data; the loss of access to critical data or systems through ransomware, destructive attacks or other means; and business delays, service or system disruptions or denials of service.

Cybersecurity incidents have increased in number and severity and it is expected that these trends will continue. Should the Company be affected by such an incident, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences, which may include substantial remediation costs, such as liability for stolen assets or information, repairs of system damage, and incentives to customers or business partners in an effort to maintain relationships after an attack, as well as litigation and legal risks.

Use of counterfeit and improper refrigerant in refrigeration machines for refrigerated containers could cause irreparable damage to the refrigeration machines, death or personal injury, and materially impair the value of our refrigerated container fleet.

In past years, there were a limited number of reports of counterfeit and improper refrigerant gas being used to service refrigeration machines in depots primarily in Asia. The use of this counterfeit gas has led to the explosion of several refrigeration machines. Several of these incidents resulted in personal injury or death, and in all cases, the counterfeit gas led to irreparable damage to the refrigeration machines.

Safer testing procedures were developed and implemented by refrigeration manufacturers and industry participants in order to determine whether counterfeit or improper gas was used to service a refrigeration machine.  However, there can be no assurance that these procedures will prove to continue to be reliable and cost effective. If industry procedures and tests are not proven safe and effective or if the use of such counterfeit and improper refrigerant recurs and is widespread or other counterfeit refrigerant issues emerge in the future, the value of our refrigerated container fleet and our ability to lease refrigerated containers could be materially impaired and could therefore have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.  Additionally, we might be subject to claims for damages by parties injured by contaminated refrigeration machinery operated by our lessees which may materially adversely affect us.

We face risks from our tank container management agreement with Trifleet Leasing (The Netherlands) B.V.

In June 2013 we announced that we hadWe entered into a tank container management agreement with Trifleet Leasing (The Netherlands) B.V. (“Trifleet”). in June 2013. Under this agreement, we invest funds with Trifleet for the purchase and leasing of tank containers. Trifleet is our exclusive manager for investments in tank containers. Intermodal tank containers are used for the transport and storage of liquid foodstuffs, chemicals and gases. This is a specialized market subject to a number of regulations and strict operating procedures. As Trifleet is investing funds on our behalf in tank containers, our return on any investments under this management agreement are highly reliant on their skill and performance, as well as, the overall investment climate for tank containers. While we approve of the

amounts committed under the management agreement, Trifleet selects the lessees, negotiates lease terms, determines equipment specifications, negotiates equipment orders and supervises production, and is responsible for all other management activities including customer billing, equipment return, re-leasing, maintenance and repairs. If Trifleet or the tank container market does not perform as we anticipate, we may not receive adequate returns on our investment and our results

could be materially impacted. Additionally, given the nature of tank containers and their cargos, our ownership of tank containers could expose us to different and additional risks than we generally face as the owner and lessor of dry freight and refrigerated containers. While lessees, Trifleet and ourselves all maintain insurance, and lessees agree to accept liability for claims caused by the operation of tank containers, this may still be inadequate to shield us from costs and liability from any claims arising from tank containers that we own pursuant to the Trifleet management agreement.

If our insurance is inadequate or if we are unable to obtain insurance, we may experience losses.

Under all of our leases, our lessees are generally responsible for loss of or damage to a container beyond ordinary wear and tear, and they are required to purchase insurance to cover any other liabilities. Our depots are also required to maintain insurance and indemnify us against losses. We also maintain our own insurance to cover our containers when they are not on-hire to lessees or when the lessee fails to have adequate primary coverage, and third-party liability insurance for both on-hire and off-hire containers. In addition, we maintain insurance that, after satisfying our deductibles, would cover loss of revenue as a result of default under most of our leases, as well as, the recovery cost or replacement value of most of our containers. Lessees’ and depots’ insurance policies and indemnity rights may not protect us against losses. Our own insurance may prove to be inadequate to prevent against losses or in the future coverage may be unavailable or uneconomic, and losses could arise from a lack of insurance coverage.

U.S. investors in our company could suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Based upon the nature of our business activities, we could bebecome classified in the future as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such characterization could result in adverse U.S. tax consequences to direct or indirect U.S. investors in our common shares. For example, if we are a PFIC, our U.S. investors could become subject to increased tax liabilities under U.S. tax laws and regulations and could become subject to burdensome reporting requirements. The determination of whether or not we are a PFIC is made on an annual basis and depends on the composition of our income and assets from time to time. Specifically, for any taxable year we will be classified as a PFIC for U.S. tax purposes if either:

In applying these tests, we are treated as owning or generating directly our pro rata share of the assets and income of any corporation in which we own at least 25% by value. In addition, the composition of our income and assets will be affected by how, and how quickly, we spend the cash we have raised.

If you are a U.S. investor and we are a PFIC for any taxable year during which you own our common shares, you could be subject to adverse U.S. tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless a U.S. investor is permitted to and does elect otherwise under the Internal Revenue Code, such U.S. investor would be liable to pay U.S. federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the investor’s holding period for our common shares. Based on the composition of our income, valuation of our assets, (including goodwill), and our election to treat certain of our subsidiaries as disregarded entities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we do not believe we were a PFIC for any period after our initial public offering (“IPO”) date and we do not expect that we should be treated as a PFIC for our current taxable year. However, there can be no assurance at all in this regard. Because the PFIC determination is highly fact intensive and made at the end of each taxable year, it is possible that we may be a PFIC for the current or any future taxable year or that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) may challenge our determination concerning our PFIC status.

We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Textainer Group Holdings Limited is a Bermuda company, and we believe that a significant portion of the income derived from our operations will not be subject to tax in Bermuda, which currently has no corporate income

tax, or in many other countries in which we conduct activities or in which our customers or containers are located. However, this belief is based on the anticipated nature and conduct of our business, which may change. It is also based on our understanding of our position under the tax laws of the countries in which we have assets or conduct activities. This position is subject to review and possible challenge by taxing authorities and to possible changes in law that may have retroactive effect.

A portion of our income is treated as effectively connected with our conduct of a trade or business within the U.S., and is accordingly subject to U.S. federal income tax. It is possible that the IRS will concludemay challenge that a greater portion of our income is effectively connected income that should be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

Our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if we become subject to a significant amount of unanticipated tax liabilities.

Our U.S. subsidiaries may be treated as personal holding companies for U.S. federal tax purposes now or in the future.

Any of our direct or indirect U.S. subsidiaries could be subject to additional U.S. tax on a portion of its income if it is considered to be a personal holding company (“PHC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This status depends on whether more than 50% of the subsidiary’s shares by value could be deemed to be owned (taking into account constructive ownership rules) by five or fewer individuals and whether 60% or more of the subsidiary’s adjusted ordinary gross income consists of “personal holding company income,” which includes certain forms of passive and investment income. The PHC rules do not apply to non-U.S. corporations. We believe that none of our U.S. subsidiaries should be considered PHCs. In addition, we intend to cause our U.S. subsidiaries to manage their affairs in a manner that reduces the possibility that they will meet the 60% income threshold. However, because of the lack of complete information regarding our ultimate share ownership (i.e., particularly as determined by constructive ownership rules), our U.S. subsidiaries may become PHCs in the future and, in that event, the amount of U.S. federal income tax that would be imposed could be material.

Changes in tax laws or their application could adversely affect the results of our operations.

Our worldwide operations are taxed under the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate. However, the integrated nature of our worldwide operations can produce conflicting claims from revenue authorities in different countries as to the profits to be taxed in the individual countries, including disputes relating to transfer pricing. Some of the jurisdictions in which we operate have double tax treaties with other foreign jurisdictions, which provide a framework for mitigating the impact of double taxation on our revenues and capital gains. However, mechanisms developed to resolve such conflicting claims are largely uncertain, and can be expected to be very lengthy in coming to a final determination in the applicable jurisdictions.

In recent years, tax authorities around the world have increased their scrutiny of company tax filings, and have become more rigid in exercising any discretion they may have. As part of this, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) has proposed a number of tax law changes under its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) Action Plans to address issues of transparency, coherence and substance.

These OECD tax reform initiatives also need local country implementation, including in the Bermuda and U.S., which may result in significant changes to established tax principles. In response to EU efforts to investigate the tax policies of non-EU jurisdictions, effective December 31, 2018 Bermuda adopted the Economic Substance Act of 2018, which requires that Bermuda registered entities engaged in certain relevant activities (which include finance, leasing and shipping) maintain sufficient economic substance and activities in Bermuda. The failure to comply with the Economic Substance Act may result in fines and penalties and ultimately the striking off of an entity from the Bermuda corporate register. The Economic Substance Act took effect on July 1, 2019 and additional guidance is expected from the Bermuda government about the implementation of, and compliance with, the Act. We may be unable to comply with the Economic Substance Act or compliance with the act may materially adversely impact our operations and results.  Penalties for noncompliance could adversely affect our operations and results.

In addition, in the U.S., President Trumpthe U.S. Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 was signed into law on December 22, 2017, signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “New Tax Act”), which includes substantial changes to the U.S. taxation of individuals and businesses. The New Tax Act also establishes new tax laws that will affect our operations, including, but not limited to, (1) reduction of the U.S. federal corporate tax rate; (2) elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax; (3) the creation of the base erosion anti-abuse tax (“BEAT”), a new minimum tax on taxable income adjusted for certain

base erosion payments; (4) a general elimination of U.S. federal income taxes on dividends from foreign subsidiaries; (5) a new provision designed to currently tax certain global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”) of controlled foreign corporations, which allows for the possibility of using foreign tax credits (“FTCs”) and a deduction of up to 50% to reduce this income tax liability (subject to some limitations); (6) a new limitation on deductible interest expense; (7) limitations on the deductibility of certain executive compensation; (8) limitations on the use of FTCs to reduce the U.S. income tax liability; and (9) limitations on net operating losses generated in the taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, to 80% of taxable income. AlthoughOur financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2019 reflect the effects of the New Tax Law substantially decreased tax rates applicable to corporationsAct based on current guidance. However, there are uncertainties and ambiguities in the U.S., we do not yet know what allapplication of the consequencescertain provisions of this new statute will be, including whether the law will have any unintended consequences. In particular, significant uncertainties remain as to how the U.S. government will implement the New Tax Law, including with respectAct, and as a result we made certain judgments and assumptions in the interpretation thereof. The U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service may issue further guidance on how the provisions of the New Tax Act will be applied or otherwise administered that differs from our current interpretation. In addition, the New Tax Act could be subject to potential amendments and technical corrections, any of which could materially lessen or increase certain adverse impacts of the legislation on us. As we further analyze the impact of the New Tax Act and collect relevant information, we may make adjustments to the tax qualification of interest deductions, the concept of a territorial tax regime, royalty payments and cost of goods sold.provisional amounts.

In general, such tax reform efforts, including with respect to tax base or rate, transfer pricing, intercompany dividends, cross border transactions, controlled corporations, and limitations on tax relief allowed on the interest on intercompany debt, will require us to continually assess our organizational structure against tax policy trends, and could lead to an increased risk of international tax disputes and an increase in our effective tax rate, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

We have significant net operating loss carry-forwards in the United States. As of December 31, 2019, we had net operating loss carry-forwards relating to U.S. federal income taxes; $108,014 which will begin to expire from December 31, 2020 through December 31, 2037 if not utilized and $20,351 has no expiration date.  

In the United States, utilization of these net operating loss carry-forwards for federal income tax purposes may be subject to an annual limitation if there is an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 382”). In general, an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 occurs if a transaction or series of transactions over a three-year period result in a cumulative change of more than 50% in the beneficial ownership of a company’s stock. We do not believe we have a limitation on the ability to utilize our net operating loss carry-forwards under Section 382 as of December 31, 2019. However, issuances, sales and/or exchanges of our stock (including, potentially, relatively small transactions and transactions beyond our control) occurring after December 31, 2019, taken together with prior transactions with respect to our stock over a three-year period, could trigger an ownership change under Section 382 in the future and therefore a limitation on our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards. Any such limitation could cause some loss carryforwards to expire before we would be able to utilize them to reduce taxable income in future periods, possibly resulting in a substantial income tax expense or write down of our tax assets or both.  Furthermore, net operating losses generated subsequent to December 31, 2017 are subject to the New Tax Act, which removes net operating loss expirations, but limits utilization against 80% of taxable income.  

The calculation of our income tax expense requires judgment and the use of estimates.

We periodically assess tax positions based on current tax developments, including enacted statutory, judicial and regulatory guidance. In analyzing our overall tax position, consideration is given to the amount and timing of recognizing income tax liabilities and benefits. In applying the tax and accounting guidance to the facts and circumstances, income tax balances are adjusted appropriately through the income tax provision. We account for income tax positions on uncertainties by recognizing the effect of income tax positions only if those positions are

more likely than not of being sustained and maintain reserves for income tax positions we believe are not more likely than not of being sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured at the largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being realized. However, due to the judgment required in estimating those reserves, actual amounts paid, if any, could differ from these estimates.

The U.S. government has special contracting requirements that create additional risks.

We have a firm, fixed price, indefinite quantity contract withIn January 2019, we were informed that the U.S. Transportation Command Directorate of Acquisition (“USTranscom”) had issued a multi-vendor contract that included us as one of the vendors selected to supply leased marine containers and intermodal equipment to the U.S. military.Military. As an indefinite quantitya multi-vendor contract, there is no guarantee that the U.S. militaryMilitary will pay more than the minimum guarantee, which guaranteed amount is substantially below the total amount authorized under the contract.accept our bids to supply containers and related services.  Thus, the expected revenues from the USTranscom contract are difficult to predict and may not fully materialize.materialize or prove profitable. If we do not perform in accordance with the terms of the USTranscom contract, we may receive a poor performance report that would be considered by the U.S. militaryMilitary in making any future awards. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be awarded any future government contracts.

In contracting with the U.S. military,Military, we are subject to U.S. government contract laws, regulations and other requirements that impose risks not generally found in commercial contracts. For example, U.S. government contracts require contractors to comply with a number of socio-economic requirements and to submit periodic reports regarding compliance, are subject to audit and modification by the U.S. government in its sole discretion, and impose certain requirements relating to software and/or technical data that, if not followed, could result in the inadvertent grant to the U.S. government of broader licenses to use and disclose such software or data than intended.

These laws, regulations and contract provisions also permit, under certain circumstances, the U.S. government unilaterally to:

In addition, the U.S. militaryMilitary may terminate the USTranscom contract either for its convenience at any time or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with the contract schedule and terms. Termination for convenience provisions generally enable the contractor to recover only those costs incurred or committed, and settlement expenses and profit on the work completed prior to termination. Termination for default provisions do not permit these recoveries and make the contractor liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. militaryMilitary in procuring undelivered items from another source.

In addition, the U.S. government could bring criminal and civil charges against us based on intentional or unintentional violations of the representations and certifications that we have made in the USTranscom contract. Although adjustments arising from U.S. government audits and reviews have not seriously harmed our business in the past, future audits and reviews could cause adverse effects. We could also suffer serious harm to our reputation if allegations of impropriety were to be made against us.

We may choose to pursue acquisitions or joint ventures that could present unforeseen integration obstacles or costs and we face risks from our two joint ventures.venture.

We may pursue acquisitions and joint ventures. Acquisitions involve a number of risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges, including:

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen obstacles or costs in the integration of acquired businesses. Also, the presence of one or more material liabilities of an acquired company that are unknown to us at the time of acquisition may have a material adverse effect on our business. Acquisitions or joint ventures may not be successful, and we may not realize any anticipated benefits from acquisitions or joint ventures.

On August 5, 2011, a joint venture, TW Container Leasing, Ltd (“TW”), was formed between our wholly-owned subsidiary,December 20, 2012, Textainer Limited (“TL”), and Wells Fargo Container Corp (“WFC”), aour wholly-owned subsidiary, of Wells Fargo and Company. The purpose of TW is to lease containers to lessees under direct financing leases. TW is governed by members, credit and management agreements. Under the members agreement, TL owns 25% and WFC owns 75% of the common shares and related voting rights of TW. TL also has two seats and WFC has six seats on TW’s board of directors, with each seat having equal voting rights, provided, however, that the approval of at least one TL-appointed director is required for any action of the board of directors. As we do not own the majority of TW, we face risks associated with investing in an entity that we do not control and it is possible that the interests of the controlling stockholder could be different from our interests. Conflicts between us and the controlling stockholder of TW could result in litigation, an inability to operate TW, lost business opportunities for TW and us, and other problems that might have a material adverse impact on us as a whole.

On December 20, 2012, TL purchased 50.1% of the outstanding common shares of TAP Funding Ltd. (“TAP Funding”). TAP Funding owns a fleet of containers under our management. TAP Funding is governed by members and management agreements. TL has two voting rights and TAP Ltd. (“TAP”), the 49.9% shareholder, has one voting right in TAP Funding, with the exception of certain matters such as bankruptcy proceedings, the incurrence of debt and mergers and consolidations, which require unanimity. TL also has two seats and TAP has one seat on TAP Funding’s board of directors. While we own the majority of TAP Funding, we face risks associated with TAP Funding’s structure that requires both shareholders to agree on certain significant matters such as debt financing, mergers and liquidation. It is possible that the interests of the other shareholder could be different from our interests.  Conflicts between us and the other shareholder of TAP Funding could result in litigation, an inability to finance and operate TAP Funding, and other problems that might have a material adverse impact on us as a whole.

Our senior executives are critical to the success of our business and any inability to retain them or recruit and successfully integrate new personnel could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our senior management has a longsolid history in the container leasing industry, with an average of 14 years of service with us.industry. We rely on this knowledge and experience in our strategic planning and in our day-to-day business operations. Our success depends in large part upon our ability to retain our senior management, the loss of one or more of whom could have a material adverse effect on our business.

In August 2018, our current President and CEO, Olivier Ghesquiere, assumed this position upon the retirement of Philip Brewer, our former President and CEO.   In October 2018, our Executive Vice President and CFO, Michael Chan, assumed this position upon the departure of our former Executive Vice President and CFO, Hilliard Terry.  We face risks from the changes in senior management and our performance will depend on the success of our management transition and the integration of these personnel into their new roles with the Company.

Our success also depends on our ability to retain our experienced sales force and technical personnel as well as recruit new skilled sales, marketing and technical personnel. Competition for these individuals in our industry is intense and we may not be able to successfully recruit, train or retain qualified personnel. If we fail to retain and recruit the necessary personnel, our business and our ability to obtain new container lessees and provide acceptable levels of customer service could suffer. We have “at will” employment agreements with all of our executive officers.

The lack of an international title registry for containers increases the risk of ownership disputes.

Although the Bureau International des Containers registers and allocates a four letter prefix to every container in accordance with ISO standard 6346 (Freight container coding, identification and marking) to identify the owner/operator and each container has a unique prefix and serial number, there is no internationally recognized system of recordation or filing to evidence our title to containers nor is there an internationally recognized system for filing security interests in containers. Although this has not occurred to date, the lack of a title recordation system with respect to containers could result in disputes with lessees, end-users, or third parties who may improperly claim ownership of containers.

We may incur costs associated with new cargo security regulations, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject to regulations promulgated in various countries, including the U.S., seeking to protect the integrity of international commerce and prevent the use of containers for international terrorism or other illicit

activities. For example, the Container Security Initiative, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and Operation Safe Commerce are among the programs administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that are designed to enhance security for cargo moving throughout the international transportation system by identifying existing vulnerabilities in the supply chain and developing improved methods for ensuring the security of containerized cargo entering and leaving the U.S. Moreover, the International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972, as amended, adopted by the International Maritime Organization, applies to containers and seeks to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of containers by providing uniform international safety regulations. As these regulations develop and change, we may incur compliance costs due to the acquisition of new, compliant containers and/or the adaptation of existing containers to meet new requirements imposed by such regulations. Additionally, certain companies are currently developing or may in the future develop products designed to enhance the security of containers transported in international commerce. Regardless of the existence of current or future government regulations mandating the safety standards of intermodal shipping containers, our competitors may adopt such products or our container lessees may require that we adopt such products. In responding to such market pressures, we may incur increased costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Environmental liability and regulations may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the discharge of pollutants to air, ground and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We could incur substantial costs, including cleanup costs, fines and costs arising out of third-party claims for property or natural resource damage and personal injury, as a result of violations of or liabilities under or compliance with environmental laws and regulations in connection with our or our lessees’ current or historical operations. Under some environmental laws in the U.S. and certain other countries, the owner or operator of a container may be liable for environmental damage, cleanup or other costs in the event of a spill or discharge of material from the container without regard to the fault of the owner or operator. While we typically maintain certain limited liability insurance and typically require lessees to provide us with indemnity against certain losses, the insurance coverage may not be sufficient to protect against any or all liabilities and such indemnities may not be sufficient, or available, to protect us against losses arising from environmental damage. Moreover, our lessees may not have adequate resources, or may refuse to honor their indemnity obligations and our insurance coverage is subject to large deductibles, coverage limits and significant exclusions.

Environmental regulations also impact container production and operation, including regulations on the use of chemical refrigerants due to their ozone depleting and global warming effects. Our refrigerated containers currently use R134A refrigerant. While R134A does not contain chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”), the European Union (“EU”) has instituted regulations to phase out the use of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems beginningwhich began in 2011 due to concern that the release of R134A into the atmosphere may contribute to global warming. While the European Union regulations do not currently restrict the use of R134A in refrigerated containers or trailers, it is possible that the phase out of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems will be extended to containers in the future and our operations could be impacted. It has been proposed that R134A usage in containers be banned beginning in 2025, although the final decision has not been made as of yet.

Container production also raises environmental concerns. The floors of dry freight containers are plywood typically made from tropical hardwoods. Due to concerns regarding de-forestation and climate change, many countries have implemented severe restrictions on the cutting and export of this wood. Accordingly, container manufacturers have switched a significant portion of production to alternatives such as birch, bamboo, and other farm grown wood and users are also evaluating alternative designs that would limit the amount of plywood required and are also considering possible synthetic materials. New woods or other alternatives have not proven their durability over the typical life of a dry freight container, and if they cannot perform as well as the hardwoods have historically, the future repair and operating costs for these containers may be impacted. Also, theThe insulation foam in the walls of certain refrigerated containers requires the use of a blowing agent that contains CFCs. Manufacturers are phasing out the use of this blowing agent in manufacturing, however, if future regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers with insulation manufactured with this blowing agent we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses and these containers might bring lower rental rates and disposal prices. EU regulations currently restrict the sale or use of

refrigerated containers manufactured with the CFC containing blowing agent and strict enforcement of these regulations could impact our ability to lease or sell these refrigerated containers in EU countries. The container industry in China has always used solvent-based paint systems. New regulationsRegulations in China for the container industry requirerequired stopping the use of solvent-based paint systems in 2017, due to the restrictions on volatile organic compounds used in solvent-based paints. To comply with the new regulations, new water borne paint systems have beenwere developed and are being used by container manufacturers. This change was already implemented in all factories in Southern China as of July 2016. The remaining container factories in China have been required to use water borne paint systems since April 1, 2017. The use of water borne paint systems has required significant factory investment and it is problematic to apply water borne paint during the winter in colder parts of China. The conversion to water borne paint may impactimpacts factory capacity, increase the cost of containers and require greater investment by us in container inspection and factory supervision. The industry does not have significant years of experience with water borne paint and the long term durability of water borne paint may not be the same as solvent based paint which could impact the useful life and resale value of containers with water borne paint.