Edgar Filing: TOP SHIPS INC.

d1371555_20-f.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

[ ]	REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

[X]	ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012

[ ]	TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from _________________ to _________________

[ ]	SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

Date of event requiring this shell company report _________________

Commission file number 000-50859

TOP SHIPS INC.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(Translation of Registrant's name into English)

Republic of the Marshall Islands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

1 Vas. Sofias and Meg. Alexandrou Str, 15124 Maroussi, Greece

(Address of principal executive offices)

Alexandros Tsirikos, (Tel) +30 210 812 8180, atsirikos@topships.org, (Fax) +30 210 614 1273, 1 Vas.

Sofias and Meg. Alexandrou Str, 15124 Maroussi, Greece

(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.

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock par value $0.01 per share		Nasdaq Global Select Market

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.

As of December 31, 2012, 17,147,534 shares of Common Stock, par value $0.01 per share, were outstanding.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.

Yes			No	X

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	X

Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

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	X		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 (Sec.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	X		No

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

Large accelerated filer [_]	Accelerated filer [_]
Non-accelerated filer [X]

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

X	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	X

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I

ITEM 1.	IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS	1

ITEM 2.	OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE	1

ITEM 3.	KEY INFORMATION	1

ITEM 4.	INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY	22

ITEM 4A.	UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS	33

ITEM 5.	OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS	33

ITEM 6.	DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES	61

ITEM 7.	MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS	64

ITEM 8.	FINANCIAL INFORMATION.	67

ITEM 9.	THE OFFER AND LISTING.	68

ITEM 10.	ADDITIONAL INFORMATION	69

ITEM 11.	QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK	78

ITEM 12.	DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES	80

PART II

ITEM 13.	DEFAULTS, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES	80

ITEM 14.	MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OF PROCEEDS	80

ITEM 15.	CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES	80

ITEM 16A.	AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT	82

ITEM 16B.	CODE OF ETHICS	82

ITEM 16C.	PRINCIPAL AUDITOR FEES AND SERVICES	82

ITEM 16D.	EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LISTING STANDARDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES	82

ITEM 16E.	PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS	83

ITEM 16F.	CHANGE IN REGISTRANT'S CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT	83

ITEM 16G.	CORPORATE GOVERNANCE	83

ITEM 16H.	MINE SAFETY DISCLOSURE	83

PART III

ITEM 17.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	84

ITEM 18.	FINANCIAL STATEMENTS	84

ITEM 19.	EXHIBITS	84

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Matters discussed in this report may constitute forward-looking statements. The Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 provides safe harbor protections for forward-looking statements in order to encourage companies to provide prospective information about their business. Forward-looking statements include statements concerning plans, objectives, goals, strategies, future events or performance, and underlying assumptions and other statements, which are other than statements of historical facts.

Top Ships Inc. desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation. This report and any other written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. When used in this report, the words "anticipate," "believe," "expect," "intend," "estimate," "forecast," "project," "plan," "potential," "may," "should," and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.

The forward-looking statements in this report are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions, including without limitation, management's examination of historical operating trends, data contained in our records and other data available from third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were reasonable when made, because these assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs or projections.

In addition to these assumptions and matters discussed elsewhere herein and in the documents incorporated by reference herein, important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include the strength of world economies and currencies, general market conditions, including fluctuations in charterhire rates and vessel values, changes in demand in the shipping market, including the effect of changes in OPEC's petroleum production levels and worldwide oil consumption and storage, changes in regulatory requirements affecting vessel operating including requirements for double hull tankers, changes in our operating expenses, including bunker prices, dry-docking and insurance costs, changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities, changes in the price of our capital investments, potential liability from pending or future litigation, general domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents, political events or acts by terrorists, and other important factors described from time to time in the reports filed by us with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC.

PART I

ITEM 1. IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not Applicable.

ITEM 2. OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not Applicable.

ITEM 3. KEY INFORMATION

Unless the context otherwise requires, as used in this report, the terms "Company," "we," "us," and "our" refer to Top Ships Inc. and all of its subsidiaries, and "Top Ships Inc." refer only to Top Ships Inc. and not to its subsidiaries. We use the term deadweight ton or dwt, in describing the size of vessels. Dwt, expressed in metric tons each of which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, refers to the maximum weight of cargo and supplies that a vessel can carry. Throughout this annual report, the conversion from Euros to U.S. dollars is based on the U.S. dollar/Euro exchange rate of 1.3197 as of December 31, 2012, unless otherwise specified.

A. Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth our selected historical consolidated financial data and other operating data for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012. The following information should be read in conjunction with "Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects" and the consolidated financial statements and related notes included herein. The following selected historical consolidated financial data is derived from our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or GAAP, and have been audited by Deloitte, Hadjipavlou, Sofianos & Cambanis S.A., or Deloitte, an independent registered public accounting firm.

As of December 31, 2012, we declassified the M/V Evian as held for sale and reclassified it as held for use and determined not to discontinue our drybulk operations. Since tankers and dry bulk carriers have similar economic characteristics, we determined that in 2012 our vessels operated under one segment. Hence the revenues and expenses for all drybulk vessels have been reclassified to continuing operations for all years presented in the consolidated financial statements.

	Year Ended December 31,
U.S. Dollars in thousands, except per share data	2008			2009			2010			2011			2012
STATEMENT OF COMPREHENSIVE INCOME/ (LOSS)
Revenues		257,380			107,979			90,875			79,723			31,428
Other Income		-			-			-			872			-

Voyage expenses		38,656			3,372			2,468			7,743			1,023
Charter hire expense		53,684			10,827			480			2,380			-
Amortization of deferred gain on sale and leaseback of vessels and write-off of seller's credit		(18,707	)		(7,799	)		-			-			-
Lease termination expense		-			15,391			-			5,750			-
Vessel operating expenses		67,114			23,739			12,853			10,368			814
Dry-docking costs		10,036			4,602			4,103			1,327			-
Management fees-third parties		1,159			419			159			439			-
Management fees-related parties		-			-			3,131			5,730			2,345
General and administrative expenses		30,229			23,416			18,142			15,364			7,078
(Loss)/Gain on sale of vessels		(19,178	)		-			(5,101	)		62,543			-
Vessel Depreciation		32,664			31,585			32,376			25,327			11,458
Impairment on vessels		-			36,638			-			114,674			61,484

Operating income (loss)		61,723			(34,211	)		22,264			(171,050	)		(52,774	)

Interest and finance costs		(25,764	)		(13,969	)		(14,776	)		(16,283	)		(9,345	)
Loss on financial instruments		(12,024	)		(2,081	)		(5,057	)		(1,793	)		(447	)
Interest income		1,831			235			136			95			175
Other (expense) income, net		(127	)		(170	)		(54	)		(81	)		(1,593	)

Net (loss) income		25,639			(50,196	)		2,513			(189,112	)		(63,984	)
Other Comprehensive income / (loss)		20			64			(51	)		-			-
Comprehensive income / (loss)		25,659			(50,132	)		2,462			(189,112	)		(63,984	)
(Loss) earnings per share, basic and diluted	$	10.08		$	(17.78	)	$	0.82		$	(29.99	)	$	(3.77	)
Weighted average common shares outstanding, basic		2,544,503			2,823,059			3,075,278			6,304,679			16,989,585
Weighted average common shares outstanding, diluted		2,544,503			2,823,059			3,077,741			6,304,679			16,989,585

	Year Ended December 31,
U.S. dollars in thousands, except fleet data and average daily results	2008			2009			2010			2011			2012
BALANCE SHEET DATA
Current assets		57,088			3,787			3,420			14,866			26,735
Total assets		698,375			675,149			622,091			296,373			211,415
Current liabilities, including current portion of long-term debt		386,934			427,953			366,609			219,690			193,630
Total debt		342,479			399,087			337,377			193,749			172,619
Common Stock		283			311			322			171			172
Stockholders' equity		292,051			247,196			255,482			76,684			13,079

FLEET DATA
Total number of vessels at end of period		12.0			13.0			13.0			7.0			7.0
Average number of vessels(1)		18.8			13.7			13.1			11.7			7.0
Total calendar days for fleet(2)		6,875			5,008			4,781			4,281			2,562
Total available days for fleet(3)		6,610			4,813			4,686			4,218			2,546
Total operating days for fleet(4)		6,099			4,775			4,676			4,180			2,544
Total time charter days for fleet		4,729			2,841			2,076			1,109			124
Total bareboat charter days for fleet		335			1,934			2,555			2,551			2,420
Total spot market days for fleet		1,035			-			45			520			0
Fleet utilization(5)		92.30	%		99.20	%		99.80	%		99,1	%		99,92	%

AVERAGE DAILY RESULTS
Time charter equivalent(6)	$	35,862		$	21,907		$	18,907		$	17,220		$	11,951
Vessel operating expenses(7)	$	9,762		$	4,740		$	2,688		$	2,422		$	318
General and administrative expenses(8)	$	4,397		$	4,676		$	3,795		$	3,589		$	2,763

(1)	Average number of vessels is the number of vessels that constituted our fleet (including leased vessels) for the relevant period, as measured by the sum of the number of days each vessel was a part of our fleet during the period divided by the number of calendar days in that period.

(2)	Calendar days are the total days the vessels were in our possession for the relevant period. Calendar days are an indicator of the size of our fleet over the relevant period and affect both the amount of revenues and expenses that we record during that period.

(3)

Available days are the number of calendar days less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to scheduled repairs or scheduled guarantee inspections in the case of newbuildings, vessel upgrades or special or intermediate surveys and the aggregate amount of time that we spend positioning our vessels. Companies in the shipping industry generally use available days to measure the number of days in a period during which vessels should be capable of generating revenues. We determined to use available days as a performance metric, for the first time, in the second quarter and first half of 2009. We have adjusted the calculation method of utilization to include available days in order to be comparable with shipping companies that calculate utilization using operating days divided by available days.

(4)	Operating days are the number of available days in a period less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to unforeseen circumstances. The shipping industry uses operating days to measure the aggregate number of days in a period that our vessels actually generate revenue.

(5)

Fleet utilization is calculated by dividing the number of operating days during a period by the number of available days during that period. The shipping industry uses fleet utilization to measure a company's efficiency in finding suitable employment for its vessels and minimizing the number of days that its vessels are off-hire for reasons other than scheduled repairs or scheduled guarantee inspections in the case of newbuildings, vessel upgrades, special or intermediate surveys and vessel positioning. We used a new calculation method for fleet utilization, for the first time, in the second quarter and first half of 2009. In all prior filings and reports, utilization was calculated by dividing operating days by calendar days. We have adjusted the calculation method in order to be comparable with most shipping companies, which calculate utilization using operating days divided by available days.

(6)

Time charter equivalent rate, or TCE rate, is a measure of the average daily revenue performance of a vessel on a per voyage basis. Our method of calculating TCE rate is consistent with industry standards and is determined by dividing time charter equivalent revenues or TCE revenues by operating days for the relevant time period. TCE revenues are revenues minus voyage expenses. Voyage expenses primarily consist of port, canal and fuel costs that are unique to a particular voyage, which would otherwise be paid by the charterer under a time charter contract, as well as commissions. TCE revenues and TCE rate, which are non-GAAP measures, provide additional meaningful information in conjunction with shipping revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, because it assists our management in making decisions regarding the deployment and use of our vessels and in evaluating their financial performance. The table below reflects the reconciliation of TCE revenues to revenues as reflected in the consolidated statements of operations and our calculation of TCE rates for the periods presented.

(7)	Daily vessel operating expenses, which include crew costs, provisions, deck and engine stores, lubricating oil, insurance, maintenance and repairs are calculated by dividing vessel operating expenses by fleet calendar days for the relevant time period.

(8)	Daily general and administrative expenses are calculated by dividing general and administrative expenses by fleet calendar days for the relevant time period.

The following table reflects reconciliation of TCE revenues to revenues as reflected in the consolidated statements of operations and calculation of the TCE rate (all amounts are expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except for total operating days and average daily time charter equivalent amounts).

U.S. dollars in thousands, except for total operating days and average daily time charter equivalent	2008			2009			2010			2011			2012
On a consolidated basis
Revenues	$	257,380		$	107,979		$	90,875		$	79,723		$	31,428
Less:
Voyage expenses		(38,656	)		(3,372	)		(2,468	)		(7,743	)		(1,023	)

Time charter equivalent revenues	$	218,724		$	104,607		$	88,407		$	71,980		$	30,405

Total operating days		6,099			4,775			4,676			4,180			2,544
Average Daily Time Charter Equivalent (TCE)	$	35,862		$	21,907		$	18,907		$	17,220		$	11,951

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not Applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not Applicable.

D. Risk Factors

The following risks relate principally to the industries in which we operate and our business in general. Any of these risk factors could materially and adversely affect our business, financial condition or operating results and the trading price of our common stock.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR INDUSTRY

The international tanker and drybulk shipping industries have experienced drastic downturns after experiencing historically high charter rates and vessel values in early 2008, and a continued downturn in these markets may have an adverse effect on our earnings, impair the carrying value of our vessels and affect compliance with our loan covenants.

The Baltic Drybulk Index, or BDI, is a U.S. dollar daily average of charter rates that takes into account input from brokers around the world regarding fixtures for various routes, dry cargoes and various drybulk vessel sizes and is issued by the London-based Baltic Exchange (an organization providing maritime market information for the trading and settlement of physical and derivative contracts). The BDI declined 94% in 2008 from a peak of 11,793 in May 2008 to a low of 663 in December 2008 and has remained volatile since then. The BDI recorded a 25-year record low of 647 in 2012. The decline in charter rates was due to various factors, including the lack of trade financing for purchases of commodities carried by sea, which resulted in a significant decline in cargo shipments, and the excess supply of iron ore in China, which resulted in falling iron ore prices and increased stockpiles in Chinese ports and vessel oversupply. The decline in charter rates in the drybulk market affected the earnings, the value and, following periodic impairment reviews, the carrying value of our drybulk vessels. As a result, this decline negatively affected asset values, cash flows and liquidity and hence compliance with the covenants contained in our loan agreements. While the BDI has since increased to 885 as of April 18, 2013, there can be no assurance that the drybulk charter market will increase further, and the market could decline.

The Baltic Dirty Tanker Index, a U.S. dollar daily average of charter rates issued by the Baltic Exchange that takes into account input from brokers around the world regarding crude oil fixtures for various routes and tanker vessel sizes, declined from a high of 2,347 in July 2008 to a low of 453 in mid-April 2009, which represents a decline of 80%. The index rose to 1,216 on January 15, 2010, but has since dropped again to 632 as of April 18, 2012. The Baltic Clean Tanker Index fell from 1,509 points as of June 19, 2008, to 345 points as of April 4, 2009. The index rose to 908 as of December 23, 2011, but has since dropped again to 623 as of April 18, 2012. The dramatic decline in charter rates was due to various factors, including the significant fall in demand for crude oil and petroleum products, the consequent rising inventories of crude oil and petroleum products in the United States and in other industrialized nations and the corresponding reduction in oil refining, the dramatic fall in the price of oil in 2008, and the restrictions on crude oil production that OPEC and other non-OPEC oil producing countries have imposed in an effort to stabilize the price of oil. During 2009 and 2010, the above-mentioned factors affecting the Baltic Dirty and Clean Tanker Indices partially subsided, allowing for the modest recovery of rates and a stabilization of tanker vessel values; however, tanker vessel oversupply has suppressed any increase in rates or values due to increases in crude oil or oil product demand.

A further decline in charter rates could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. If the charter rates in the tanker and drybulk market decline from their current levels, our future earnings may be adversely affected, we may have to record impairment adjustments to the carrying values of our fleet and we may not be able to comply with the financial covenants in our loan agreements.

The international tanker and drybulk industries are both cyclical and volatile and this may lead to reductions and volatility in our charter rates when we re-charter our vessels, our vessel values and our results of operations.

The international tanker and drybulk industries in which we operate are cyclical with attendant volatility in charter hire rates, vessel values and industry profitability. For both tankers and drybulk vessels, the degree of charter rate volatility among different types of vessels has varied widely. If we enter into a charter when charter rates are low, our revenues and earnings will be adversely affected. In addition, a decline in charter hire rates likely will cause the value of our vessels to decline.

We currently employ our tankers and drybulk carrier on long-term bareboat charters. As a result, we are not exposed to charter rate volatility.

Changes in spot rates and time charters can not only affect the revenues we receive from operations, but can also affect the value of our vessels, even if they are employed under long-term time charters. Our ability to re-charter our vessels on the expiration or termination of their current time and bareboat charters and the charter rates payable under any renewal or replacement charters will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the tanker and drybulk market.

Fluctuations in charter rates and vessel values result from changes in the supply and demand for vessels. Factors affecting the supply and demand for our vessels are outside of our control and are unpredictable. The nature, timing, direction and degree of changes in tanker and drybulk industry conditions are also unpredictable. Factors that influence demand for tanker and drybulk vessel capacity include:

●

supply and demand for (i) refined petroleum products and crude oil for tankers and (ii) drybulk commodities for drybulk vessels;

●

changes in (i) crude oil production and refining capacity and (ii) drybulk commodity production and resulting shifts in trade flows for crude oil and petroleum products and trade flows of drybulk commodities;

●

the location of regional and global crude oil refining facilities and drybulk commodities markets that affect the distance commodities are to be moved by sea;

●

global and regional economic and political conditions, including developments in international trade, fluctuations in industrial and agricultural production, and armed conflicts, terrorist activities and strikes;

●

environmental and other legal and regulatory developments;

●

currency exchange rates;

●

weather, natural disasters and other acts of God, including hurricanes and typhoons;

●

competition from alternative sources of energy and for other shipping companies and other modes of transportation; and

●

international sanctions, embargoes, import and export restrictions, nationalizations, piracy and wars.

The factors that influence the supply of ocean-going vessel capacity include:

●

the number of newbuilding deliveries;

●

current and expected purchase orders for vessels;

●

the scrapping rate of older vessels;

●

vessel freight rates;

●

the price of steel and vessel equipment;

●

technological advances in the design and capacity of vessels;

●

potential conversion of vessels to alternative use;

●

changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful lives of vessels;

●

port or canal congestion;

●

the number of vessels that are out of service at a given time; and

●

changes in global crude oil and drybulk commodity production.

The instability of the euro or the inability of countries to refinance their debts could have a material adverse effect on our revenue, profitability and financial position.

As a result of the credit crisis in Europe, in particular in Greece, Cyprus, Italy, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, the European Commission created the European Financial Stability Facility, or the EFSF, and the European Financial Stability Mechanism, or the EFSM, to provide funding to Eurozone countries in financial difficulties that seek such support. In March 2011, the European Council agreed on the need for Eurozone countries to establish a permanent stability mechanism, the European Stability Mechanism, or the ESM, which was established on September 27, 2012 to assume the role of the EFSF and the EFSM in providing external financial assistance to Eurozone countries. Despite these measures, concerns persist regarding the debt burden of certain Eurozone countries and their ability to meet future financial obligations and the overall stability of the euro. An extended period of adverse development in the outlook for European countries could reduce the overall demand for oil and for drybulk cargoes and consequently for our services. These potential developments, or market perceptions concerning these and related issues, could affect our financial position, results of operations and cash flow.

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

Negative trends in the global economy that emerged in 2008 continue to adversely affect global economic conditions. In addition, the world economy continues to face a number of new challenges, including uncertainty related to continuing discussions in the United States regarding the federal debt ceiling and recent turmoil and hostilities in the Middle East, North Africa and other geographic areas and countries and continuing economic weakness in the European Union. The deterioration in the global economy has caused, and may continue to cause, a decrease in worldwide demand for certain goods and, thus, shipping. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions will last. However, recent and developing economic and governmental factors, together with the concurrent decline in charter rates and vessel values, have had a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, have caused the price of our common shares to decline and could cause the price of our common shares to decline further.

The economies of the United States, the European Union and other parts of the world continue to experience relatively slow growth or remain in recession and exhibit weak economic trends. The credit markets in the United States and Europe have experienced significant contraction, deleveraging and reduced liquidity, and the U.S. federal government and state governments and European authorities continue to implement a broad variety of governmental action and/or new regulation of the financial markets. Global financial markets and economic conditions have been, and continue to be, severely disrupted and volatile. Since 2008, lending by financial institutions worldwide has remained at very low levels compared to the period proceeding 2008.

Continued economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region, especially in Japan and China, may exacerbate the effect on us of the recent slowdown in the rest of the world. As a result, continued economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region, especially in Japan and China, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects. Before the global economic financial crisis that began in 2008, China had one of the world's fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP, which had a significant impact on shipping demand. The growth rate of China's GDP decreased to approximately 7.8% for the year ended December 31, 2012, as compared to approximately 9.2% for the year ended December 31, 2011, and continues to remain below pre-2008 levels. China has imposed measures to restrain lending, which may further contribute to a slowdown in its economic growth. China and other countries in the Asia Pacific region may continue to experience slowed or even negative economic growth in the future. Moreover, the current economic slowdown in the economies of the United States, the European Union and other Asian countries may further adversely affect economic growth in China and elsewhere. Our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospectus, would likely be impeded by a continuing or worsening economic downturn in any of these countries.

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

The current state of the global financial markets and current economic conditions may adversely impact our ability to obtain financing on acceptable terms and otherwise negatively impact our business.

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

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

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

●

we may not be able to employ our vessels at charter rates as favorable to us as historical rates or at all or operate our vessels profitably; and

●

the market value of our vessels could decrease, which may cause us to recognize losses if any of our vessels are sold or if their values are impaired.

The occurrence of any of the foregoing could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental regulations that can adversely affect the cost, manner or feasibility of doing business.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. These regulations include, but are not limited to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, generally referred to as CLC, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or Bunker Convention, the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS, the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code, the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, the U.S. Clean Water Act, the U.S. Clean Air Act, the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or the MTSA, and European Union regulations. Compliance with such laws, regulations and standards, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. We may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including, but not limited to, costs relating to air emissions, the management of ballast waters, maintenance and inspection, development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. A failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations.

Environmental laws often impose strict liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances, which could subject us to liability without regard to whether we were negligent or at fault. Under OPA, for example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. Furthermore, the 2010 explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or other events, may result in further regulation of the shipping industry, and modifications to statutory liability schemes, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. An oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines, penalties and criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although insurance covers certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends, if any, in the future.

We are subject to international safety regulations and requirements imposed by classification societies and the failure to comply with these regulations may subject us to increased liability, may adversely affect our insurance coverage and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the United Nations' International Maritime Organization's International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code. The ISM Code requires ship owners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Currently, all of our vessels are ISM Code-certified and we expect that any vessels that we acquire in the future will be ISM Code-certified when delivered to us. The failure of a shipowner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject it to increased liability, may invalidate existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports, including United States and European Union ports.

In addition, the hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. If a vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, the vessel will be unable to trade between ports and will be unemployable, which will negatively impact our revenues and results from operations.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and markets.

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

Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about the environmental impact of climate change, may also adversely affect demand for our services. For example, increased regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil and gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have a significant financial and operational adverse impact on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Our vessels may suffer damage due to the inherent operational risks of the seaborne transportation industry and we may experience unexpected dry-docking costs, which may adversely affect our business and financial condition.

The operation of an ocean-going vessel carries inherent risks. Our vessels and their cargoes will be at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as marine disasters, bad weather and other acts of God, business interruptions caused by mechanical failures, grounding, fire, explosions and collisions, human error, war, terrorism, piracy and other circumstances or events. These hazards may result in death or injury to persons, loss of revenues or property, the payment of ransoms, environmental damage, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships or delay or re-routing, which may also subject us to litigation. If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a dry-docking facility. The costs of dry-dock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay dry-docking costs that our insurance does not cover in full. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, would decrease our earnings. In addition, space at dry-docking facilities is sometimes limited and not all dry-docking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable dry-docking facility or our vessels may be forced to travel to a dry-docking facility that is not conveniently located to our vessels' positions. The loss of earnings while these vessels are forced to wait for space or to steam to more distant dry-docking facilities would decrease our earnings.

In the case of bareboat chartered vessels drydocking risks, expenses and loss of hire or freight revenue affect the bareboat charterer and not the shipowner, for the duration of the bareboat charter.

The market value of our vessels, and those we may acquire in the future, may fluctuate significantly, which could cause us to incur losses if we decide to sell them following a decline in their market values or we may be required to write down their carrying value, which will adversely affect our earnings.

The fair market value of our vessels may increase and decrease depending on the following factors:

●

general economic and market conditions affecting the international tanker and drybulk shipping industries;

●

prevailing level of charter rates;

●

competition from other shipping companies;

●

types, sizes and ages of vessels;

●

other modes of transportation;

●

supply and demand for vessels;

●

cost of newbuildings;

●

price of steel;

●

governmental or other regulations; and

●

technological advances.

If we sell any vessel at a time when vessel prices have fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel's carrying amount in our financial statements, in which case we will realize a loss. Vessel prices can fluctuate significantly, and in the case where the market value falls below the carrying amount we evaluate the asset for a potential impairment adjustment and may be required to write down the carrying amount of the vessel in our financial statements and incur a loss and a reduction in earnings, if the estimate of undiscounted cash flows, excluding interest charges, expected to be generated by the use of the asset is less than its carrying amount. See "Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Critical Accounting Policies—Impairment of Vessels."

Increasing self-sufficiency in energy by the United States could lead to a decrease in imports of oil to that country, which to date has been one of the largest importers of oil worldwide.

The United States is expected to overtake Saudi Arabia as the world's top oil producer by 2017, according to an annual long-term report by the International Energy Agency ("IEA"). The steep rise in shale oil and gas production is expected to push the country toward self-sufficiency in energy. According to the IEA report a continued fall in U.S. oil imports is expected with North America becoming a net oil exporter by around 2030. In recent years, the share of total U.S. consumption met by total liquid fuel net imports, including both crude oil and products, has been decreasing since peaking at over 60% in 2005 and is expected to fall to around 39% in 2013 as a result of lower consumption and the substantial increase in domestic crude oil production. A slowdown in oil imports to the United States, one of the most important oil trading nations worldwide, may result in decreased demand for our vessels and lower charter rates, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions.

A number of third party owners have ordered so-called "eco type" vessel designs, which offer substantial bunkers savings as compared to older designs. Increased demand for and supply of eco-type vessels could reduce demand for our tankers and expose us to lower vessel utilization and/or decreased charter rates and vessel values.

The product tanker newbuilding order book as of December 2012 is estimated at 215 vessels or 11.6% of the current product tanker fleet, according to industry sources. The majority of these orders are based on new vessel designs, which purport to offer between 15-30% in bunker savings compared to older designs, which include our vessels. Such savings could result in a substantial reduction of bunker cost for charterers compared to our vessels. As the supply of such "eco type" vessel increases and if charterers prefer such vessels over our vessels, this may reduce demand for our vessels, reduce the value of our vessels, impair our ability to recharter our vessels at competitive rates when their current charters expire and have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and operations.

An over-supply of drybulk carrier and/or tanker capacity may lead to reductions in charter hire rates and profitability.

The supply of vessels generally increases with deliveries of new vessels and decreases with the scrapping of older vessels. The market supply of drybulk carriers has been increasing, and the number of drybulk carriers on order as of December 31, 2012, was estimated by market sources to be approximately 20% of the existing global drybulk fleet, with the majority of deliveries expected during 2013 to 2014, although available data with regard to cancellations of existing newbuilding orders or delays of newbuilding deliveries are not always accurate.

The market supply of tankers is affected by a number of factors such as demand for energy resources, oil and petroleum products, as well as strong overall economic growth in part of the world economy, including Asia. As of December 31, 2012, newbuilding orders have been placed for an aggregate of approximately 12% of the existing global tanker fleet with the bulk of deliveries expected during 2013 to 2014.

An over-supply of drybulk carrier and/or tanker capacity has already resulted in a reduction of charter hire rates. If further reduction occurs, we may only be able to re-charter our vessels at reduced or unprofitable rates or we may not be able to charter these vessels at all upon the expiration or termination of our vessels' current charters. The occurrence of these events could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Our earnings may be adversely affected if we do not successfully employ our vessels.

Given current market conditions, we seek to deploy our vessels on time and bareboat charters in a manner that will help us achieve a steady flow of earnings. As of the date of this annual report, all our vessels are contractually committed to bareboat charters. Although these period charters provide relatively steady streams of revenue as well as a portion of the revenues generated by the charterer's deployment of the vessels in the spot market or otherwise, our vessels committed to period charters may not be available for spot voyages during an upturn in the tanker or drybulk industry cycle, as the case may be, when spot voyages might be more profitable. If we cannot continue to employ our vessels on profitable time charters or trade them in the spot market profitably, our results of operations and operating cash flow may suffer if rates achieved are not sufficient to cover respective vessel operating and financial expenses.

Our vessels may call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the U.S. or other governments, which could adversely affect our business, reputation and the market for our common stock.

From time to time on charterers' instructions, our vessels may call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism, including Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act, or CISADA, which expanded the scope of the Iran Sanctions Act. Among other things, CISADA expands the application of the prohibitions to companies such as ours and introduces limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to the investment, supply or export of refined petroleum or petroleum products. In addition, in 2012, President Obama signed Executive Order 13608 which prohibits foreign persons from violating or attempting to violate, or causing a violation of any sanctions in effect against Iran or facilitating any deceptive transactions for or on behalf of any person subject to U.S. sanctions. Any persons found to be in violation of Executive Order 13608 will be deemed a foreign sanctions evader and will be banned from all contacts with the United States, including conducting business in U.S. dollars. Also in 2012, President Obama signed into law the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012, or the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which created new sanctions and strengthened existing sanctions. Among other things, the Iran Threat Reduction Act intensifies existing sanctions regarding the provision of goods, services, infrastructure or technology to Iran's petroleum or petrochemical sector. The Iran Threat Reduction Act also includes a provision requiring the President of the United States to impose five or more sanctions from Section 6(a) of the Iran Sanctions Act, as amended, on a person the President determines is a controlling beneficial owner of, or otherwise owns, operates, or controls or insures a vessel that was used to transport crude oil from Iran to another country and (1) if the person is a controlling beneficial owner of the vessel, the person had actual knowledge the vessel was so used or (2) if the person otherwise owns, operates, or controls, or insures the vessel, the person knew or should have known the vessel was so used. Such a person could be subject to a variety of sanctions, including exclusion from U.S. capital markets, exclusion from financial transactions subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and exclusion of that person's vessels from U.S. ports for up to two years.

Due to the nature of our business and the evolving nature of the foregoing sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance at all times in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines, penalties or other sanctions that could severely impact our ability to access U.S. capital markets and conduct our business, and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. The determination by these investors not to invest in, or to divest from, our common stock may adversely affect the price at which our common stock trades. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. In addition, our reputation and the market for our securities may be adversely affected if we engage in certain other activities, such as entering into charters with individuals or entities in countries subject to U.S. sanctions and embargo laws that are not controlled by the governments of those countries, or engaging in operations associated with those countries pursuant to contracts with third parties that are unrelated to those countries or entities controlled by their governments. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

World events could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The continuing conflicts and recent developments in Korea, the Middle East, including Egypt, and North Africa, including Libya, and the presence of the United States and other armed forces in Iraq and Afghanistan may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute to further economic instability in the global financial markets. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain any additional financing or, if we are able to obtain additional financing, to do so on terms unfavorable to us. In the past, political conflicts have also resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt international shipping, particularly in the Arabian Gulf region. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business.

Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. Although the frequency of sea piracy worldwide decreased during 2012 to its lowest level since 2009, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea, with drybulk vessels and tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks. If these piracy attacks result in regions in which our vessels are deployed being characterized by insurers as "war risk" zones by insurers or Joint War Committee "war and strikes" listed areas, premiums payable for such coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including costs which may be incurred to the extent we employ onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends and may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

Changes in the economic and political environment in China and policies adopted by the government to regulate its economy may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Chinese economy differs from the economies of most countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, in respects such as structure, government involvement, level of development, growth rate, capital reinvestment, allocation of resources, rate of inflation and balance of payments position. Prior to 1978, the Chinese economy was a planned economy. Since 1978, increasing emphasis has been placed on the utilization of market forces in the development of the Chinese economy. Annual and five-year plans, or State Plans, are adopted by the Chinese government in connection with the development of the economy. Although state-owned enterprises still account for a substantial portion of the Chinese industrial output, in general, the Chinese government is reducing the level of direct control that it exercises over the economy through State Plans and other measures. There is an increasing level of freedom and autonomy in areas such as allocation of resources, production, pricing and management and a gradual shift in emphasis to a "market economy" and enterprise reform. Limited price reforms were undertaken, with the result that prices for certain commodities are principally determined by market forces. Many of the reforms are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition based upon the outcome of such experiments. If the Chinese government does not continue to pursue a policy of economic reform the level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected which could adversely affect our business, operating results and financial condition.

Increased inspection procedures and tighter import and export controls could increase costs and disrupt our business.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin and destination. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of, delay in the loading, off-loading or delivery of, the contents of our vessels or the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against us. It is possible that changes to inspection procedures could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. Furthermore, changes to inspection procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

Rising fuel prices may adversely affect our business.

Fuel is a significant, if not the largest, operating expense for many of our shipping operations when our vessels are not under period charter. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by OPEC, and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Currently fuel prices are near historical highs, however fuel may become even more expensive in the future, which may reduce the profitability and competitiveness of our business versus other forms of transportation, such as truck or rail. Currently, all our vessels are under period employment whereby the fuel cost is borne by the charterer.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMPANY

We are in breach of certain loan covenants contained in our loan agreements. If we are not successful in obtaining waivers and amendments with respect to covenants breached, our lenders may declare an event of default and accelerate our outstanding indebtedness under the relevant agreement, which would impair our ability to continue to conduct our business, which raises substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern.

Our loan agreements require that we comply with certain financial and other covenants. As a result of the drop in our drybulk and tanker asset values, as of December 31, 2012, we were in breach of covenants relating to vessel values such as asset cover ratio, adjusted net worth, net asset value and with covenants relating to book equity, EBITDA and overall cash position (minimum liquidity covenants) with certain banks. As a result of these covenant breaches and due to cross default provisions contained in all our bank facilities, we were in breach of all of our loan facilities. We are currently in discussions with our banks in relation to these covenant breaches.

A violation of these covenants constitutes an event of default under our credit facilities, which would, unless waived by our lenders, provide our lenders with the right to require us to post additional collateral, increase our interest payments and/or pay down our indebtedness to a level where we are in compliance with our loan covenants. Furthermore, our lenders may accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose their liens on our vessels, in which case our vessels may be auctioned or otherwise transferred which would impair our ability to continue to conduct our business. As a result of these breaches, our total indebtedness of $172.6 million, which after excluding unamortized financing fees of $2.4 million amounts to $175.0 million, and financial instruments of $5.8 million are presented within current liabilities in the accompanying December 31, 2012 consolidated balance sheet. The amounts of long-term debt and financial instruments that have been reclassified and presented together with current liabilities amount to $152.0 million and $3.1 million, respectively.

As of the date of this annual report, our payments of loan installments and interest are current with all of our lenders.

Our ability to continue as a going concern is dependent on management's ability to successfully generate revenue to meet our obligations as they become due and have the continued support of our lenders. Our financial statements do not include any adjustments to reflect the possible future effects on the recoverability and classification of assets or the amounts and classification of liabilities that may result from the outcome of our inability to continue as a going concern. However, there is a material uncertainty related to events or conditions which raises substantial doubt on our ability to continue as a going concern and, therefore, we may be unable to realize our assets and discharge our liabilities in the normal course of business.

Please see "Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—B. Liquidity and Capital Resources."

Servicing current and future debt will limit funds available for other purposes and impair our ability to react to changes in our business.

To finance our fleet expansion program, we incurred secured indebtedness. We must dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to pay the principal and interest on our indebtedness. These payments limit funds otherwise available for working capital, capital expenditures and other purposes. As of December 31, 2012, we had total indebtedness of $172.6 million, which after excluding unamortized financing fees of $2.4 million amounts to $175.0 million, and a ratio of indebtedness to total capital of approximately 93.0%. Our substantial level of indebtedness increases the possibility that we may be unable to generate cash sufficient to pay, when due, the principal of, interest on or other amounts due in respect of, our indebtedness. Our substantial debt could also have other significant consequences. For example, it could:

●

increase our vulnerability to general economic downturns and adverse competitive and industry conditions;

●

require us to dedicate a substantial portion, if not all, of our cash flow from operations to payments on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the availability of our cash flow to fund working capital, capital expenditures and other general corporate purposes;

●

limit our flexibility in planning for, or reacting to, changes in our business and the industry in which we operate;

●

place us at a competitive disadvantage compared to competitors that have less debt or better access to capital;

●

limit our ability to raise additional financing on satisfactory terms or at all; and

●

adversely impact our ability to comply with the financial and other restrictive covenants in the indenture governing the notes and the credit agreements governing the debts of our subsidiaries, which could result in an event of default under such agreements.

Furthermore, our interest expense could increase if interest rates increase because most of our debt and all the debt under the credit facilities of our subsidiaries is variable rate debt. If we do not have sufficient earnings, we may be required to refinance all or part of our existing debt, sell assets, borrow more money or sell more securities, none of which we can guarantee we will be able to do.

Our loan agreements contain restrictive covenants that may limit our liquidity and corporate activities, and our lenders may impose additional operating and financial restrictions on us in connection with waivers or amendments to our loan agreements.

Our loan agreements impose operating and financial restrictions on us, and our lenders may impose additional restrictions on us in connection with waivers or amendments to our loan agreements. These restrictions may limit our ability to:

●

incur additional indebtedness;

●

create liens on our assets;

●

sell capital stock of our subsidiaries;

●

engage in mergers or acquisitions;

●

pay dividends;

●

make capital expenditures or other investments;

●

charter our vessels;

●

change the management of our vessels or terminate or materially amend the management agreement relating to each vessel; and

●

sell our vessels.

Therefore, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. This may prevent us from taking actions that are in our best interest.

If we fail to manage our planned growth properly, we may not be able to successfully expand our market share.

We intend to continue to grow our fleet in the future. Our future growth will primarily depend on our ability to:

●

generate excess cash flow so that we can invest without jeopardizing our ability to cover current and foreseeable working capital needs (including debt service);

●

raise equity and obtain required financing for our existing and new operations;

●

locate and acquire suitable vessels;

●

identify and consummate acquisitions or joint ventures;

●

integrate any acquired business successfully with our existing operations;

●

hire, train and retain qualified personnel and crew to manage and operate our growing business and fleet;

●

enhance our customer base; and

●

manage expansion.

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel, managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures. We may not be successful in executing our growth plans and we may incur significant additional expenses and losses in connection therewith.

The derivative contracts we have entered into to hedge our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates could result in higher-than-market interest rates and charges against our income.

As of December 31, 2012, we have five interest rate swaps for purposes of managing our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates applicable to indebtedness under our credit facilities. During the year ended December 31, 2012, the change in fair value of our interest rate swaps was an unrealized gain of $2.7 million. Our hedging strategies, however, may not always be effective and we may incur substantial losses if interest rates move materially differently from our expectations.

Our ability to obtain additional debt financing may be dependent on the performance of our then-existing charters and the creditworthiness of our charterers.

The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain additional financing at all, or at a higher than anticipated cost, may materially affect our results of operation and our ability to implement our business strategy.

In the highly competitive international tanker and drybulk shipping markets, we may not be able to compete for charters with new entrants or established companies with greater resources.

We employ our vessels in a highly competitive market that is capital intensive and highly fragmented. The operation of tanker and drybulk vessels and the transportation of cargoes shipped in these vessels, as well as the shipping industry in general, is extremely competitive. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, including major oil companies as well as independent tanker and drybulk shipping companies, some of whom have substantially greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of oil and refined petroleum products and drybulk cargoes can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its operators to the charterers. Due in part to the highly fragmented market, competitors with greater resources could enter and operate larger fleets through consolidations or acquisitions that may be able to offer better prices and fleets than us.

A limited number of financial institutions hold our cash including financial institutions located in Greece.

A limited number of financial institutions, including institutions located in Greece, hold all of our cash. Our bank accounts have been deposited from time to time with banks in Germany, United Kingdom and Greece amongst others. Of the financial institutions located in Greece, some are subsidiaries of international banks and others are Greek financial institutions. These balances are not covered by insurance in the event of default by these financial institutions. The occurrence of such a default could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and we may lose part or all of our cash that we deposit with such banks.

We depend upon a few significant customers for a large part of our revenues. The loss of one or more of these customers could adversely affect our financial performance.

We have historically derived a significant part of our revenue from a small number of charterers. In 2012, approximately 89% of our revenue derived from three charterers. These three charterers, Daelim H&L Co. Ltd, United Arab Chemical Carriers, Ltd and Perseveranza Di Navigatione S.p.a provided 51%, 21% and 17% of our revenues in 2012, respectively. If one or more of these customers is unable to perform under one or more charters with us and we are not able to find a replacement charter, or if a customer exercises certain rights to terminate the charter, we could suffer a loss of revenues that could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Additionally, we could lose a customer or the benefits of a charter if, among other things:

●

the customer fails to make charter payments because of its financial inability, disagreements with us or otherwise;

●

the customer terminates the charter because we fail to deliver the vessel within a fixed period of time, the vessel is lost or damaged beyond repair, there are serious deficiencies in the vessel or prolonged periods of off-hire, or if we are otherwise in default under the charter; or

●

the customer terminates the charter because the vessel has been subject to seizure for more than a specified number of days.

If we lose a key customer, we may be unable to obtain charters on comparable terms or may become subject to the volatile spot market, which is highly competitive and subject to significant price fluctuations. As of the date of this annual report, four of our vessels are employed on charters at charter rates significantly above current market charter rates and significantly above spot market rates, which most directly reflect the current levels of the drybulk and product tanker charter markets. If it were necessary to secure substitute employment for any of these vessels due to the loss of a customer under current market conditions, such employment would be at a significantly lower charter rate, resulting in a significant reduction in revenues. The loss of any of our customers, or charters, or a decline in payments under our charters, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject to litigation that, if not resolved in our favor and not sufficiently insured against, could have a material adverse effect on us.

We may be, from time to time, involved in various litigation matters. These matters may include, among other things, contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or duties, securities litigation, and other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. Although we intend to defend these matters vigorously, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any claim or other litigation matter, and the ultimate outcome of any litigation or the potential costs to resolve them may have a material adverse effect on us. Insurance may not be applicable or sufficient in all cases and/or insurers may not remain solvent, which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition.

We may be unable to attract and retain key management personnel and other employees in the international tanker and drybulk shipping industries, which may negatively impact the effectiveness of our management and our results of operations.

Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of our management team. All of our executive officers are employees of Central Mare Inc., or Central Mare which we refer to as our Fleet Manager, a related party controlled by the family of our Chief Executive Officer, and we have entered into agreements with our Fleet Manager for the provision of our President, Chief Executive Officer, and Director, Evangelos Pistiolis, our Chief Financial Officer and Director, Alexandros Tsirikos, our Executive Vice President, Chairman and Director, Vangelis Ikonomou, and our Chief Technical Officer, Demetris Souroullas. The loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition. Difficulty in hiring and retaining personnel could adversely affect our results of operations. We do not maintain "key man" life insurance on any of our officers.

If labor interruptions are not resolved in a timely manner, they could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and available cash.

Our Fleet Manager employs 6 people, all of whom are shore-based. In addition, our Fleet Manager is responsible for recruiting, mainly through a crewing agent, the senior officers and all other crew members for our vessels. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out as we expect and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and available cash.

If we expand our business, we will need to improve our operations and financial systems and staff; if we cannot improve these systems or recruit suitable employees, our performance may be adversely affected.

Our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate if we implement a plan to expand the size of our fleet, and our attempts to improve those systems may be ineffective. If we are unable to operate our financial and operations systems effectively or to recruit suitable employees as we expand our fleet, our performance may be adversely affected.

A drop in spot charter rates may provide an incentive for some charterers to default on their charters, which could affect our cash flow and financial condition.

When we enter into a time charter or bareboat charter, charter rates under that charter are fixed throughout the term of the charter. If the spot charter rates in the tanker or drybulk shipping industry, as applicable, become significantly lower than the time charter equivalent rates that some of our charterers are obligated to pay us under our existing charters, the charterers may have incentive to default under that charter or attempt to renegotiate the charter. If our charterers fail to pay their obligations, we would have to attempt to re-charter our vessels at lower charter rates, and as a result we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition, which would affect our ability to meet our loan repayment obligations in which case our lenders could choose to accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose their liens, and we could be required to sell vessels in our fleet and our ability to continue to conduct our business would be impaired.

In April 2013, we received a notice from the charterer of the M/T Miss Marilena that it has unilaterally reduced the daily rate payable to us from $14,400 to $10,000 for one year, beginning in April 2013, in violation of our charter agreement. We are examining our options for recovery of the amounts contractually owed to us. Although we intend to enforce our right to payment under the charter, we may not be able to recover these amounts, which would have an adverse effect on our cash flows.

An increase in operating costs would decrease earnings and available cash.

Our vessel operating costs include the costs of crew, fuel (for spot chartered vessels), provisions, deck and engine stores, insurance and maintenance and repairs, which depend on a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control. Some of these costs, primarily relating to insurance and enhanced security measures, have been increasing. If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydocking repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. Increases in any of these expenses would decrease earnings and available cash.

In the case of bareboat chartered vessels, operating expenses and loss of hire or freight revenue due to repairs or damages affect the bareboat charterer and not the shipowner, for the duration of the bareboat charter.

The aging of our fleet may result in increased operating costs in the future, which could adversely affect our earnings.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel. Our current operating fleet has an average age of approximately 4.7 years. As our fleet ages, operating and other costs will increase. In the case of bareboat charters, operating costs are borne by the bareboat charterer. Due to improvements in engine technology, older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations, including environmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations, or the addition of new equipment to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage. As our vessels age, market conditions might not justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

Unless we set aside reserves or are able to borrow funds for vessel replacement, our revenue will decline at the end of a vessel's useful life, which would adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Unless we maintain reserves or are able to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, we will be unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their remaining useful lives, which we estimate to be 25 years from the date of initial delivery from the shipyard. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our vessels to customers. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our business, results of operations and financial condition will be materially and adversely affected.

Purchasing and operating previously owned, or secondhand, vessels may result in increased operating costs and vessels off-hire, which could adversely affect our earnings.

We may expand our fleet through the acquisition of previously owned vessels. While we rigorously inspect previously owned, or secondhand vessels prior to purchase, this does not normally provide us with the same knowledge about their condition and cost of any required (or anticipated) repairs that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. Accordingly, we may not discover defects or other problems with such vessels prior to purchase. Any such hidden defects or problems, when detected, may be expensive to repair, and if not detected, may result in accidents or other incidents for which we may become liable to third parties. Also, when purchasing previously owned vessels, we do not receive the benefit of warranties from the builders if the vessels we buy are older than one year. In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increase with the age and type of the vessel. In the case of chartered-in vessels, we run the same risks.

Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations, or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which the vessels may engage. As our vessels age, market conditions may not justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives.

We may not have adequate insurance to compensate us if we lose our vessels.

We carry insurance for our fleet against those types of risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators. These insurances include hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage and war risk insurance. Reasonable insurance rates can best be obtained when the size and the age/trading profile of the fleet is attractive. As a result, rates become less competitive as a fleet downsizes.

In the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. The insurers may not pay particular claims. Our insurance policies contain deductibles for which we will be responsible as well as limitations and exclusions which may nevertheless increase our costs or lower our revenue.

We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations.

We may be subject to increased premium payments, or calls, in amounts based on our claim records and the claim records of our fleet managers as well as the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. In addition, our protection and indemnity associations may not have enough resources to cover claims made against them. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expense to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which could interrupt our cash flow.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against that vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lienholder may enforce its lien by "arresting" or "attaching" a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could result in a significant loss of earnings for the related off-hired period. In addition, in jurisdictions where the "sister ship" theory of liability applies, a claimant may arrest the vessel which is subject to the claimant's maritime lien and any "associated" vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. In countries with "sister ship" liability laws, claims might be asserted against us or any of our vessels for liabilities of other vessels that we own.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency, resulting in loss of earnings.

A government could requisition one or more of our vessels for title or hire. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. A government could also requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels could negatively impact our revenues should we not receive adequate compensation.

We may have to pay tax on U.S. source income, which would reduce our earnings.

Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves and our subsidiaries, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not begin and end, in the U.S. is characterized as U.S. source shipping income and such income is subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code. Although we have qualified for this statutory exemption in previous taxable years and have taken this position for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes and we expect to qualify for the 2012 taxable year, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of the exemption and thereby become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our U.S. source shipping income. For example, we would fail to qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for a particular tax year if shareholders, each of whom owned, actually or under applicable constructive ownership rules, a 5% or greater interest in the vote and value of our common stock, owned in the aggregate 50% or more of the vote and value of such stock, and "qualified shareholders" as defined by the Treasury regulation under Section 883 of the Code did not own, directly or under applicable constructive ownership rules, sufficient shares in our closely-held block of common stock to preclude the shares in that closely-held block that are not so owned from representing 50% or more of the value of our common stock for more than half of the number of days during the taxable year. Establishing such ownership by qualified shareholders will depend upon the status of certain of our direct or indirect shareholders as residents of qualifying jurisdictions and whether those shareholders own their shares through bearer share arrangements. In addition, such shareholders will also be required to comply with ownership certification procedures attesting that they are residents of qualifying jurisdictions, and each intermediary or other person in the chain of ownership between us and such shareholders must undertake similar compliance procedures. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we may not qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any future taxable year.

We are likely to be treated as a "passive foreign investment company," which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a "passive foreign investment company," or PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of "passive income" or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation's assets produce or are held for the production of those types of "passive income." For purposes of these tests, "passive income" includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. Income derived from the performance of services does not constitute "passive income" for this purpose. U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

In general, income derived from the bareboat charter of a vessel should be treated as "passive income" for purposes of determining whether a foreign corporation is a PFIC, and such vessel should be treated as an asset which produces or is held for the production of "passive income." On the other hand, income derived from the time charter of a vessel should not be treated as "passive income" for such purpose, but rather will be treated as services income; likewise, a time chartered vessel should generally not be treated as an asset which produces or is held for the production of "passive income."

For our 2012 taxable year, we believe that at least 50% of the average value of our assets consisted of vessels which are bareboat chartered and at least 75% of our gross income was derived from vessels on bareboat charter. Therefore, we expect to be treated as a PFIC for our 2012 taxable year.

Our U.S. shareholders may face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences and certain information reporting obligations as a result of us being treated as a PFIC. Under the PFIC rules, unless those shareholders make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed below under "Taxation– U.S. Federal Income Consequences—U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders"), such shareholders 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 their common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the shareholder's holding period of the common shares. See "Taxation —U.S. Federal Income Consequences—U.S. Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders" for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders as a result of our status as a PFIC. In addition, as a result of being treated as a PFIC for the 2012 taxable year, any dividends paid by us during 2012 and 2013 will not be eligible to be treated as "qualified dividend income," which would otherwise be eligible for preferential tax rates in the hands of non-corporate U.S. shareholders.

Fluctuations in exchange rates could affect our results of operations because we generate a portion of our expenses in currencies other than U.S. dollars.

We generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur certain expenses in currencies other than U.S. dollars, mainly Euros. During 2012, approximately 22% of our expenses were in Euros and approximately 2% were in currencies other than the U.S. dollar or Euro. 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, in particular, the Euro. Should the Euro appreciate relative to the U.S. dollar in future periods, our expenses will increase in U.S. dollar terms, thereby decreasing our net income. We have not hedged these risks and therefore our operating results could suffer as a result.

Because the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board is not currently permitted to inspect our independent accounting firm, you may not benefit from such inspections.

Auditors of U.S. public companies are required by law to undergo periodic Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB, inspections that assess their compliance with U.S. law and professional standards in connection with performance of audits of financial statements filed with the SEC. Certain European Union countries, including Greece, do not currently permit the PCAOB to conduct inspections of accounting firms established and operating in such European Union countries, even if they are part of major international firms. The PCAOB conducted inspections in Greece in 2008 and evaluated our auditor's performance of audits of SEC registrants and our auditor's quality controls. The PCAOB issued its report which can be found on the PCAOB website. Currently, however, the PCAOB is unable to conduct inspections in Greece until a cooperation agreement between the PCAOB and the Greek Accounting & Auditing Standards Oversight Board is reached. Accordingly, unlike for most U.S. public companies, should the PCAOB again wish to conduct an inspection it is currently prevented from evaluating our auditor's performance of audits and its quality control procedures, and, unlike shareholders of most U.S. public companies, our shareholders would be deprived of the possible benefits of such inspections.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR COMMON SHARES

Our share price may continue to be highly volatile, which could lead to a loss of all or part of a shareholder's investment.

The market price of our common shares has fluctuated widely since our common shares began trading in July of 2004 on the Nasdaq National Market, now the Nasdaq Global Select Market, which we refer to as Nasdaq. Over the last few years, the stock market has experienced price and volume fluctuations. This volatility has sometimes been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. During 2012, the closing price of our common shares experienced a high of $3.84 on February 22, 2012 and a low of $0.88 on December 11, 2012. On August 21, 2012, we received a notification of deficiency from Nasdaq stating that market value of our publicly-held shares fell below certain minimum requirements for listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, with a grace period of 180 calendar days to regain compliance. Nasdaq has since notified us that we regained compliance within the applicable grace period. In addition, because the market price of our common shares has dropped below $5.00 per share, brokers generally prohibit shareholders from using such shares as collateral for borrowing in margin accounts. This inability to continue to use our common shares as collateral may lead to sales of such shares creating downward pressure on and increased volatility in the market price of our common shares. Furthermore, if the volatility in the market continues or worsens, it could have a further adverse affect on the market price of our common shares, regardless of our operating performance.

The market price of our common shares is due to a variety of factors, including:

●

fluctuations in interest rates;

●

fluctuations in the availability or the price of oil;

●

fluctuations in foreign currency exchange rates;

●

announcements by us or our competitors;

●

changes in our relationships with customers or suppliers;

●

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our semi-annual and annual results and those of other public companies in our industry;

●

changes in United States or foreign tax laws;

●

actual or anticipated fluctuations in our operating results from period to period;

●

shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecast by securities analysts;

●

market conditions in the shipping industry and the general state of the securities markets;

●

mergers and strategic alliances in the shipping industry;

●

changes in government regulation;

●

a general or industry-specific decline in the demand for, and price of, shares of our common stock resulting from capital market conditions independent of our operating performance;

●

the loss of any of our key management personnel; and

●

our failure to successfully implement our business plan.

There may not be a continuing public market for you to resell our common shares.

Our common shares and warrants began trading in July of 2004 on the Nasdaq National Market, and our common shares currently trade on the Nasdaq Global Select Market; however, an active and liquid public market for our common shares may not continue and you may not be able to sell your common shares in the future at the price that you paid for them or at all. As noted above, on August 21, 2012, we received a notification of deficiency from Nasdaq stating that market value of our publicly-held shares fell below certain minimum requirements for listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, with a grace period of 180 calendar days to regain compliance. Nasdaq has since notified us that we regained compliance within the applicable grace period.

Further, lack of trading volume in our stock may affect investors' ability to sell their shares. Our common shares have been experiencing low daily trading volumes in the market. As a result, an investor may be unable to sell all of such investor's shares in the desired time period, or may only be able to sell such shares at a significant discount to the previous closing price.

Certain existing stockholders, who hold approximately 58.3% of our common stock, may have the power to exert control over us, which may limit your ability to influence our actions.

As of the day of this report, Sovereign Holdings Inc., or Sovereign, a company that is wholly owned by our President, Chief Executive Officer and Director, Evangelos J. Pistiolis, owns, directly or indirectly, approximately 58.3% of the outstanding shares of our common stock. Due to the number of shares it owns, Sovereign has the power to exert considerable influence over our actions and to effectively control the outcome of matters on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, including the election of our directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of this stockholder may be different from your interests.

Shareholders may experience significant dilution as a result of future equity offerings or issuance if shares are sold at prices significantly below the price at which shareholders invested.

We may issue additional shares of common stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank in the future in connection with, among other things, future vessel acquisitions, repayment of outstanding indebtedness, or our equity incentive plan, without shareholder approval, in a number of circumstances. Our existing shareholders may experience significant dilution if we issue shares in the future at prices significantly below the price at which previous shareholders invested.

Our issuance of additional shares of common stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would have the following effects:

●

our existing shareholders' proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;

●

the amount of cash available for dividends payable on the shares of our common stock may decrease;

●

the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding common share may be diminished; and

●

the market price of the shares of our common stock may decline.

Future issuances or sales, or the potential for future issuances or sales, of our common shares may cause the trading price of our securities to decline and could impair our ability to raise capital through subsequent equity offerings.

We have issued a significant number of our common shares and we anticipate that we will continue to do so in the future. Shares to be issued in relation to a future follow-on offering could cause the market price of our common shares to decline, and could have an adverse effect on our earnings per share if and when we become profitable. In addition, future sales of our common shares or other securities in the public markets, or the perception that these sales may occur, could cause the market price of our common shares to decline, and could materially impair our ability to raise capital through the sale of additional securities.

We are incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate law and as a result, shareholders may have fewer rights and protections under Marshall Islands law than under a typical jurisdiction in the United States.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and By-laws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, or BCA. The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Republic of the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the law of the Republic of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain United States jurisdictions. Shareholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a United States jurisdiction.

It may not be possible for investors to serve process on or enforce U.S. judgments against us.

We and all of our subsidiaries are incorporated in jurisdictions outside the U.S. and substantially all of our assets and those of our subsidiaries are located outside the U.S. In addition, most of our directors and officers are non-residents of the U.S., and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. investors to serve process within the U.S. upon us, our subsidiaries or our directors and officers or to enforce a judgment against us for civil liabilities in U.S. courts. In addition, you should not assume that courts in the countries in which we or our subsidiaries are incorporated or where our assets or the assets of our subsidiaries are located (1) would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us or our subsidiaries based upon the civil liability provisions of applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws or (2) would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us or our subsidiaries based on those laws.

Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a merger, amalgamation or acquisition, which could reduce the market price of our common shares.

Several provisions of our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation and our Amended and Restated Bylaws could make it difficult for our shareholders to change the composition of our Board of Directors in any one year, preventing them from changing the composition of management. In addition, the same provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that shareholders may consider favorable.

These provisions include:

●

authorizing our Board of Directors to issue "blank check" preferred stock without shareholder approval;

●

providing for a classified Board of Directors with staggered, three-year terms;

●

prohibiting cumulative voting in the election of directors;

●

authorizing the removal of directors only for cause and only upon the affirmative vote of the holders of at least 80% of the outstanding shares of our capital stock entitled to vote for the directors;

●

prohibiting shareholder action by written consent unless the written consent is signed by all shareholders entitled to vote on the action;

●

limiting the persons who may call special meetings of shareholders; and

●

establishing advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our Board of Directors or for proposing matters that can be acted on by shareholders at shareholder meetings.

In addition, we have entered into a Stockholders Rights Agreement that will make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without the support of our Board of Directors and principal shareholders. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may reduce the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

RISKS RELATED TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR FLEET MANAGER AND ITS AFFILIATES

We are dependent on our Fleet Manager to perform the day-to-day management of our fleet.

Our executive management team consists of our President and Chief Executive Officer, Evangelos Pistiolis, our Chief Financial Officer, Alexandros Tsirikos, our Executive Vice President, Vangelis Ikonomou, and our Chief Technical Officer, Demetris Souroullas. We subcontract the day-to-day vessel management of our fleet, including crewing, maintenance and repair to our Fleet Manager. Our Fleet Manager is a related party controlled by the family of our Chief Executive Officer. We are dependent on our Fleet Manager for the technical and commercial operation of our fleet and the loss of our Fleet Manager's services or its failure to perform obligations to us could materially and adversely affect the results of our operations. If our Fleet Manager suffers material damage to its reputation or relationships it may harm our ability to:

●

continue to operate our vessels and service our customers;

●

renew existing charters upon their expiration;

●

obtain new charters;

●

obtain financing on commercially acceptable terms;

●

obtain insurance on commercially acceptable terms;

●

maintain satisfactory relationships with our customers and suppliers; and

●

successfully execute our growth strategy.

Our Fleet Manager is a privately held company and there may be limited or no publicly available information about it.

Our Fleet Manager is a privately held company. The ability of our Fleet Manager to continue providing services for our benefit will depend in part on its own financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair our Fleet Manager's financial strength, and there may be limited publicly available information about its financial strength. As a result, an investor in our common shares might have little advance warning of problems affecting our Fleet Manager, even though these problems could have a material adverse effect on us.

Our Fleet Manager may have conflicts of interest between us and its other clients.

We have subcontracted the day-to-day technical and commercial management of our fleet, including crewing, maintenance, supply provisioning and repair to our Fleet Manager. Our contracts with our Fleet Manager have an initial term of five years, after which they will continue to be in effect until terminated by either party subject to a twelve-month advance notice of termination. Our Fleet Manager will provide similar services for vessels owned by other shipping companies, and it may provide similar services to companies with which our Fleet Manager is affiliated. These responsibilities and relationships could create conflicts of interest between our Fleet Manager's performance of its obligations to us, on the one hand, and our Fleet Manager's performance of its obligations to its other clients, on the other hand. These conflicts may arise in connection with the crewing, supply provisioning and operations of the vessels in our fleet versus vessels owned by other clients of our Fleet Manager. In particular, our Fleet Manager may give preferential treatment to vessels owned by other clients whose arrangements provide for greater economic benefit to our Fleet Manager. These conflicts of interest may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

ITEM 4. INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

A. History and Development of the Company

Our predecessor, Ocean Holdings Inc., was formed as a corporation in January 2000 under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands and renamed Top Tankers Inc. in May 2004. In December 2007, Top Tankers Inc. was renamed Top Ships Inc. Our common stock is currently listed on the Nasdaq Global Select Market under the symbol "TOPS." The current address of our principal executive office is 1 Vas. Sofias and Meg. Alexandrou Str, 15124 Maroussi, Greece. The telephone number of our registered office is +30 210 812 8000.

Business Development

On November 5, 2010, we sold the M/T Dauntless for $20.1 million, resulting in a gain of $5.1 million.

On July 26, 2011, we sold the M/V Astrale, which resulted in a loss of approximately $40 million.

On August 31, 2011, we sold the M/V Amalfi, which resulted in a loss of approximately $29.5 million.

On November 1, 2011, we entered into an agreement to sell the M/V Cyclades, which resulted in a loss of approximately $40 million.

On November 21, 2011, we sold the M/T Ioannis P, which resulted in a gain of approximately $2.6 million.

On December 29, 2011, we sold the M/V Pepito, which resulted in a loss of approximately $25.2 million.

On January 3, 2012, the bareboat charter party of the M/V Papillon expired and the vessel was subsequently redelivered to us. Following its redelivery, the vessel was renamed the M/V Evian.

On February 15, 2012, three of our directors, Roy Gibbs, Marios Hamboullas, and Yiannakis C. Economou resigned from our Board of Directors following a decision by the board to reduce administrative costs. Following such resignation, our Board of Directors resolved to reduce its size from seven to four members.

On May 23, 2012, we entered into a bareboat agreement to charter out the M/V Evian through December 15, 2014 at a daily rate of $7,000.

On August 21, 2012, we received a notification from Nasdaq stating that because the market value of our publicly held shares for the previous 30 consecutive business days was below the minimum $5 million requirement for continued listing on the Nasdaq Global Select Market, we were not in compliance with Nasdaq Listing Rule 5450(b)(1)(C). The applicable grace period to regain compliance was 180 calendar days from the date of the notice. Nasdaq has since notified us that we regained compliance within the applicable grace period.

As of December 31, 2012 and December 31, 2011, our fleet consisted of seven owned vessels, including six Handymax tankers and one Supramax drybulk vessel, with total carrying capacity of 0.35 million dwt.

On January 1, 2013 we entered into an agreement with the owner of M/T Delos by which the termination fee outstanding as of December 31, 2012 is divided into two tranches; "Tranche A" ($4.5 million) that will bear interest of 3% plus Libor and "Tranche B" ($0.8 million) that will not bear interest. This agreement provides for the repayment of Tranche A and Tranche B up to 2017.

On March 27, 2013, we entered into an agreement with an unrelated third party to sell the M/T UACC Sila for a contracted price of $26 million. The vessel was delivered to its new owners on April 30, 2013 and its respective debt was fully repaid.

On April 15, 2013, we received a notice from the charterer of the M/T Miss Marilena that it has unilaterally reduced the daily rate payable to us from $14,400 to $10,000 for one year, beginning in April 2013, in violation of our charter agreement. We are examining our options for recovery of the amounts contractually owed to us and intend to enforce our right to payment under the charter.

B. Business Overview

Business Strategy

We are a provider of international seaborne transportation services, carrying petroleum products and crude oil for the oil industry and drybulk commodities for the steel, electric utility, construction and agriculture-food industries. As of the date of this annual report, our fleet consists of seven owned vessels, including six tankers and one drybulk vessel.

Our vessels are currently employed on bareboat charters. Of our fleet, 85% by dwt are sister ships, which enhances the revenue generating potential of our fleet by providing us with operational and scheduling flexibility. Sister ships also increase our operating efficiencies because technical knowledge can be applied to all vessels in a series and create cost efficiencies and economies of scale when ordering spare parts, supplying and crewing these vessels.

During 2006, we ordered six newbuilding product/chemical tankers from SPP Shipbuilding Co., Ltd. in the Republic of Korea in order to modernize our tanker fleet. All of these tankers were delivered to us during 2009.

In 2007, we diversified our fleet portfolio by acquiring drybulk vessels, beginning with the acquisition of six drybulk vessels, five of which we subsequently sold.

We intend to continue to review the market in order to identify potential acquisition targets on accretive terms.

We believe we have established a reputation in the international ocean transport industry for operating and maintaining our fleet with high standards of performance, reliability and safety. We have assembled a management team comprised of executives who have extensive experience operating large and diversified fleets of tankers and drybulk vessels, and who have strong ties to a number of national, regional and international oil companies, charterers and traders.

Our Fleet

The following table presents our fleet list and employment as of the date of this annual report:

	Dwt		Year Built		Charter Type	Expiry		Daily Base Rate
Tanker Vessels

Miss Marilena		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2019	$	14,400
Lichtenstein		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2019	$	14,550
UACC Sila*		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2018	$	9,000
UACC Shams		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2018	$	9,000
Britto		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2019	$	14,550
Hongbo		50,000		2009	Bareboat Charter		Q1-2/2019	$	14,550

Total Tanker dwt		300,000

Drybulk Vessel

Evian (ex Papillon)		51,200		2002	Bareboat Charter		Q4/2014	$	7,000
Total Drybulk dwt		51,200

TOTAL DWT		351,200

*As of December 31, 2012 we have classified the M/T UACC Sila as held for sale

Management of the Fleet

Our Fleet Manager, Central Mare, a related party controlled by the family of our Chief Executive Officer, performs all of our operational, technical and commercial functions relating to the chartering and operation of our vessels, pursuant to management agreements concluded between Central Mare and Top Ships, as well as between Central Mare and our vessel-owning subsidiaries.

Central Mare—Letter Agreement and Management Agreements

Pursuant to a letter agreement concluded between Central Mare and Top Ships, or the Letter Agreement, as well as management agreements concluded between Central Mare and our vessel-owning subsidiaries, we pay a management fee of Euro 689.6 or approximately $910 per day per vessel that is employed under a time or voyage charter and a management fee of Euro 265.2 or approximately $350 per day per vessel that is employed under a bareboat charter. In addition, the management agreements provide for payment to Central Mare of: (i) a fee of Euro 106.1 or approximately $140 per day per vessel for services in connection with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002; (ii) Euro 530.5 or approximately $700 per day for superintendent visits; (iii) a chartering commission of 0.75% on all existing (as of July 1, 2010) freight, hire and demurrage revenues; (iv) a chartering commission of 1.25% on all new (concluded after July 1, 2010) freight, hire and demurrage revenues; (v) a commission of 1.00% of all gross sale proceeds or the purchase price paid for vessels; (vi) a quarterly fee of Euro 100,000 or approximately $131,970 for the services rendered in relation to our maintenance of proper books and records; (vii) a quarterly fee of Euro 25,000 or $32,993 for services in relation to our financial reporting requirements under SEC and Nasdaq rules and regulations; (viii) a commission of 0.2% on derivative agreements and loan financing or refinancing; (ix) a newbuilding supervision fee of Euro 424,360 or approximately $560,028 per newbuilding vessel and (x) an annual fee of Euro 10,609 or approximately $14,001 per vessel, for the provision of information-system related services.

Central Mare also provides commercial operations and freight collection services in exchange for a fee of Euro 95.5 or approximately $126 per day per vessel. Central Mare provides insurance services and obtains insurance policies for the vessels for a fee of 5.00% of the total insurance premiums. Furthermore, if required, Central Mare will also handle and settle all claims arising out of its duties under the management agreements (other than insurance and salvage claims) in exchange for a fee of Euro 159.7 or approximately $211 per person per eight-hour day. Finally legal fees for claims and general corporate services incurred by Central Mare on our behalf will be reimbursed to Central Mare at cost.

These agreements have an initial term of five years, after which they will continue to be in effect until terminated by either party subject to a twelve-month advance notice of termination.

Pursuant to the terms of the management agreements, all fees payable to Central Mare are adjusted upwards 3% per annum on each anniversary date of the agreement. Transactions with the Manager in Euros are settled on the basis of the EUR/USD on the invoice date.

The Letter Agreement was amended on January 1, 2012 to reduce management fees paid by us to Central Mare by approximately 35% for the services rendered in relation to our maintenance of proper books and records and for services in relation to our financial reporting requirements under SEC and Nasdaq rules and regulations. The letter agreement was amended again on January 1, 2013 resulting in a decrease in the variable management fees to $250 per vessel per day that will include operational, technical and commercial functions, services in connection with compliance with Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, services rendered in relation to our maintenance of proper books and records, services in relation to our financial reporting requirements under SEC and Nasdaq rules and regulations, the provision of information-system related services, commercial operations and freight collection services, with all other terms remaining unchanged.

Crewing and Employees

As of the date of this annual report, our employees include our executive officers and one administrative employee whose services are provided by an agreement through Central Mare. In addition, Central Mare is responsible for recruiting, mainly through a crewing agent, the senior officers and all other crew members for our vessels. We believe the streamlining of crewing arrangements will ensure that all our vessels will be crewed with experienced seamen that have the qualifications and licenses required by international regulations and shipping conventions.

The International Shipping Industry

The seaborne transportation industry is a vital link in international trade, with ocean going vessels representing the most efficient and often the only method of transporting large volumes of basic commodities and finished products. Demand for oil tankers is dictated by world oil demand and trade, which is influenced by many factors, including international economic activity; geographic changes in oil production, processing, and consumption; oil price levels; inventory policies of the major oil and oil trading companies; and strategic inventory policies of countries such as the United States, China and India. The drybulk trade is influenced by the underlying demand for the drybulk commodities, which, in turn, is influenced by the level of worldwide economic activity. Generally, growth in gross domestic product, or GDP, and industrial production correlate with peaks in demand for marine drybulk transportation services.

Shipping demand, measured in tonne-miles, is a product of (a) the amount of cargo transported in ocean going vessels, multiplied by (b) the distance over which this cargo is transported. The distance is the more variable element of the tonne-mile demand equation and is determined by seaborne trading patterns, which are principally influenced by the locations of production and consumption. Seaborne trading patterns are also periodically influenced by geo-political events that divert vessels from normal trading patterns, as well as by inter-regional trading activity created by commodity supply and demand imbalances. Tonnage of oil shipped is primarily a function of global oil consumption, which is driven by economic activity as well as the long-term impact of oil prices on the location and related volume of oil production. Tonnage of oil shipped is also influenced by transportation alternatives (such as pipelines) and the output of refineries.

Demand for tankers and tonnage of oil shipped is primarily a function of global oil consumption, which is driven by economic activity as well as the long-term impact of oil prices on the location and related volume of oil production. The Baltic Dirty Tanker Index has modestly risen, after a steep decline that started in mid-2008, and high volatility throughout 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Baltic Dirty Tanker Index declined from a high of 2,347 in July 2008 to a low of 453 in mid-April 2009, which represents a decline of 80%, but has since modestly risen to 632 as of April 18, 2013. The Baltic Clean Tanker Index fell from 1,509 as of June 19, 2008, to 345 as of April 4, 2009, but has modestly risen to 623 as of April 18, 2013. The dramatic decline in charter rates was due to various factors, including the significant fall in demand for crude oil and petroleum products, the consequent rising inventories of crude oil and petroleum products in the United States and in other industrialized nations and the corresponding reduction in oil refining, the dramatic fall in the price of oil in 2008, and the restrictions on crude oil production that OPEC, and other non-OPEC oil producing countries have imposed in an effort to stabilize the price of oil. During 2010, 2011 and 2012, the above factors affecting the Baltic Dirty and Clean Tanker Indices subsided, allowing for the mild recovery of charter rates. According to the International Energy Agency, or the IEA, demand for oil and petroleum products was stronger in 2012, with the global oil product demand rising to 89.8 million barrels per day, compared to 88.9 million barrels per day in 2011.

The IEA expects 2013 oil demand to grow by 0.9% to 906 million barrels per day. However, throughout 2012, vessel oversupply has put pressure on charter rates and the respective Baltic Tanker indices.

The price of crude oil reached historical highs in the summer of 2008 but declined sharply thereafter as a result of the deterioration in the world economy, the collapse of financial markets, declining oil demand and bearish market sentiment. During 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012, oil prices started rising again amidst a growing demand for oil, leading to a price of approximately $88.40 per barrel as of April 18, 2013.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Governmental laws and regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. We are subject to various international conventions, laws and regulations in force in the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modification and implementation costs.

A variety of government, quasi-governmental, and private organizations subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These organizations include the local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters or equivalent entities, classification societies, relevant flag state (country of registry) and charterers, particularly terminal operators and oil companies. Some of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for the operation of our vessels. Our failure to maintain necessary permits, licenses, certificates or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet, or lead to the invalidation or reduction of our insurance coverage.

We believe that the heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers have led to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for tankers that conform to stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with applicable local, national and international environmental laws and regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other authorizations necessary for the conduct of our operations; however, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly strict requirements, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact, such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect our profitability.

International Maritime Organization

The International Maritime Organization, or the IMO, is the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships. The IMO has adopted several international conventions that regulate the international shipping industry, including but not limited, to the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, generally referred to as CLC, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1973, or the MARPOL Convention. The MARPOL Convention is broken into six Annexes, each of which establishes environmental standards relating to different sources of pollution: Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried, in bulk, in liquid or packaged form, respectively; Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively; and Annex VI, adopted by the IMO in September of 1997, relates to air emissions.

Air Emissions

In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on nitrogen oxide emissions from ships whose diesel engines were constructed (or underwent major conversions) on or after January 1, 2000. It also prohibits "deliberate emissions" of "ozone depleting substances," defined to include certain halons and chlorofluorocarbons. "Deliberate emissions" are not limited to times when the ship is at sea; they can for example include discharges occurring in the course of the ship's repair and maintenance. Emissions of "volatile organic compounds" from certain tankers, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) are also prohibited. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil (see below).

Annex VI seeks to further reduce air pollution by, among other things, implementing a progressive reduction of the amount of sulfur contained in any fuel oil used on board ships. As of January 1, 2012, the amended Annex VI requires that fuel oil contain no more than 3.50% sulfur. By January 1, 2020, sulfur content must not exceed 0.50%, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018.

Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain "Emission Control Areas" ("ECAs"). As of July 1, 2010, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 1.0% (from 1.50%), which will be further reduced to 0.10% on January 1, 2015. Amended Annex VI establishes procedures for designating new ECAs. Currently, the Baltic Sea and the North Sea have been so designated. On August 1, 2012, certain coastal areas of North America were designated ECAs as will the applicable areas of United States Caribbean Sea, effective January 1, 2014. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the EPA or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for new ships. It makes the Energy Efficiency Design Index (EEDI) apply to all new ships, and the Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan (SEEMP) apply to all ships.

Amended Annex VI also establishes new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in late 2009. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.

Safety Management System Requirements

The IMO also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, and the International Convention on Load Lines, or LL, which impose a variety of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL standards. The Convention on Limitation for Maritime Claims (LLMC) was recently amended and the amendments are expected to go into effect on June 8, 2015. The amendments alter the limits of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim and a property claim against ship owners.

Our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements contained in the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention, or ISM Code, promulgated by the IMO under Chapter IX of SOLAS. The ISM Code requires the owner of a vessel, or any person who has taken responsibility for operation of a vessel, to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and describing procedures for responding to emergencies. We rely upon the safety management system that has been developed for our vessels for compliance with the ISM Code.

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators also obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel's management with code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. We have obtained documents of compliance for its offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the ISM Code. These documents of compliance and safety management certificates are renewed as required.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in, or invalidation of, available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports.

Pollution Control and Liability Requirements

IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatory nations to such conventions. For example, many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by different Protocol in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000, or the CLC. Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability, expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so that compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the shipowner's actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the shipowner's intentional or reckless act or omission where the shipowner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC requires ships covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner's liability for a single incident. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, to impose strict liability on shipowners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in ship's bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

In addition, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004. The BWM Convention's implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. To date, there has not been sufficient adoption of this standard for it to take force. However, Panama may adopt this standard in the relatively near future, which would be sufficient for it to take force. Upon entry into force of the BWM Convention, mid-ocean ballast exchange would be mandatory. Vessels would be required to be equipped with a ballast water treatment system that meets mandatory concentration limits not later than the first intermediate or renewal survey, whichever occurs first, after the anniversary date of delivery of the vessel in 2014, for vessels with ballast water capacity of 1500-5000 cubic meters, or after such date in 2016, for vessels with ballast water capacity of greater than 5000 cubic meters. If mid-ocean ballast exchange or ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers. Although we do not believe that the costs of compliance with a mandatory mid-ocean ballast exchange would be material, it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such a requirement on our operations.

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

U.S. Regulations

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all "owners and operators" whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S. territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define "owner and operator" in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. Accordingly, both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

Under OPA, vessel owners and operators are "responsible parties" and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels. OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:

·	injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;

·	injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;

·	net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees or net profit revenues resulting from injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property, or natural resources;

·	loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;

·	lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or natural resources; and

·	net cost of increased or additional public services necessitated by removal activities following a discharge of oil, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and loss of subsistence use of natural resources

OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs. Effective July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability to the greater of $2,000 per gross ton or $17.088 million for any double-hull tanker that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation), and our fleet is entirely composed of vessels of this size class. These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship), or a responsible party's gross negligence or willful misconduct. The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident where the responsibility party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.

CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damage for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing same, and health assessments or health effects studies. There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel. These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations. The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.

OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee. We have provided such evidence and received certificates of financial responsibility from the U.S. Coast Guard's for each of our vessels as required to have one.

OPA permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, however, in some cases, states which have enacted this type of legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining tanker owners' responsibilities under these laws.

The 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may also result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA. For example, on August 15, 2012, the U.S. Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement (BSEE) issued a final drilling safety rule for offshore oil and gas operations that strengthens the requirements for safety equipment, well control systems, and blowout prevention practices. Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact our cost of operations or require us to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes.

Through our P&I Club membership, we expect to maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. Furthermore, many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has enacted rules requiring a permit regulating ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters under the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or VGP. For a new vessel delivered to an owner or operator after September 19, 2009 to be covered by the VGP, the owner must submit a Notice of Intent, or NOI, at least 30 days before the vessel operates in United States waters. The EPA has proposed a draft 2013 VGP to replace the current VGP upon its expiration on December 19, 2013. The VGP focuses on authorizing discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and the new VGP is expected to contain numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in US waters, more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants.

U.S. Coast Guard regulations adopted and proposed for adoption under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters, which could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters. In 2009, the Coast Guard proposed new ballast water management standards and practices, including limits regarding ballast water releases. As of June 21, 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard implemented revised regulations on ballast water management by establishing standards on the allowable concentration of living organisms in ballast water discharged from ships into U.S. waters. The revised ballast water standards are consistent with those adopted by the IMO in 2004.

Compliance with the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard regulations could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial cost, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

European Union Regulations

In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. Member States were required to enact laws or regulations to comply with the directive by the end of 2010. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. On January 1, 2013 two new sets of mandatory requirements to address greenhouse gas emissions from ships, which were adopted by MEPC in July 2011, entered into force. Currently operating ships will be required to develop Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans, and minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile will apply to new ships. These requirements could cause us to incur additional compliance costs. The IMO is also planning to implement market-based mechanisms to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships at an upcoming MEPC session. The European Union has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from marine vessels, and in January 2012 the European Commission launched a public consultation on possible measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. In the United States, the EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety and has adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources and large stationary sources. Although the mobile source emissions regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, such regulation of vessels is foreseeable, and the EPA has in recent years received petitions from the California Attorney General and various environmental groups seeking such regulation. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

International Labour Organization

The International Labour Organization (ILO) is a specialized agency of the UN with headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland. The ILO has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (MLC 2006). A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance will be required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. The MLC 2006 will enter into force one year after 30 countries with a minimum of 33% of the world's tonnage have ratified it. On August 20, 2012, the required number of countries was met and MLC 2006 is expected to come into force on August 20, 2013. MLC 2006 will require us to develop new procedures to ensure full compliance with its requirements.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or the MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The regulations also impose requirements on certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new Chapter V became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, and mandates compliance with the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. Amendments to SOLAS Chapter VII, made mandatory in 2004, apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code ("IMDG Code").

To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state. Among the various requirements are:

·	on-board installation of automatic identification systems to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship's identity, position, course, speed and navigational status;

·	on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the authorities on shore;

·	the development of vessel security plans;

·	ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel's hull;

a continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history, including the name of the ship, the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and

·	compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

Ships operating without a valid certificate, may be detained at port until it obtains an ISSC, or it may be expelled from port, or refused entry at port.

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels provided such vessels have on board a valid ISSC that attests to the vessel's compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures addressed by MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code, and our fleet is in compliance with applicable security requirements.

Inspection by Classification Societies

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

The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery, including the electrical plant, and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

Annual Surveys: For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and the machinery, including the electrical plant, and where applicable for special equipment classed, within three months before or after each anniversary date of the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.

Intermediate Surveys: Extended annual surveys are referred to as intermediate surveys and typically are conducted two and one-half years after commissioning and each class renewal. Intermediate surveys are to be carried out at or between the occasion of the second or third annual survey.

Class Renewal Surveys: Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out for the ship's hull, machinery, including the electrical plant, and for any special equipment classed, at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull. At the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to determine the thickness of the steel structures. Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals. The classification society may grant a one-year grace period for completion of the special survey. Substantial amounts of money may have to be spent for steel renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear. In lieu of the special survey every four or five years, depending on whether a grace period was granted, a vessel owner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel's hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle.

At an owner's application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.

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

Most vessels are also dry-docked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs related to inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a "recommendation" which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.

Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as "in class" by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies. All our vessels are certified as being "in class" by Det Norske Veritas or the Korean Register of Shipping. All new and secondhand vessels that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery under our standard contracts and memorandum of agreement. If the vessel is not certified on the date of closing, we have no obligation to take delivery of the vessel.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance Generally

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel for oil pollution accidents in the United States Exclusive Economic Zone, has made liability insurance more expensive for ship owners and operators trading in the United States market. While we maintain hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance, protection and indemnity cover and freight, demurrage and defense cover for our operating fleet in amounts that we believe to be prudent to cover normal risks in our operations, we may not be able to achieve or maintain this level of coverage throughout a vessel's useful life. Furthermore, while we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull and Machinery Insurance

We have obtained marine hull and machinery, marine interests and war risk insurance, which includes the risk of actual or constructive total loss, general average, particular average, salvage, salvage charges, sue and labor, damage received in collision or contact with fixed or floating objects for all of the vessels in our fleet. In 2009, the vessels in our fleet were each covered up to at least fair market value, with deductibles of $100,000 per vessel per incident, for the non-bareboat vessels in our fleet. In 2010, deductibles changed to include an additional machinery deductible of $100,000 per vessel per incident for the non-bareboat vessels in our fleet. In 2011, the Hull and Machinery deductibles were adjusted to $100,000 per vessel per incident and remain so to this date. For the vessels that are under bareboat charters, the charterer is responsible for arranging and paying for all insurances that may be required.

Loss of Hire Insurance

We did not opt to cover any vessel for loss of hire for 2011 and 2012 and the mortgagee bank for the bareboat chartered-out vessels M/T UACC Sila and M/T Hongbo agreed to waive their mortgage covenant to have Loss of Hire Insurance renewed for these vessels.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, which covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, collision liabilities, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances and wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations, or "P&I Clubs." Cover is subject to the current statutory limits of liability and the applicable deductibles per category of claim. Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution stands at $1.0 billion for any one event.

The 13 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world's commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association's liabilities. Each P&I Association has capped its exposure to this pooling agreement at approximately $5.5 billion. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on its claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations, and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

Customers

Our customers include national, regional and international companies. We have historically derived a significant part of our revenue from a small number of charterers. In 2012, approximately 89% of our revenue derived from three charterers, Daelim H&L Co. Ltd., United Arab Chemical Carriers, Ltd and Perseveranza Di Navigatione S.p.a, which respectively provided 51%, 21% and 17% of our revenues. In 2011, approximately 57.5% of our revenue derived from four charterers, Cosco Quingdao, Daelim H&L Co. Ltd., Daeyang Shipping and Harren & Partner Maritime Services GmbH, which respectively provided 12.3%, 20.2%, 13.4% and 11.6% of our revenues. We strategically monitor developments in the tanker and drybulk shipping industry on a regular basis and, subject to market demand, seek to adjust the charter hire periods for our vessels according to prevailing market conditions.

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on our reputation as an operator. We arrange our time charters, bareboat charters and voyage charters in the spot market through the use of brokers, who negotiate the terms of the charters based on market conditions. We compete primarily with owners of tankers in the Handymax class sizes and also with owners of drybulk vessels in the Supramax class size. Ownership of tankers is highly fragmented and is divided among major oil companies and independent vessel owners. The drybulk market is less fragmented with more small operators.

Seasonality

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, therefore, charter rates. This seasonality may affect operating results.

C. Organizational Structure

We are a Marshall Islands corporation with principal executive offices located at 1 Vas. Sofias and Meg. Alexandrou Str, 15124 Maroussi, Greece. We own our vessels through wholly-owned subsidiaries that are incorporated in the Marshall Islands or other jurisdictions generally acceptable to lenders in the shipping industry. Our significant wholly-owned subsidiaries as of December 31, 2012 are listed in Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

D. Property, Plants and Equipment

For a list of our fleet, please see "Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview —Our Fleet" above.

We do not own any real property.

We lease office space in Athens, Greece, located at 1, Vasilisis Sofias & Megalou Alexandrou Street, 151 24 Maroussi, Athens, Greece at a yearly rent of $0.04 million. The amounts of yearly rent stated in this paragraph are based on the relevant exchange rate on December 31, 2012.

ITEM 4A. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

ITEM 5. OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

The following presentation of management's discussion and analysis is intended to discuss our financial condition, changes in financial condition and results of operations, and should be read in conjunction with our historical consolidated financial statements and their notes included in this report.

This discussion contains forward-looking statements that reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. Our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements as a result of certain factors, such as those set forth in "Item 3. Key Information—Risk Factors" and elsewhere in this report.

A.	Operating Results

Segments and Continuing Operations

Following the acquisition of five drybulk vessels in 2007, we reported our income in two segments, the tanker segment and the drybulk segment. In 2011, we sold four of our drybulk vessels and held the fifth drybulk vessel for sale, the M/V Evian. As a result, we determined that as of December 31, 2011, our drybulk segment should be reflected as discontinued operations. During 2012, we entered into a bareboat agreement to charter-out the M/V Evian through December 15, 2014 at a rate of $7,000 per day and decided to change the plan of sale of the M/V Evian. As of December 31, 2012, we reclassified the M/V Evian as held for use. As a result, the Dry bulk business was reclassified to continuing operations for all periods presented. In evaluating the ongoing business operations, the Company determined that since tankers and dry bulk carriers have similar economic characteristics and since there is only one dry bulk vessel left, and as the chief operating decision maker reviews operating results solely by revenue per day and operating results of the fleet, we concluded that in 2012 we operated under one segment.

Factors Affecting our Results of Operations

We believe that the important measures for analyzing trends in the results of our operations for both tankers and drybulk vessels consist of the following:

·	Calendar days. We define calendar days as the total number of days the vessels were in our possession for the relevant period. Calendar days are an indicator of the size of our fleet during the relevant period and affect both the amount of revenues and expenses that we record during that period.

Available days. We define available days as the number of calendar days less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to scheduled repairs, or scheduled guarantee inspections in the case of newbuildings, vessel upgrades or special or intermediate surveys and the aggregate amount of time that we spend positioning our vessels. Companies in the shipping industry generally use available days to measure the number of days in a period during which vessels should be capable of generating revenues. We determined to use available days as a performance metric for the first time, in the second quarter and first half of 2009. We have adjusted the calculation method of utilization to include available days in order to be comparable with shipping companies that calculate utilization using operating days divided by available days.

Operating days. We define operating days as the number of available days in a period less the aggregate number of days that our vessels are off-hire due to unforeseen circumstances. The shipping industry uses operating days to measure the aggregate number of days in a period that our vessels actually generate revenues.

Fleet utilization. We calculate fleet utilization by dividing the number of operating days during a period by the number of available days during that period. The shipping industry uses fleet utilization to measure a company's efficiency in finding suitable employment for its vessels and minimizing the number of days that its vessels are off-hire for reasons other than scheduled repairs or scheduled guarantee inspections in the case of newbuildings, vessel upgrades, special or intermediate surveys and vessel positioning. We used a new calculation method for fleet utilization for the first time, in the second quarter and first half of 2009. In all prior filings and reports, utilization was calculated by dividing operating days by calendar days. We have adjusted the calculation method in order to be comparable with most shipping companies, which calculate utilization using operating days divided by available days.

·	Spot Charter Rates. Spot charter rates are volatile and fluctuate on a seasonal and year-to-year basis. Fluctuations derive from imbalances in the availability of cargoes for shipment and the number of vessels available at any given time to transport these cargoes.

·	Bareboat Charter Rates. Under a bareboat charter party, all operating costs, voyage costs and cargo-related costs are covered by the charterer, who takes both the operational and the shipping market risk.

TCE Revenues / TCE Rates. We define TCE revenues as revenues minus voyage expenses. Voyage expenses primarily consist of port, canal and fuel costs that are unique to a particular voyage, which would otherwise be paid by a charterer under a time charter, as well as commissions. We believe that presenting revenues net of voyage expenses neutralizes the variability created by unique costs associated with particular voyages or the deployment of vessels on the spot market and facilitates comparisons between periods on a consistent basis. We calculate daily TCE rates by dividing TCE revenues by operating days for the relevant time period. TCE revenues include demurrage revenue, which represents fees charged to charterers associated with our spot market voyages when the charterer exceeds the agreed upon time required to load or discharge a cargo. We calculate daily direct vessel operating expenses and daily general and administrative expenses for the relevant period by dividing the total expenses by the aggregate number of calendar days that we owned each vessel for the period.

In accordance with GAAP measures, we report revenues in our income statements and include voyage expenses among our expenses. However, in the shipping industry the economic decisions are based on vessels' deployment upon anticipated TCE rates, and industry analysts typically measure shipping freight rates in terms of TCE rates. This is because under time-charter and bareboat contracts the customer usually pays the voyage expenses, while under voyage charters the ship-owner usually pays the voyage expenses, which typically are added to the hire rate at an approximate cost. Consistent with industry practice, management uses TCE as it provides a means of comparison between different types of vessel employment and, therefore, assists the decision-making process.

Voyage Revenues

Our voyage revenues are driven primarily by the number of vessels in our fleet, the number of operating days during which our vessels generate revenues and the amount of daily charterhire that our vessels earn under charters, which, in turn, are affected by a number of factors, including our decisions relating to vessel acquisitions and disposals, the amount of time that we spend positioning our vessels, the amount of time that our vessels spend in dry-dock undergoing repairs, maintenance and upgrade work, the duration of the charter, the age, condition and specifications of our vessels, levels of supply and demand in the global transportation market for oil products or bulk cargo and other factors affecting spot market charter rates such as vessel supply and demand imbalances.

Vessels operating on period charters, time charters or bareboat charters provide more predictable cash flows, but can yield lower profit margins than vessels operating in the short-term, or spot, charter market during periods characterized by favorable market conditions. Vessels operating in the spot charter market, either directly or through a pool arrangement, generate revenues that are less predictable, but may enable us to capture increased profit margins during periods of improvements in charter rates, although we are exposed to the risk of declining charter rates, which may have a materially adverse impact on our financial performance. If we employ vessels on period charters, future spot market rates may be higher or lower than the rates at which we have employed our vessels on period time charters.

Under a time charter, the charterer typically pays us a fixed daily charter hire rate and bears all voyage expenses, including the cost of bunkers (fuel oil) and port and canal charges. We remain responsible for paying the chartered vessel's operating expenses, including the cost of crewing, insuring, repairing and maintaining the vessel, the costs of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses, and we also pay commissions to Central Mare, one or more unaffiliated ship brokers and to in-house brokers associated with the charterer for the arrangement of the relevant charter.

Under a bareboat charter, the vessel is chartered for a stipulated period of time which gives the charterer possession and control of the vessel, including the right to appoint the master and the crew. Under bareboat charters all voyage and operating costs are paid by the charterer. During 2009, we took delivery of six newbuilding product tankers all of which are on bareboat charters for a period between seven and eight years. Furthermore in May 2012 we entered into a bareboat charter for our drybulk carrier for a period of 2.5 years.

As of the date of this annual report all our vessels are on bareboat charters. We may in the future operate vessels in the spot market until the vessels have been chartered under appropriate medium to long-term charters.

Voyage Expenses

Voyage expenses primarily consist of port charges, including canal dues, bunkers (fuel costs) and commissions. All these expenses, except commissions, are paid by the charterer under a time charter or bareboat charter contract. The amount of voyage expenses are primarily driven by the routes that the vessels travel, the amount of ports called on, the canals crossed and the price of bunker fuels paid.

Charter Hire Expenses

Charter hire expenses include lease payments for vessels we charter-in. In October 2010, we entered into a bareboat charter-in agreement for the M/T Delos that required us to make lease payments through September 2015, however, in October 15, 2011, we terminated the bareboat charter for the M/T Delos and redelivered the vessel to its owners.

Vessel Operating Expenses

Vessel operating expenses include crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses relating to repairs and maintenance, the costs of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and value added tax, or VAT, and other miscellaneous expenses for vessels that we own or lease under our operating leases. We analyze vessel operating expenses on a U.S. dollar/day basis. Additionally, vessel operating expenses can fluctuate due to factors beyond our control, such as unplanned repairs and maintenance attributable to damages or regulatory compliance and factors which may affect the shipping industry in general, such as developments relating to insurance premiums, or developments relating to the availability of crew.

Dry-docking Costs

Dry-docking costs relate to regularly scheduled intermediate survey or special survey dry-docking necessary to preserve the quality of our vessels as well as to comply with international shipping standards and environmental laws and regulations. Dry-docking costs can vary according to the age of the vessel, the location where the dry-dock takes place, shipyard availability, local availability of manpower and material, the billing currency of the yard, the number of days the vessel is off-hire and the diversion necessary in order to get from the last port of employment to the yard and back to a position for the next employment. Please see "Item 18. Financial Statements—Note 2—Significant Accounting Policies." In the case of tankers, dry-docking costs may also be affected by new rules and regulations. For further information please see "Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview—Environmental Regulations."

Management Fees—Third Parties

These costs relate to management fees to non-related parties.

Management Fees—Related Parties

Since July 1, 2010, Central Mare, a related party controlled by the family of our Chief Executive Officer, has been performing all of our operational, technical and commercial functions relating to the chartering and operation of our vessels, except for the M/T Delos, pursuant to a Letter Agreement concluded between Central Mare and us as well as management agreements concluded between Central Mare and our vessel-owning subsidiaries. In 2010, we outsourced technical management and crewing of the M/T Delos to TMS Tankers and outsourced operational monitoring of the vessel to Central Mare, a related party, under agreements effective from October 1, 2010. In June 1, 2011, we transferred the full management of the M/T Delos to International Ship Management, a related party, up to the date of the vessel's lease termination on October 15, 2011. For further information please see "Item 4. Information on the Company—B. Business Overview—Management of the Fleet."

General and Administrative Expenses

Our general and administrative expenses include executive compensation paid to Central Mare, a related party controlled by the family of our Chief Executive Officer, for the provision of our executive officers, office rent, legal and auditing costs, regulatory compliance costs, other miscellaneous office expenses, non-cash stock compensation, and corporate overhead. Central Mare provides the services of the individuals who serve in the position of Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Chief Technical Officer as well as certain administrative employees. For further information please see "Item 18. Financial Statements—Note 5—Transactions with Related Parties."

General and administrative expenses are mainly Euro denominated, except for some legal fees and share-based compensation related expenses and are therefore affected by the conversion rate of the U.S. dollar versus the Euro.

Interest and Finance Costs

We have historically incurred interest expense and financing costs in connection with vessel-specific debt. Interest expense is directly related with the repayment schedule of our loans, the prevailing LIBOR and the relevant margin.

Since the fourth quarter of 2008, however, lenders have required provisions that entitle the lenders, in their discretion, to replace published LIBOR as the base for the interest calculation with their cost-of-funds rate which in all cases is higher than LIBOR. Additionally, as part of our discussions with banks with regard to loan covenant breaches, we have agreed to increase the relevant interest margin on certain of our loans. For further information please see "—B. Liquidity and Capital Resources."

Inflation

Inflation has not had a material effect on our expenses. In the event that significant global inflationary pressures appear, these pressures would increase our operating, voyage, administrative and financing costs.

In evaluating our financial condition, we focus on the above measures to assess our historical operating performance and we use future estimates of the same measures to assess our future financial performance. In assessing the future performance of our fleet, the greatest uncertainty relates to future charter rates at the expiration of a vessel's present period employment, whether under a time charter or a bareboat charter. Decisions about future purchases and sales of vessels are based on the availability of excess internal funds, the availability of financing and the financial and operational evaluation of such actions and depend on the overall state of the shipping market and the availability of relevant purchase candidates.

Lack of Historical Operating Data for Vessels Before Their Acquisition

Although vessels are generally acquired free of charter, we have acquired (and may in the future acquire) some vessels with time charters. Where a vessel has been under a voyage charter, the vessel is usually delivered to the buyer free of charter. It is rare in the shipping industry for the last charterer of the vessel in the hands of the seller to continue as the first charterer of the vessel in the hands of the buyer. In most cases, when a vessel is under time charter and the buyer wishes to assume that charter, the vessel cannot be acquired without the charterer's consent and the buyer entering into a separate direct agreement (a "novation agreement") with the charterer to assume the charter. The purchase of a vessel itself does not transfer the charter because it is a separate agreement between the vessel owner and the charterer.

Where we identify any intangible assets or liabilities associated with the acquisition of a vessel, we allocate the purchase price to identified tangible and intangible assets or liabilities based on their relative fair values. Fair value is determined by reference to market data and the discounted amount of expected future cash flows. Where we have assumed an existing charter obligation or entered into a time charter with the existing charterer in connection with the purchase of a vessel at charter rates that are less than market charter rates, we record a liability, based on the difference between the assumed charter rate and the market charter rate for an equivalent vessel. Conversely, where we assume an existing charter obligation or enter into a time charter with the existing charterer in connection with the purchase of a vessel at charter rates that are above market charter rates, we record an asset, based on the difference between the market charter rate for an equivalent vessel and the contracted charter rate. This determination is made at the time the vessel is delivered to us, and such assets and liabilities are amortized as a reduction or increase to revenue over the remaining period of the charter.

During 2010, 2011 and 2012, we did not acquire any vessels with existing time charter arrangements.

When we purchase a vessel and assume or renegotiate a related time charter, we must take the following steps before the vessel will be ready to commence operations:

·	obtain the charterer's consent to us as the new owner;

·	obtain the charterer's consent to a new technical manager;

·	in some cases, obtain the charterer's consent to a new flag for the vessel;

·	arrange for a new crew for the vessel, and where the vessel is on charter, in some cases, the crew must be approved by the charterer;

·	replace all hired equipment on board, such as gas cylinders and communication equipment;

·	negotiate and enter into new insurance contracts for the vessel through our own insurance brokers; and

·	register the vessel under a flag state and perform the related inspections in order to obtain new trading certificates from the flag state.

The following discussion is intended to help you understand how acquisitions of vessels affect our business and results of operations. Our business is comprised of the following main elements:

·	employment and operation of our tanker and drybulk vessels; and

·	management of the financial, general and administrative elements involved in the conduct of our business and ownership of our tanker and drybulk vessels.

The employment and operation of our vessels require the following main components:

·	vessel maintenance and repair;

·	crew selection and training;

·	vessel spares and stores supply;

·	contingency response planning;

·	onboard safety procedures auditing;

·	accounting;

·	vessel insurance arrangement;

·	vessel chartering;

·	vessel security training and security response plans (ISPS);

·	obtain ISM certification and audit for each vessel within the six months of taking over a vessel;

·	vessel hire management;

·	vessel surveying; and

·	vessel performance monitoring.

The management of financial, general and administrative elements involved in the conduct of our business and ownership of our vessels requires the following main components:

·	management of our financial resources, including banking relationships, i.e., administration of bank loans and bank accounts;

·	management of our accounting system and records and financial reporting;

·	administration of the legal and regulatory requirements affecting our business and assets; and

·	management of the relationships with our service providers and customers.

The principal factors that affect our profitability, cash flows and shareholders' return on investment include:

·	charter rates and periods of charter hire for our tanker and drybulk vessels;

·	utilization of our tanker and drybulk vessels (earnings efficiency);

·	levels of our tanker and drybulk vessels' operating expenses and dry-docking costs;

·	depreciation and amortization expenses;

·	financing costs; and

·	fluctuations in foreign exchange rates.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS FOR THE FISCAL YEARS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010, 2011 AND 2012

The following table depicts changes in the results of operations for 2012 compared to 2011 and 2011 compared to 2010.

		Year Ended December 31,									Change
		2010			2011			2012			YE11 v YE10				YE12 v YE11
	($ in thousands)										$		%		$		%
Voyage Revenues			90,875			79,723			31,428		(11,152	)	-12.3	%	(50,460	)	-63.3	%
Other Income			-			872			-		872		-		(872	)	-100.0
Voyage expenses			2,468			7,743			1,023		5,275		213.7	%	(6,720	)	-86.8	%
Charter hire expense			480			2,380			-		1,900		395.8	%	(2,380	)	-100.0	%
Lease termination expense			-			5,750			-		5,750		-		(5,750	)	-100.0	%
Vessel operating expenses			12,853			10,368			814		(2,485	)	-19.3	%	(9,554	)	-92.1	%
Dry-docking costs			4,103			1,327			-		(2,776	)	-67.7	%	(1,327	)	-100.0	%
Depreciation			32,376			25,327			11,458		(7,049	)	-21.8	%	(13,869	)	-54.8	%
Management fees-third parties			159			439			-		280		176.1	%	(439	)	-100.0	%
Management fees-related parties			3,131			5,730			2,345		2,599		83.0	%	(3,385	)	-59.1
General and administrative expenses			18,142			15,364			7,078		(2,778	)	-15.3	%	(8,286	)	-53.9	%
(Loss)/Gain on sale of vessels			(5,101	)		62,543			-		67,644		-1326.1	%	(62,543	)	-100.0
Impairment on vessels			-			114,674			61,484		114,674		100	%	(53,190	)	-46.4	%
Expenses			68,611			251,645			84,202		183,034		266.8	%	(167,443	)	-66.5	%
Operating income (loss)			22,264			(171,050	)		(52,774	)	(193,314	)	-868.3	%	116,111		-67.9	%
Interest and finance costs			(14,776	)		(16,283	)		(9,345	)	(1,507	)	10.2	%	6,938		-42.6	%
Loss on financial instruments			(5,057	)		(1,793	)		(447	)	3,264		-64.5	%	1,346		-75.1	%
Interest income			136			95			175		(41	)	-30.1	%	80		84.2	%
Other, net			(54	)		(81	)		(1,593	)	(27	)	50.0	%	653		-806.2	%
Total other expenses, net			(19,751	)		(18,062	)		(11,210	)	1,689		-8.6	%	9,017		-49.9	%
Net income (loss)			2,513			(189,112	)		(63,984	)	(191,625	)	-7625.3	%	125,128		-66.2	%

The table below presents the key measures for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012. Please see "Item 3. Key Information—A. Selected Financial Data" for a reconciliation of Average Daily TCE to revenues.

	Year Ended December 31,						Change
	2010		2011		2012		YE11 v YE10			YE12 v YE11
	($ in thousands)						%			%
FLEET**
Total number of vessels at end of period		13.0		7.0		7.0		-46.2	%		0.0	%
Average number of vessels		13.1		11.7		7.0		-10.5	%		-40.3	%
Total operating days for fleet under spot charters		45		520		0		100.0	%		-100.0	%
Total operating days for fleet under time charters		2,076		1,109		124		-46.6	%		-88.8	%
Total operating days for fleet under bareboat charters		2,555		2,551		2,420		-0.2	%		-5.1	%
Average TCE ($/day)		18,907		17,220		11,951		-8.9	%		-30.6	%

** Includes a bareboat chartered-in vessel (M/T Delos) from October 2010 to October 2011.

Year on Year Comparison of Operating Results

1. Voyage Revenues

	Year Ended December 31,						Change
	2010		2011		2012		YE11 v YE10					YE12 v YE11
	($ in thousands)						$			%		$			%
Revenues		90,875		79,723		31,428		(11,152	)	-12.3	%		(48,295	)	-60.6	%

2012 vs. 2011

During 2012, revenues decreased by $48.3 million, or 60.6%, compared to 2011. This is due to the absence of revenue from the M/V Amalfi that was sold in August 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $3.3 million, the absence of revenue from the M/V Astrale that was sold in July 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $3.5 million, the absence of revenue from the M/V Cyclades that was sold in November 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $13.4 million, the absence of revenue from the M/T Ioannis P. that was sold in November 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $8.0 million, the absence of revenue from the M/V Pepito that was sold in December 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $9.7 million, the absence of revenue from the M/T Delos the charter of which was terminated in October 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $5.1 million, and due to the absence of revenue from the M/V Evian due to early termination of its charter in January 2012 and the rechartering of the vessel at a significantly lower rate, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $6.3 million. These decreases in revenue were partially offset by the collection in 2012 of a demurrage related claim of $0.4 million for the M/T Timeless (the vessel's lease was terminated in 2008) and the fact that the M/T UACC Sila and the M/T UACC Shams were re-chartered in April and May 2011, respectively, with a higher rate that led to an increase of revenue in 2012 of $0.3 million and $0.3 million, respectively.

2011 vs. 2010

During 2011, revenues decreased by $11.2 million, or 12.3%, compared to 2010. This decrease is due to the reduced employment of M/V Amalfi that was sold in August 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $1.4 million, the reduced employment of the M/V Astrale that was sold in July 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $2.4 million, the reduced employment of the M/V Cyclades that was sold in November 2011 in conjunction with its re-chartering in April 2011 at a much lower rate, both of which contributed to the revenue decrease by $4.1 million, the reduction of the hire rate of M/V Pepito from September 2011 up to its sale in December 2011, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $4.7 million, the absence of revenue from the M/T Dauntless, which was sold in November 2010, which contributed to the revenue decrease by $3.7 million and finally by the application in 2011 of new reduced daily rates for the M/T UACC Sila and the M/T UACC Shams, which led to a decrease in revenue of $0.4 million and $0.4 million, respectively. These decreases in revenue were partially offset by the fact that the M/T Delos was employed for 9.5 months in 2011 compared to three months in 2010, which led to an increase in 2011 revenue of $4.5 million. Furthermore, the M/T Ioannis P generated $1.4 million more revenue in 2011 mainly due to an increase in demurrage income of $1.8 million.

2. Other Income

In 2011, we recognized $0.9 million of other income, relating to income from the sale of lubricants and bunkers to the new charterers of the M/T UACC Sila and M/T UACC Shams.

Expenses

Voyage expenses

	Year Ended December 31,						Change
	2010		2011		2012		YE11 v YE10				YE12 v YE11
	($ in thousands)						$		%		$			%
Voyage Expenses		2,468		7,743		1,023		5,275	213.7	%		(6,720	)	-86.8	%

Voyage expenses primarily consist of port charges, including bunkers (fuel costs), canal dues and commissions.

2012 vs. 2011

During 2012, voyage expenses decreased by $6.7 million, or 86.8%, compared to 2011 mainly as a result of the absence of expenses from the M/T Ioannis P. that was sold in November 2011, which contributed to the voyage expenses decrease by $4.2 million, and the absence of expenses from the M/T Delos, the charter of which was terminated in October 2011, which contributed to the voyage expenses decrease by $2.0 million and the absence of expenses from the M/V Cyclades that was sold in November 2011, which contributed to the voyage expenses decrease by $0.6 million.

2011 vs. 2010

During 2011, voyage expenses increased by $5.3 million, or 213.7%, compared to 2010 mainly as a result of the employment of the M/T Ioannis P for 10 months in the spot market in 2011 compared to 1.5 months in 2010, resulting in an increase in voyage expenses of $3.6 million, and the employment of the M/T Delos for 9.5 months in the spot market in 2011 compared to 3 months in 2010, which resulted in an increase in voyage expenses of $2.0 million. These increases in voyage expenses were partially offset by a gain resulting from the sale of bunkers due to the sale of M/V Astrale in 2011, resulting in a decrease in voyage expenses of $0.4million.

Charter hire expenses

		Year Ended December 31,												Change
		2010				2011