A. Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated historical financial information as of December 31, 2012 and 2011 and operating results for the years ended December 31, 2012, 2011, and 2010, is derived from our audited consolidated financial statements of Navios Maritime Partners L.P. (sometimes referred to as “Navios Partners”, the “Partnership”, “we” or “us”) which are included elsewhere in this report. The selected consolidated historical financial information as of December 31, 2010, 2009 and 2008 and for the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2008 have been derived from our audited financial statements not included in this report. This information is qualified by reference to, and should be read in conjunction with, “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.

2

Table of Contents

B. Capitalization and indebtedness.

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds.

Not applicable.

D. Risk factors

Risks Inherent in Our Business

We may not have sufficient cash from operations to enable us to pay the minimum quarterly distribution on our common units following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses or to maintain or increase distributions.

We may not have sufficient cash available each quarter to pay the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.35 per common unit following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common units depends principally upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate based on numerous factors including, among other things:

The actual amount of cash we will have available for distribution also will depend on other factors, some of which are beyond our control, such as:

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our profit or loss for the period, which will be affected by non-cash items. As a result of this and the other factors mentioned above, we may make cash distributions during periods when we record losses and may not make cash distributions during periods when we record net income.

The cyclical nature of the international drybulk shipping industry may lead to decreases in long-term charter rates and lower vessel values, resulting in decreased distributions to our common unitholders.

The shipping business, including the dry cargo market, is cyclical in varying degrees, experiencing severe fluctuations in charter rates, profitability and, consequently, vessel values. For example, during the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012, the Baltic Exchange’s Panamax time charter average daily rates experienced a low of $3,336 and a high of $17,115. Additionally, during the period from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2012, the Baltic Exchange’s Capesize time charter average daily rates experienced a low of $2,644 and a high of $32,889 and the Baltic Dry Index experienced a low of 647 points and a high of 2,173 points. We anticipate that the future demand for our drybulk carriers and drybulk charter rates will be dependent upon demand for imported commodities, economic growth in the emerging markets, including the Asia Pacific region, India, Brazil and Russia and the rest of the world, seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet. Adverse economic, political, social or other developments can decrease demand and prospects for growth in the shipping industry and thereby could reduce revenue significantly. A decline in demand for commodities transported in drybulk carriers or an increase in supply of drybulk vessels could cause a further decline in charter rates, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. If we sell a vessel at a time when the market value of our vessels has fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount, resulting in a loss.

The demand for vessels has generally been influenced by, among other factors:

The supply of vessel capacity has generally been influenced by, among other factors:

3

Table of Contents

Charter rates in the drybulk shipping industry have decreased from their historically high levels and may decrease further in the future, which may adversely affect our earnings and ability to pay dividends.

The industry’s current charter rates have significantly decreased from their historic highs reached in the second quarter of 2008. If the drybulk shipping industry, which has been highly cyclical, is depressed in the future when our charters expire or at a time when we may want to sell a vessel, our earnings and available cash flow may be adversely affected. We cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully charter our vessels in the future or renew our existing charters at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our business profitably, to meet our obligations, including payment of debt service to our lenders, or to pay dividends to our unitholders. Our ability to renew the charters on our vessels on the expiration or termination of our current charters, or on vessels that we may acquire in the future, the charter rates payable under any replacement charters and vessel values will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the transportation of commodities.

All of our time charters are scheduled to expire on dates ranging from May 2013 to September 2022. If, upon expiration or termination of these or other contracts, long-term recharter rates are lower than existing rates, particularly considering that we intend to enter into long-term charters, or if we are unable to obtain replacement charters, our earnings, cash flow and our ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders could be materially adversely affected.

The market values of our vessels, which have declined from historically high levels, may fluctuate significantly, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit facilities and result in the foreclosure on our mortgaged vessels.

Factors that influence vessel values include:

If the market values of our owned vessels decrease, we may breach covenants contained in our credit facilities. We purchased the majority of our vessels from Navios Holdings based on market prices that were for certain vessels at historically high levels. If we breach the covenants in our credit facilities and are unable to remedy any relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on the collateral, including our vessels. Any loss of vessels would significantly decrease our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations and therefore service our debt. In addition, if the book value of a vessel is impaired due to unfavorable market conditions, or a vessel is sold at a price below its book value, we would incur a loss.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, which will reduce our cash available for distribution. In addition, each quarter our board of directors is required to deduct estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures from operating surplus, which may result in less cash available to unitholders than if actual maintenance and replacement capital expenditures were deducted.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain, over the long term, the operating capacity of our fleet. These maintenance and replacement capital expenditures include capital expenditures associated with drydocking a vessel, modifying an existing vessel or acquiring a new vessel to the extent these expenditures are incurred to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet.

These expenditures could increase as a result of changes in:

Our significant maintenance and replacement capital expenditures will reduce the amount of cash we have available for distribution to our unitholders. Any costs associated with scheduled drydocking until December 31, 2013 are included in a daily fee that we pay the Manager under a management agreement. In October 2011, we fixed the rate with the Manager for the period from November 17, 2011 until December 31, 2013 at: (a) $4,650 daily rate per owned Ultra-Handymax vessel, (b) $4,550 daily rate per Panamax vessel and (c) $5,650 daily rate per Capesize vessel, while the term of the management agreement is until December 31, 2017. From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, we expect that we will reimburse the Manager for all of the actual operating costs and expenses it incurs in connection with the management of our fleet, which may result in significantly higher fees for that period. In the event our management agreement is not renewed, we will separately deduct estimated capital expenditures associated with drydocking from our operating surplus in addition to estimated replacement capital expenditures.

Our partnership agreement requires our board of directors to deduct estimated, rather than actual, maintenance and replacement capital expenditures from operating surplus each quarter in an effort to reduce fluctuations in operating surplus. The amount of estimated capital expenditures deducted from operating surplus is subject to review and change by the conflicts committee of our board of directors at least once a year. If our board of directors underestimates the appropriate level of estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, we may have less cash available for distribution in future periods when actual capital expenditures begin to exceed previous estimates.

If we expand the size of our fleet in the future, we generally will be required to make significant installment payments for acquisitions of vessels even prior to their delivery and generation of revenue. Depending on whether we finance our expenditures through cash from operations or by issuing debt or equity securities, our ability to make cash distributions to unitholders may be diminished or our financial leverage could increase or our unitholders could be diluted.

4

Table of Contents

The actual cost of a vessel varies significantly depending on the market price, the size and specifications of the vessel, governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards.

If we purchase additional vessels in the future, we generally will be required to make installment payments prior to their delivery. If we finance these acquisition costs by issuing debt or equity securities, we will increase the aggregate amount of interest payments or minimum quarterly distributions we must make prior to generating cash from the operation of the vessel. We filed a shelf registration statement on November 2, 2010, under which we may sell any combination of securities (debt or equity) for up to a total of $500.0 million, approximately of which $354.6 million of which is currently available.

To fund the remaining portion of these and other capital expenditures, we will be required to use cash from operations or incur borrowings or raise capital through the sale of debt or additional equity securities. Use of cash from operations will reduce cash available for distributions to unitholders. Our ability to obtain bank financing or to access the capital markets for future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such financing or offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to obtain the funds for necessary future capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and on our ability to make cash distributions. Even if we successfully obtain necessary funds, the terms of such financings could limit our ability to pay cash distributions to unitholders. In addition, incurring additional debt may significantly increase our interest expense and financial leverage, and issuing additional preferred and common equity securities may result in significant unitholder dilution and would increase the aggregate amount of cash required to meet our quarterly distributions to our preferred unitholders and minimum quarterly distribution to our common unitholders, which could have a material adverse effect on our ability to make cash distributions to all of our unitholders.

Our debt levels may limit our flexibility in obtaining additional financing and in pursuing other business opportunities and our interest rates under our credit facilities may fluctuate and may impact our operations.

As of December 31, 2012, all of our facilities were fully drawn and the total borrowings under our credit facilities amounted to $299.7 million. We have the ability to incur additional debt, subject to limitations in our credit facilities. Our level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

Our ability to service our debt depends upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. Our ability to service debt under our credit facilities also will depend on market interest rates, since the interest rates applicable to our borrowings will fluctuate with the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, or the prime rate. We do not currently hedge against increases in such rates and, accordingly, significant increases in such rate would require increased debt levels and reduce distributable cash. If our operating results are not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take actions such as reducing distributions, reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt, or seeking additional equity capital or bankruptcy protection. We may not be able to affect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

Our credit facilities contain restrictive covenants, which may limit our business and financing activities.

On July 31, 2012, we entered into a credit facility for $290.45 million in order to refinance and merge two existing credit facilities. On August 8, 2012, we entered into another credit facility, and borrowed an amount of $44.0 million. As of December 31, 2012 the outstanding loan balance under Navios Partners’ credit facilities was $299.7 million.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our credit facilities and any future credit facilities could adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities. For example, our credit facilities require the consent of our lenders or limit our ability to, among other items:

Our credit facilities also require us to comply with the International Safety Management Code, or ISM Code, and International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or ISPS Code, and to maintain valid safety management certificates and documents of compliance at all times.

In addition, our credit facilities require us to:

Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions that are contained in our credit facilities and any other debt instruments we may enter into in the future may be affected by events beyond our control, including prevailing economic, financial and industry conditions. If market or other economic conditions deteriorate, our ability to comply with these covenants may be impaired. If we are in breach of any of the restrictions, covenants, ratios or tests in our credit facilities, especially if we trigger a cross

5

Table of Contents

default currently contained in certain of our loan agreements, a significant portion of our obligations may become immediately due and payable, and our lenders’ commitment to make further loans to us may terminate. We may not have, or be able to obtain, sufficient funds to make these accelerated payments. In addition, our obligations under our credit facilities are secured by certain of our vessels, and if we are unable to repay borrowings under such credit facilities, lenders could seek to foreclose on those vessels.

Restrictions in our debt agreements may prevent us from paying distributions to unitholders.

Our payment of principal and interest on the debt will reduce cash available for distribution on our common units. In addition, our credit facilities prohibit the payment of distributions if we are not in compliance with certain financial covenants or upon the occurrence of an event of default.

Events of default under our credit facilities include, among other things, the following:

We anticipate that any subsequent refinancing of our current debt or any new debt will have similar restrictions.

We depend on Navios Holdings and its affiliates to assist us in operating and expanding our business.

Pursuant to a management agreement between us and the Manager, the Manager provides to us significant commercial and technical management services (including the commercial and technical management of our vessels, vessel maintenance and crewing, purchasing and insurance and shipyard supervision). In addition, pursuant to an administrative services agreement between us and the Manager, the Manager provides to us significant administrative, financial and other support services. Our operational success and ability to execute our growth strategy depends significantly upon the Manager’s satisfactory performance of these services. Our business will be harmed if the Manager fails to perform these services satisfactorily, if the Manager cancels either of these agreements, or if the Manager stops providing these services to us. We may also in the future contract with Navios Holdings for it to have newbuildings constructed on our behalf and to incur the construction-related financing. We would purchase the vessels on or after delivery based on an agreed-upon price.

Our ability to enter into new charters and expand our customer relationships will depend largely on our ability to leverage our relationship with Navios Holdings and its reputation and relationships in the shipping industry. If Navios Holdings suffers material damage to its reputation or relationships, it may harm our ability to:

If our ability to do any of the things described above is impaired, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.

As we expand our business, we may have difficulty managing our growth, which could increase expenses.

We intend to seek to grow our fleet, either through purchases, the increase of the number of chartered-in vessels or through the acquisitions of businesses. The addition of vessels to our fleet or the acquisition of new businesses will impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff. We will also have to increase our customer base to provide continued employment for the new vessels. Our growth will depend on:

Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel, and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures. We cannot give any assurance that we will be successful in executing our growth plans or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection therewith or that our acquisitions will perform as expected, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our growth depends on continued growth in demand for drybulk commodities and the shipping of drybulk cargoes.

Our growth strategy focuses on expansion in the drybulk shipping sector. Accordingly, our growth depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for drybulk commodities and the shipping of drybulk cargoes, which could be negatively affected by a number of factors, such as declines in prices for drybulk commodities, or general political and economic conditions.

Reduced demand for drybulk commodities and the shipping of drybulk cargoes would have a material adverse effect on our future growth and could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. In particular, Asian Pacific economies and India have been the main driving force behind the current increase in seaborne drybulk trade and the demand for drybulk carriers. A negative change in economic conditions in any Asian Pacific country, but particularly in China, Japan or India, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, by reducing demand and resultant charter rates.

6

Table of Contents

Our growth depends on our ability to expand relationships with existing customers and obtain new customers, for which we will face substantial competition.

Long-term time charters have the potential to provide income at pre-determined rates over more extended periods of time. However, the process for obtaining longer term time charters is highly competitive and generally involves a lengthy, intensive and continuous screening and vetting process and the submission of competitive bids that often extends for several months. In addition to the quality, age and suitability of the vessel, longer term shipping contracts tend to be awarded based upon a variety of other factors relating to the vessel operator, including:

It is likely that we will face substantial competition for long-term charter business from a number of experienced companies. Many of these competitors have significantly greater financial resources than we do. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into our transportation sectors, including in the drybulk sector. Many of these competitors have strong reputations and extensive resources and experience. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long-term charters.

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

We may be unable to make or realize expected benefits from acquisitions, and implementing our growth strategy through acquisitions may harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our growth strategy focuses on a gradual expansion of our fleet. Any acquisition of a vessel may not be profitable to us at or after the time we acquire it and may not generate cash flow sufficient to justify our investment. In addition, our growth strategy exposes us to risks that may harm our business, financial condition and operating results, including risks that we may:

If we purchase any newbuilding vessels, delays, cancellations or non-completion of deliveries of newbuilding vessels could harm our operating results.

If we purchase any newbuilding vessels, the shipbuilder could fail to deliver the newbuilding vessel as agreed or their counterparty could cancel the purchase contract if the shipbuilder fails to meet its obligations. In addition, under charters we may enter into that are related to a newbuilding, if our delivery of the newbuilding to our customer is delayed, we may be required to pay liquidated damages during the delay. For prolonged delays, the customer may terminate the charter and, in addition to the resulting loss of revenues, we may be responsible for additional, substantial liquidated damages.

The completion and delivery of newbuildings could be delayed, cancelled or otherwise not completed because of:

7

Table of Contents

If delivery of a vessel is materially delayed, it could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions.

The loss of a customer, charter or vessel could result in a loss of revenues and cash flow in the event we are unable to replace such customer, charter or vessel.

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2012, we had 18 charter counterparties, the most significant of which were Cosco Bulk Carrier Co., Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. and Samsun Logix, and which accounted for approximately 22.8%, 16.0% and 13.0%, respectively, of total revenues. For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2011, we had 15 charter counterparties, the most significant of which were Cosco Bulk Carrier Co., Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd. and Samsun Logix, and which accounted for approximately 22.2%, 18.5% and 13.2%, respectively, of total revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2010, we had 12 charter counterparties, the most significant of which were Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Ltd., Cargill International S.A. and Cosco Bulk Carrier Co. Ltd., and which accounted for approximately 27.7%, 11.8% and 11.2%, respectively, of total revenues. No other customers accounted for 10% or more of total revenue for any of the years presented.

We could lose a customer or the benefits of a charter if:

If we lose a charter, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on terms as favorable to us due to the long-term nature of most charters and the cyclical nature of the industry or we may be forced to charter the vessel on the spot market at then market rates which may be less favorable than the charter that has been terminated. If we are unable to re-deploy a vessel for which the charter has been terminated, we will not receive any revenues from that vessel, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition. If we lose a vessel, any replacement newbuilding would not generate revenues during its construction, and we may be unable to charter any replacement vessel on terms as favorable to us as those of the terminated charter.

The permanent loss of a customer, time charter or vessel, or a decline in payments under our charters, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make cash distributions in the event we are unable to replace such customer, time charter or vessel.

To mitigate this risk we have insured certain of our long-term charter-out contracts until the end of 2016, either through a “AA” rated European Union insurance provider up to a maximum cash payment of $120.0 million or through a separate agreement with Navios Holdings up to a maximum cash payment of $20.0 million. Our agreements provide that if the charterer goes into payment default, the respective insurer will reimburse us for the charter payments under the terms of the cover (subject to applicable deductibles and other customary limitations for such type of insurance).

In January 2011, Korea Line Corporation (“KLC”) which is the charterer of the Navios Melodia filed for receivership. The charter contract was affirmed and will be performed by KLC on its original terms, provided that during an interim suspension period the sub-charterer pays Navios Partners directly.

The risks and costs associated with vessels increase as the vessels age.

As of March 14, 2013, the vessels in our fleet have an average age of approximately 6.3 years and most drybulk vessels have an expected life of approximately 25-28 years. We may acquire older vessels in the future. In some instances, charterers prefer newer vessels that are more fuel efficient than older vessels. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers as well. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of the vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which these vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that as our vessels age, market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives. If we sell vessels, we may have to sell them at a loss, and if charterers no longer charter out vessels due to their age, it could materially adversely affect our earnings.

Vessels may suffer damage and we may face unexpected drydocking costs, which could affect our cash flow and financial condition.

If our owned vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs that insurance does not cover. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, could decrease our revenues and earnings substantially, particularly if a number of vessels are damaged or drydocked at the same time. Under the terms of our management agreement with the Manager, only the costs of routine drydocking repairs are included in the daily management fee of $4,650 per owned Ultra-Handymax vessel, $4,550 per owned Panamax vessel and $5,650 per owned Capesize vessel, which are fixed until December 31, 2013. From January 1, 2014 to December 31, 2017, we expect that we will reimburse the Manager for all of the actual operating costs and expenses it incurs in connection with the management of our fleet.

We are subject to various laws, regulations and conventions, including environmental and safety laws that could require significant expenditures both to maintain compliance with such laws and to pay for any uninsured environmental liabilities including any resulting from a spill or other environmental incident.

The shipping business and vessel operation are materially affected by government regulation in the form of international conventions, national, state and local laws, and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards, as well as compliance with standards imposed by maritime self-regulatory organizations and customer requirements or competition, may require us to make capital and other expenditures. Because such conventions, laws and regulations are often revised, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with such conventions, laws and regulations, or the impact thereof on the fair market price or useful life of our vessels. In order to satisfy any such requirements, we may be required to take any of our vessels out of service for extended periods of time, with corresponding losses of revenues. In the future, market conditions may not justify these expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels, particularly older vessels, profitably during the remainder of their economic lives. This could lead to significant asset write downs. In addition, violations of environmental and safety regulations can result in substantial penalties and, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our vessels.

Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business, require capital expenditures or otherwise increase our cost of doing business, which may materially adversely affect our operations, as well as the shipping industry generally. In various jurisdictions legislation has been enacted, or is under consideration, that would impose more stringent requirements on air pollution and water discharges from our vessels. For example, the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) periodically proposes and adopts amendments to revise the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”), such as the revision to Annex VI which came into force on July 1, 2010. The revised Annex VI implements a phased reduction of the sulfur content of fuel and allows for stricter sulfur limits in designated emission control areas (“ECAs”). Thus far, ECAs have been formally adopted for the Baltic Sea and the North Sea including the English Channel. The North American ECA came into effect on August 1, 2012, and the United States Caribbean Sea ECA came into force on January 1, 2013, having effect from January 1, 2014. These ECAs will limit SOx, NOx and particulate matter emissions. In California has adopted more stringent low sulfur fuel requirements within California regulated waters. In addition, the IMO, the U.S. and states within the U.S. have proposed or implemented requirements relating to the management of ballast water to prevent the harmful effects of foreign invasive species.

8

Table of Contents

The operation of vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the International Safety Management (“ISM”) Code. The ISM Code requires shipowners 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 vessel operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Further to this, the IMO has introduced the first ever mandatory measures for an international greenhouse gas reduction regime for a global industry sector. These Energy Efficiency measures took effect on January 1, 2013 and apply to all ships of 400 gross tonnage and above. They include the development of a ship energy efficiency management plan (“SEEMP”) which is akin to a safety management plan, with which the industry will have to comply. The failure of a ship owner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code and IMO measures may subject such party to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels, and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

For all vessels, including those operated under our fleet at present, international liability for oil pollution is governed by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the “Bunker Convention”). In 2001, the IMO adopted the Bunker Convention, which imposes strict liability on shipowners for pollution damage and response costs incurred in contracting states caused by discharges, or threatened discharges, of bunker oil from all classes of ships. The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of ships over a certain size to maintain insurance to cover their liability for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime, including liability limits calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims 1976, as amended (the “1976 Convention”), discussed in more detail in the following paragraph. The Bunker Convention became effective in contracting states on November 21, 2008 and as of January 31, 2013 was in effect in 68 states. In non-contracting states, liability for such bunker oil pollution typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs.

The right of vessel owners to limit liability incurred under the Bunker Convention depends on the applicable national or international regime. The 1976 Convention is the most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited where a spill is caused by a shipowner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Certain jurisdictions have ratified the IMO’s Protocol of 1996 to the 1976 Convention, referred to herein as the “Protocol of 1996.” The Protocol of 1996 provides for substantially higher liability limits in those jurisdictions than the limits set forth in the 1976 Convention. Finally, some jurisdictions, such as the United States, are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the Protocol of 1996, and, therefore, a shipowner’ s rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be uncertain.

Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which ship owners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution. Such regulation may become even stricter if laws are changed as a result of the April 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. In the United States, the OPA establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from cargo and bunker oil spills from vessels, including tankers. The OPA covers all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under the OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or substantial threats of discharges, of oil from their vessels. In response to the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil incident in the Gulf of Mexico, the U.S. House of Representatives passed and the U.S. Senate considered but did not pass a bill to strengthen certain requirements of the OPA; similar legislation may be introduced in the future 112th Congress.

In addition to potential liability under the federal OPA, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred. For example, California regulations prohibit the discharge of oil, require an oil contingency plan be filed with the state, require that the ship owner contract with an oil response organization and require a valid certificate of financial responsibility, all prior to the vessel entering state waters.

In the last decade, the EU has become increasingly active in the field of regulation of maritime safety and protection of the environment. In some areas of regulation the EU has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment to international law. Notably, the EU adopted in 2005 a directive, as amended in 2009, on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for pollution not only where pollution is caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offence under MARPOL), but also where it is caused by “serious negligence.” The concept of “serious negligence” may be interpreted in practice to be little more than ordinary negligence. The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where it would not be incurred under international law. Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines, but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable.

We maintain insurance coverage for each owned vessel in our fleet against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion in the aggregate for any one event. The insured risks include penalties and fines as well as civil liabilities and expenses resulting from accidental pollution. However, this insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions. If any liabilities or expenses fall within an exclusion from coverage, or if damages from a catastrophic incident exceed the aggregate liability of $1.0 billion for any one event, our cash flow, profitability and financial position would be adversely impacted.

Climate change and government laws and regulations related to climate change could negatively impact our financial condition.

Regarding climate change in particular, we are and will be, directly and indirectly, subject to the effects of climate change and may, directly or indirectly, be affected by government laws and regulations related to climate change. A number of countries have adopted or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In the U.S., the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) has declared greenhouse gases to be dangerous pollutants and has issued greenhouse gas reporting requirements for emissions sources in certain industries (which do not include the shipping industry). The U.S. EPA is also considering petitions to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels.

In addition, while 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 requires adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the IMO intends to develop limits on greenhouse gases from international shipping. It has responded to the global focus on climate change and greenhouse gas emissions by developing specific technical and operational efficiency measures and a work plan for market-based mechanisms in 2011. These include the mandatory measures of the ship energy efficiency management plan (“SEEMP”), outlined above, and an energy efficiency design index (“EEDI”) for new ships. The IMO is also considering its position on market-based measures through an expert working group, which was expected to report back to its Marine Environment Protection Committee in late 2012. Among the numerous proposals being considered by the working group are the following: a port state levy based on the amount of fuel consumed by the vessel on its voyage to the port in question; a global emissions trading scheme which would allocate emissions allowances and set an emissions cap; and an international fund establishing a global reduction target for international shipping, to be set either by the UNFCCC or the IMO. At its 64th session on 1 to 5 October 2012, the MEPC indicated that 2015 was the target year for Member States to identify market-based measures for international shipping.

In December 2011, UN climate change talks took place in Durban and concluded with an agreement referred to as the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action. The Durban Conference did not result in any proposals specifically addressing the shipping industry’s role in climate change but the progress that has been made by the IMO in this area was widely acknowledged throughout the negotiating bodies of the UNFCCC process.

9

Table of Contents

The European Union announced in April 2007 that it planned to expand the European Union emissions trading scheme by adding vessels, and a proposal from the European Commission was expected if no global regime for reduction of seaborne emissions had been agreed to by the end of 2011. That deadline has now expired and it remains to be seen what position the EU takes in this regard in the period ahead. As of January 31, 2013 the Commission has stopped short of proposing that emissions from ships be included in the EU’s emissions-trading scheme (ETS). However on October 1, 2012 it announced that it would propose measures to monitor, verify and report on greenhouse-gas emissions from the shipping sector in early 2013. This may be seen as indicative of an intention to maintain pressure on the international negotiating process.

We cannot predict with any degree of certainty what effect, if any possible climate change and government laws and regulations related to climate change will have on our operations, whether directly or indirectly. While we believe that it is difficult to assess the timing and effect of climate change and pending legislation and regulation related to climate change on our business, we believe that climate change, including the possible increase in severe weather events resulting from climate change, and government laws and regulations related to climate change may affect, directly or indirectly, (i) the cost of the vessels we may acquire in the future, (ii) our ability to continue to operate as we have in the past, (iii) the cost of operating our vessels, and (iv) insurance premiums, deductibles and the availability of coverage. As a result, our financial condition could be negatively impacted by significant climate change and related governmental regulation, and that impact could be material.

The loss of key members of our senior management team could disrupt the management of our business.

We believe that our success depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management team, including Ms. Angeliki Frangou, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer. The loss of the services of Ms. Frangou or one of our other executive officers or those of Navios Holdings who provide us with significant managerial services could impair our ability to identify and secure new charter contracts, to maintain good customer relations and to otherwise manage our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance and our ability to compete.

We are subject to vessel security regulations and will incur costs to comply with recently adopted regulations and we may be subject to costs to comply with similar regulations that may be adopted in the future in response to terrorism.

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 Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future which could have a significant financial impact on us. The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We will implement the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and take measures for the vessels to attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. Although management does not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations, there can be no assurance that there will not be an interruption in operations to bring vessels into compliance with the applicable requirements and any such interruption could cause a decrease in charter revenues. Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future which could have a significant financial impact on us.

The operation of ocean-going vessels entails the possibility of marine disasters including damage or destruction of the vessel due to accident, the loss of a vessel due to piracy or terrorism, damage or destruction of cargo and similar events that may cause a loss of revenue from affected vessels and damage our business reputation, which may in turn lead to loss of business.

The operation of ocean-going vessels entails certain inherent risks that may materially adversely affect our business and reputation, including:

Any of these circumstances or events could substantially increase our costs. For example, the costs of replacing a vessel or cleaning up a spill could substantially lower our revenues by taking vessels out of operation permanently or for periods of time. The involvement of our vessels in a disaster or delays in delivery or damages or loss of cargo may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel operator and cause us to lose business.

The operation of vessels, such as dry bulk carriers, has certain unique risks. With a dry bulk carrier, the cargo itself and its interaction with the vessel can be an operational risk. By their nature, dry bulk cargoes are often heavy, dense, easily shift, and react badly to water exposure. In addition, dry bulk carriers are often subjected to battering treatment during unloading operations with grabs, jackhammers (to pry encrusted cargoes out of the hold) and small bulldozers. This treatment may cause damage to the vessel. Vessels damaged due to treatment during unloading procedures may be more susceptible to breach to the sea. Hull breaches in dry bulk carriers may lead to the flooding of the vessels’ holds. If a dry bulk carrier suffers flooding in its forward holds, the bulk cargo may become so dense and waterlogged that its pressure may buckle the vessel’s bulkheads leading to the loss of a vessel.

The total loss or damage of any of our vessels or cargoes could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator. If we are unable to adequately maintain or safeguard our vessels, we may be unable to prevent any such damage, costs, or loss that could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and ability to pay distributions.

A failure to pass inspection by classification societies could result in one or more vessels being unemployable unless and until they pass inspection, resulting in a loss of revenues from such vessels for that period and a corresponding decrease in operating cash flows.

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 with SOLAS. Our owned fleet is currently enrolled with American Bureau of Shipping, Nippon Kaiji Kiokai, Bureau Veritas and Lloyd’s Register.

10

Table of Contents

A vessel must undergo an annual survey, an intermediate survey and a special survey. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Our vessels are on special survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel.

If any vessel fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, the vessel may be unable to trade between ports and, therefore, would be unemployable, potentially causing a negative impact on our revenues due to the loss of revenues from such vessel until she is able to trade again.

We are subject to inherent operational risks that may not be adequately covered by our insurance.

The operation of ocean-going vessels in international trade is inherently risky. Although we carry insurance for our fleet against risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators, including hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance and protection and indemnity insurance (which include environmental damage and pollution insurance), all risks may not be adequately insured against, and any particular claim may not be paid. We do not currently maintain off-hire insurance, which would cover the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled drydocking due to damage to the vessel from accidents. Accordingly, any extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to pay distributions to our unitholders. Any claims covered by insurance would be subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material.

We may be unable to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led in the past to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could exceed our insurance coverage, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of insurance more difficult for us to obtain. In addition, the insurance that may be available to us may be significantly more expensive than our existing coverage.

Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to timely obtain a replacement vessel in the event of a loss. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which can result in significant increased overall costs to us.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, we may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records, but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations.

We may be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expenses to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Because we generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could cause us to suffer exchange rate losses thereby increasing expenses and reducing income.

We engage in worldwide commerce with a variety of entities. Although our operations may expose us to certain levels of foreign currency risk, our transactions are at present predominantly U.S. dollar-denominated. Transactions in currencies other than the functional currency are translated at the exchange rate in effect at the date of each transaction. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value can increase thereby decreasing our income or vice versa if the U.S. dollar increases in value. For example, as of December 31, 2012, the value of the U.S. dollar as compared to the Euro decreased by approximately 2.0% compared with the respective value as of December 31, 2011. A greater percentage of our transactions and expenses in the future may be denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

Our operations expose us to global political risks, such as wars and political instability that may interfere with the operation of our vessels causing a decrease in revenues from such vessels.

We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside the United States. Changing economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we are engaged in business or where our vessels are registered will affect us. In the past, political conflicts, particularly in the Persian Gulf, resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt shipping in the area. For example, in October 2002, the vessel Limburg, which was not affiliated with us, was attacked by terrorists in Yemen. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea. Following the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and the military response of the United States, the likelihood of future acts of terrorism may increase, and our vessels may face higher risks of being attacked in the Middle East region and interruption of operations causing a decrease in revenues. In addition, future hostilities or other political instability in regions where our vessels trade could affect our trade patterns and adversely affect our operations by causing delays in shipping on certain routes or making shipping impossible on such routes, thereby causing a decrease in revenues.

In addition, a government could requisition title or seize our vessels during a war or national emergency. Requisition of title occurs when a government takes a vessel and becomes the owner. A government could also requisition our vessels for hire, which would result in the government’s taking control of a vessel and effectively becoming the charterer at a dictated charter rate. Requisition of one or more of our vessels would have a substantial negative effect on us as we would potentially lose all revenues and earnings from the requisitioned vessels and permanently lose the vessels. Such losses might be partially offset if the requisitioning government compensated us for the requisition.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels have increased in frequency and magnitude, which could adversely affect our business.

The shipping industry has historically been affected by acts of piracy in regions such as the South China Sea and the Gulf of Aden. In 2009 acts of piracy saw a steep rise, particularly off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden. A recent and significant example of the heightened level of piracy came in February 2011 when the M/V Irene SL, a crude oil tanker which was not affiliated with us, was captured by pirates in the Arabian Sea while carrying crude oil estimated to be worth approximately $200 million. In December 2009, the Navios Apollon, one of our vessels, was seized by pirates 800 miles off the coast of Somalia while transporting fertilizer from Tampa, Florida to Rozi, India and was released on February 27, 2010. These piracy attacks resulted in regions (in which our vessels are deployed) being characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones or Joint War Committee (JWC) “war and strikes” listed areas. Premiums payable for such insurance coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. In addition, while we believe the charterer remains liable for charter payments when a vessel is seized by pirates, the charterer may dispute this and withhold charter hire until the vessel is released. A charterer may also claim that a vessel seized by pirates was not “on-hire” for a certain number of days and it is therefore entitled to cancel the charter party, a claim that we would dispute. 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, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows. Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels have increased in frequency, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

11

Table of Contents

Disruptions in world financial markets and the resulting governmental action in the United States and in other parts of the world could have a material adverse impact on our ability to obtain financing, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows and could cause the market price of our common units to decline.

Concerns relating to the European sovereign debt crisis have recently intensified. While Greece, Portugal and Ireland have been the most affected countries thus far, with each agreeing to a rescue package with the European Union and the International Monetary Fund, there are fears that other European countries may be further affected by increasing public debt burdens and weakening economic growth prospects. On January, 13, 2012, Standard and Poor’s Rating Services downgraded the long-term ratings for nine Eurozone nations, including France, Italy and Spain. Since then, Standard and Poor’ s, Moody’s Investors Service and other credit ratings agencies have further downgraded certain Eurozone nations, most recently with Fitch Ratings’ downgrade of Italy’s sovereign rating on March 8, 2013. Such downgrades could negatively affect those countries’ ability to access the public debt markets at reasonable rates or at all, materially affecting the financial conditions of banks in those countries, including those with which we maintain cash deposits and equivalents, or on which we rely on to finance our vessel and new business acquisitions.

Cash deposits and cash equivalents in excess of amounts covered by government-provided insurance are exposed to loss in the event of non-performance by financial institutions. We maintain cash deposits and equivalents in excess of government-provided insurance limits at banks in Greek and other European banks, which may expose us to a loss of cash deposits or cash equivalents.

The United States and other parts of the world are exhibiting volatile economic trends and were recently in a recession. Despite signs of recovery, the outlook for the world economy remains uncertain. For example, the credit markets worldwide have experienced significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity, and the U.S. federal government, state governments and foreign governments have implemented and are considering a broad variety of governmental action and/or new regulation of the financial markets. Additionally, uncertainty regarding tax policy and government spending in the United States have created an uncertain environment which could reduce demand for our services. Securities and futures markets and the credit markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and other requirements. The Securities and Exchange Commission (the “SEC”), other regulators, self-regulatory organizations and exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies, and may effect changes in law or interpretations of existing laws. Recently, a number of financial institutions have experienced serious financial difficulties and, in some cases, have entered bankruptcy proceedings or are in regulatory enforcement actions. These issues, along with the reprising of credit risk and the difficulties currently experienced by financial institutions have made, and will likely continue to make, it difficult to obtain financing. As a result of the disruptions in the credit markets, many lenders have increased margins on lending rates, enacted tighter lending standards, required more restrictive terms (including higher collateral ratios for advances, shorter maturities and smaller loan amounts), or have refused to refinance existing debt at all. Additionally, certain banks that have historically been significant lenders to the shipping industry have reduced or ceased lending activities in the shipping industry. New banking regulations, including larger capital requirements and the resulting policies adopted by lenders, could reduce lending activities. We may experience difficulties obtaining financing commitments, including commitments to refinance our existing debt as balloon payments come due under our credit facilities, in the future if lenders are unwilling to extend financing to us or unable to meet their funding obligations due to their own liquidity, capital or solvency issues. Due to the fact that we would possibly cover all or a portion of the cost of any new vessel acquisition with debt financing, such uncertainty, combined with restrictions imposed by our current debt, could hamper our ability to finance vessels or new business acquisitions.

In addition, the economic uncertainty worldwide has markedly reduced demand for shipping services and has decreased shipping rates, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the economies of China, Japan, other Pacific Asian countries and India are the main driving force behind the development in seaborne transportation. Reduced demand from such economies has driven decreased rates and vessel values.

We could face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates, tax policies, and instability in certain securities markets, among other factors. Major market disruptions and the uncertainty in market conditions and the regulatory climate in the U.S., Europe and worldwide could adversely affect our business or impair our ability to borrow amounts under any future financial arrangements. The current market conditions may last longer than we anticipate. These recent and developing economic and governmental factors could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows.

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 a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages against such vessel. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of funds to have the arrest lifted. We are not currently aware of the existence of any such maritime lien on our vessels.

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

Navios Holdings and its affiliates may compete with us.

Pursuant to the omnibus agreement that we entered into with Navios Holdings in connection with the closing of the IPO, referred to herein as the Omnibus Agreement, Navios Holdings and its controlled affiliates (other than us, our general partner and our subsidiaries) generally agreed not to acquire or own Panamax or Capesize drybulk carriers under time charters of three or more years without the consent of our general partner. The Omnibus Agreement, however, contains significant exceptions that allow Navios Holdings or any of its controlled affiliates to compete with us under specified circumstances which could harm our business. In addition, concurrently with the successful consummation of the initial business combination by Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation, or Navios Acquisition, on May 28, 2010, because of the overlap between Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and us, with respect to possible acquisitions under the terms of our Omnibus Agreement, we entered into a business opportunity right of first refusal agreement which provides the types of business opportunities in the marine transportation and logistics industries, we, Navios Holdings and Navios Acquisition must share with the each other.

Common unitholders have limited voting rights and our partnership agreement restricts the voting rights of common unitholders owning more than 4.9% of our common units.

Holders of our common units have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business. We hold a meeting of the limited partners every year to elect one or more members of our board of directors and to vote on any other matters that are properly brought before the meeting. Common unitholders may only elect four of the seven members of our board of directors. The elected directors are elected on a staggered basis and serve for three year terms. Our general partner in its sole discretion has the right to appoint the remaining three directors and to set the terms for which those directors will serve. The partnership agreement also contains provisions limiting the ability of unitholders to call meetings or to acquire information about our operations, as well as other provisions limiting the unitholders’ ability to influence the manner or direction of management. Unitholders will have no right to elect our general partner and our general partner may not be removed except by a vote of the holders of at least 662 / 3% of the outstanding units, including any units owned by our general partner and its affiliates, voting together as a single class.

Our partnership agreement further restricts common unitholders’ voting rights by providing that if any person or group owns beneficially more than 4.9% of the common units then outstanding, any such common units owned by that person or group in excess of 4.9% may not be voted on any matter and will not be considered to be outstanding when sending notices of a meeting of unitholders, calculating required votes, except for purposes of nominating a person for election to our board, determining the presence of a quorum or for other similar purposes, unless required by law. The voting rights of any such common unitholders in excess of 4.9% will effectively be redistributed pro rata among the other common unitholders holding less than 4.9% of the voting power of all classes of units entitled to vote. Our general partner, its affiliates and persons who acquired common units with the prior approval of our board of directors will not be subject to this 4.9% limitation except with respect to voting their common units in the election of the elected independent directors.

12

Table of Contents

Our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Holdings, own a significant interest in us and have conflicts of interest and limited fiduciary and contractual duties, which may permit them to favor their own interests to the detriment of unitholders.

Navios Holdings indirectly owns the 2.0% general partner interest and a 21.4% limited partner interest in us, and owns and controls our general partner. All of our officers and three of our directors are directors and/or officers of Navios Holdings and its affiliates, and our Chief Executive Officer is also the Chief Executive Officer of Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings. As such these individuals have fiduciary duties to Navios Holdings and Navios Acquisition that may cause them to pursue business strategies that disproportionately benefit Navios Holdings or Navios Acquisition or which otherwise are not in our best interests or those of our unitholders. Conflicts of interest may arise between Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and their respective affiliates including our general partner, on the one hand, and us and our unitholders on the other hand. As a result of these conflicts, our general partner and its affiliates may favor their own interests over the interests of our unitholders. These conflicts include, among others, the following situations:

Although a majority of our directors will be elected by common unitholders, our general partner will likely have substantial influence on decisions made by our board of directors.

Our officers face conflicts in the allocation of their time to our business.

Navios Holdings and Navios Acquisition conduct businesses and activities of their own in which we have no economic interest. If these separate activities are significantly greater than our activities, there will be material competition for the time and effort of our officers, who also provide services to Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and its affiliates. Our officers are not required to work full-time on our affairs and are required to devote time to the affairs of Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and their respective affiliates. Each of our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer is also an executive officer of Navios Holdings, and our Chief Executive Officer is the Chief Executive Officer of Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings.

Our partnership agreement limits our general partner’s and our directors’ fiduciary duties to our unitholders and restricts the remedies available to unitholders for actions taken by our general partner or our directors.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that reduce the standards to which our general partner and directors would otherwise be held by Marshall Islands law. For example, our partnership agreement:

In order to become a limited partner of our partnership, a common unitholder is required to agree to be bound by the provisions in the partnership agreement, including the provisions discussed above.

13

Table of Contents

Fees and cost reimbursements, which the Manager determines for services provided to us, are significant, are payable regardless of profitability and reduce our cash available for distribution.

Under the terms of our management agreement with the Manager, we pay a daily fee of $4,650 per owned Ultra-Handymax vessel, $4,550 per owned Panamax vessel and $5,650 per owned Capesize vessel for technical and commercial management services provided to us by the Manager from November 17, 2011 until December 31, 2013. The term of the management agreement is until December 31, 2017.

The daily fee paid to the Manager includes all costs incurred in providing certain commercial and technical management services to us. While this fee is fixed until December 31, 2013, we expect that we will reimburse the Manager for all of the actual operating costs and expenses it incurs in connection with the management of our fleet until December 31, 2017, which may result in significantly higher fees that period. All of the fees we are required to pay to the Manager under the management agreement are payable without regard to our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the Manager provides us with administrative services, including the services of our officers and directors, pursuant to an administrative services agreement which has a term until December 31, 2017, and we reimburse the Manager for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by it in connection with the provision of those services. The fees and reimbursement of expenses to the Manager are payable regardless of our profitability and could materially adversely affect our ability to pay cash distributions to unitholders.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that may have the effect of discouraging a person or group from attempting to remove our current management or our general partner.

Our partnership agreement contains provisions that may have the effect of discouraging a person or group from attempting to remove our current management or our general partner.

The control of our general partner may be transferred to a third party without unitholder consent.

Our general partner may transfer its general partner interest to a third party in a merger or in a sale of all or substantially all of its assets without the consent of the unitholders. In addition, our partnership agreement does not restrict the ability of the members of our general partner from transferring their respective membership interests in our general partner to a third party.

In establishing cash reserves, our board of directors may reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to unitholders.

Our partnership agreement requires our general partner to deduct from operating surplus cash reserves that it determines are necessary to fund our future operating expenditures. These reserves also will affect the amount of cash available for distribution to our unitholders. Our board of directors may establish reserves for distributions on the subordinated units, but only if those reserves will not prevent us from distributing the full minimum quarterly distribution, plus any arrearages, on the common units for the following four quarters. Our partnership agreement requires our board of directors each quarter to deduct from operating surplus estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, as opposed to actual expenditures, which could reduce the amount of available cash for distribution. The amount of estimated maintenance and replacement capital expenditures deducted from operating surplus is subject to review and change by our board of directors at least once a year, provided that any change must be approved by the conflicts committee of our board of directors.

Our general partner has a limited call right that may require unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Holdings, own more than 80% of the common units, our general partner will have the right, which it may assign to any of its affiliates or to us, but not the obligation, to acquire all, but not less than all, of the common units held by unaffiliated persons at a price not less than their then-current market price. As a result, unitholders may be required to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price and may not receive any return on their investment. Unitholders may also incur a tax liability upon a sale of their units.

As of March 14, 2013, Navios Holdings owned 14,223,763 common units and 1,332,334 general partner units, representing a 23.4% interest in us based on all outstanding common units and general partnership units.

Unitholders may not have limited liability if a court finds that unitholder action constitutes control of our business.

As a limited partner in a partnership organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands, unitholders could be held liable for our obligations to the same extent as a general partner if they participate in the “control” of our business. Our general partner generally has unlimited liability for the obligations of the partnership, such as its debts and environmental liabilities, except for those contractual obligations of the partnership that are expressly made without recourse to our general partner.

We can borrow money to pay distributions, which would reduce the amount of credit available to operate our business.

Our partnership agreement will allow us to make working capital borrowings to pay distributions. Accordingly, we can make distributions on all our units even though cash generated by our operations may not be sufficient to pay such distributions. Any working capital borrowings by us to make distributions will reduce the amount of working capital borrowings we can make for operating our business.

14

Table of Contents

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

An increase in interest rates may cause a corresponding decline in demand for equity investments in general, and in particular for yield-based equity investments such as our common units. Any such increase in interest rates or reduction in demand for our common units resulting from other relatively more attractive investment opportunities may cause the trading price of our common units to decline. In addition, our interest expense will increase, since initially our debt will bear interest at a floating rate, subject to any interest rate swaps we may enter into the future.

Unitholders may have liability to repay distributions.

Under some circumstances, unitholders may have to repay amounts wrongfully returned or distributed to them. Under the Marshall Islands Act, we may not make a distribution to unitholders if the distribution would cause our liabilities to exceed the fair value of our assets. Marshall Islands law provides that for a period of three years from the date of the impermissible distribution, limited partners who received the distribution and who knew at the time of the distribution that it violated Marshall Islands law will be liable to the limited partnership for the distribution amount. Assignees who become substituted limited partners are liable for the obligations of the assignor to make contributions to the partnership that are known to the assignee at the time it became a limited partner and for unknown obligations if the liabilities could be determined from the partnership agreement. Liabilities to partners on account of their partnership interest and liabilities that are non-recourse to the partnership are not counted for purposes of determining whether a distribution is permitted.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read “Item 4. Information on the Partnership” and “Item 10. Additional Information” for a more complete discussion of the expected material U.S. federal and non-U.S. income tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of common units.

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

A non-U.S. entity treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company,” or a PFIC, for U.S. federal income tax purposes if at least 75.0% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income,” or at least 50.0% of the average value of the entity’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” generally includes dividends, interest, gains from the sale or exchange of investment property, and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income.” U.S. unitholders 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.

Based on our current and projected method of operation, and on opinion of counsel, we believe that we were not a PFIC for our 2012 taxable year, and we expect that we will not become a PFIC with respect to any other taxable year. Our U.S. counsel, Thompson Hine LLP, is of the opinion that (1) the income we receive from time chartering activities and the assets we own that are engaged in generating such income should not be treated as passive income or assets, respectively, and (2) so long as our income from time charters exceeds 25.0% of our gross income from all sources for each taxable year after our initial taxable year and the fair market value of our vessels contracted under time charters exceeds 50.0% of the average fair market value of all of our assets for each taxable year after our initial taxable year, we should not be a PFIC for any taxable year. This opinion is based on representations and projections provided by us to our counsel regarding our assets, income and charters, and its validity is conditioned on the accuracy of such representations and projections. We expect that all of the vessels in our fleet will be engaged in time chartering activities and intend to treat our income from those activities as non-passive income, and the vessels engaged in those activities as non-passive assets, for PFIC purposes. However, no assurance can be given that the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will accept this position.

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

Under the Internal Revenue Code, or the Code, 50.0% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation that is attributable to transportation that either begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States is characterized as U.S.-source shipping income. U.S.-source shipping income generally is subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction or, if such U.S.-source shipping income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S. federal corporate income tax (the highest statutory rate presently is 35.0%) as well as a branch profits tax (presently imposed at a 30.0% rate on effectively connected earnings) applies, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code.

Based on an opinion of counsel, and certain assumptions and representations, we believe that we will qualify for this statutory tax exemption, and we will take this position for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes. However, there are factual circumstances, including some that may be beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption. Furthermore, our board of directors could determine that it is in our best interests to take an action that would result in this tax exemption not applying to us in the future. In addition, our conclusion that we qualify for this exemption, as well as the conclusions in this regard of our counsel, Thompson Hine LLP, is based upon legal authorities that do not expressly contemplate an organizational structure such as ours; specifically, although we have elected to be treated as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we are organized as a limited partnership under Marshall Islands law. Therefore, we can give no assurances that the IRS will not take a different position regarding our qualification for this tax exemption.

If we were not entitled to the Section 883 exemption for any taxable year, we generally would be subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal gross income tax with respect to our U.S.-source shipping income or, if such U.S. source shipping income were effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S. federal corporate income tax as well as a branch profits tax for those years. Our failure to qualify for the Section 883 exemption could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our unitholders.

You may be subject to income tax in one or more non-U.S. countries, including Greece, as a result of owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are considered to be carrying on business there. Such laws may require you to file a tax return with and pay taxes to those countries.

We intend that our affairs and the business of each of our controlled affiliates will be conducted and operated in a manner that minimizes income taxes imposed upon us and these controlled affiliates or which may be imposed upon you as a result of owning our common units. However, because we are organized as a partnership, there is a risk in some jurisdictions that our activities and the activities of our subsidiaries may be attributed to our unitholders for tax purposes and, thus, that you will be subject to tax in one or more non-U.S. countries, including Greece, as a result of owning our common units if, under the laws of any such country, we are considered to be carrying on business there. If you are subject to tax in any such country, you may be required to file a tax return with and to pay tax in that country based on your allocable share of our income. We may be required to reduce distributions to you on account of any withholding obligations imposed upon us by that country in respect of such allocation to you. The United States may not allow a tax credit for any foreign income taxes that you directly or indirectly incur.

We believe we can conduct our activities in such a manner that our unitholders should not be considered to be carrying on business in Greece solely as a consequence of the acquisition, holding, disposition or redemption of our common units. However, the question of whether either we or any of our controlled affiliates will be treated as carrying on business in any particular country, including Greece, will be largely a question of fact to be determined based upon an analysis of contractual arrangements, including the management agreement and the administrative services agreement we will enter into with the Manager, and the way we conduct business or operations, all of which may change over time. Furthermore, the laws of Greece or any other country may change in a manner that causes that country’s taxing authorities to determine that we are carrying on business in such country and are subject to its taxation laws. Any foreign taxes imposed on us or any subsidiaries will reduce our cash available for distribution.

15

Table of Contents