A. Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated and combined historical financial information as of December 31, 2014 and 2013 and operating results for the years ended December 31, 2014, 2013, and 2012, is derived from our audited consolidated and combined financial statements of Navios Maritime Midstream Partners L.P. (sometimes referred to as “Navios Midstream”, the “Partnership”, “we” or “us”) which are included elsewhere in this Annual 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 and combined financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

3

Table of Contents

B. Capitalization and indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the offer and use of proceeds

Not applicable.

D. Risk factors

Risk 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 $0.4125 per common unit following the establishment of cash reserves and payment of fees and expenses or to maintain or increase distributions. The amount of cash we can distribute on our common units principally depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate based on numerous factors generally described under this “Risk Factors” heading, 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:

4

Table of Contents

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.

Our fleet consists of only four vessels. Any limitation on the availability or operation of those vessels could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Our fleet consists of only four VLCCs. If any of our vessels is unable to generate revenues for any significant period of time for any reason, including unexpected periods of off-hire or early charter termination (which could result from damage to our vessels), our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, including cash available for distribution to unitholders, could be materially and adversely affected. The impact of any limitation in the operation of our vessels or any early charter termination would be amplified during the period prior to acquisition of additional vessels from Navios Acquisition, as a substantial portion of our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our four VLCCs. In addition, the costs of vessel repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. In the event of repair costs that are not covered by our insurance policies, we may have to pay for such repair costs, which would decrease our earnings and cash flows.

We are focused on employing vessels on long-term charters of at least five years, which may not be typical for the crude oil, refined petroleum product, chemical and LPG sectors of the seaborne transportation industry.

One of our principal strategies is to enter into additional long-term charters of at least five years, which may not be the typical charter length for vessels in our sectors, although we believe it is impractical to determine the typical charter length for vessels in our sectors due to factors such as market dynamics, charter strategy and the private nature of charter agreements. In our experience, charters are generally entered into for time periods of less than five years, although we are not aware of any empirical evidence that supports this observation. If a market for long-term time charters in the crude oil, refined petroleum product, chemical and LPG tanker sectors does not develop, we may have increased difficulty entering into long-term time charters upon expiration or early termination of the time charters for the VLCCs in our fleet or for any vessels that we acquire in the future. As a result, our revenues and cash flows may become more volatile. In addition, an active short-term or spot charter market may require us to enter into charters based on changing market prices, as opposed to contracts based on fixed rates, which could result in a decrease in our revenues and cash flows, including cash available for distribution to unitholders, if we enter into charters during periods when the market price for shipping crude oil, refined petroleum product, chemical and LPG is depressed.

Due to our lack of diversification, adverse developments in the tanker industry could adversely affect our business, particularly if such developments occur at a time when we are seeking a new charter.

Due to our lack of diversification, an adverse development in the tanker industry could have a significantly greater impact on our business, particularly if such developments occur at a time when our ships are not under charter or nearing the end of their charters, than if we maintained more diverse assets or lines of businesses.

We depend on two customers for our revenue. Charterers may terminate or default on their obligations to us, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and cash flow, and cash available for distribution to unitholders and the terms of the charters may be difficult to enforce.

We derive our revenue from two charterers. For the year ended December 31, 2014, Cosco Dalian and Formosa Petrochemical accounted for 77.9% and 22.1%, respectively, of our total revenue. The loss of these customers, a customer’s failure to make payments or perform under any of the applicable charters, a customer’s poor financial performance, a customer’s termination of any of the applicable charters, the loss or damage beyond repair to any of our vessels, our failure to deliver the vessel within a fixed period of time or a decline in

5

Table of Contents

payments under the charters could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, the charterers of the VLCC vessels are based in, and have their primary assets and operations in, the Asia-Pacific region, including the People’s Republic of China. The charter agreements for the VLCC vessels are governed by English law and provide for dispute resolution in English courts or London-based arbitral proceedings. There can be no assurance that we would be able to enforce any judgments against these charterers in jurisdictions where they are based or have their primary assets and operations. Even after a charter contract is entered, charterers may terminate charters early under certain circumstances. The events or occurrences that will cause a charter to terminate or give the charterer the option to terminate the charter generally include a total or constructive total loss of the related vessel, the requisition for hire of the related vessel, the vessel becoming subject to seizure for more than a specified number of days or the failure of the related vessel to meet specified performance criteria. In addition, the ability of a charterer to perform its obligations under a charter will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control.

These factors may include general economic conditions, the condition of the crude oil, product and chemical tanker sectors of the shipping industry, the charter rates received for specific types of vessels and various operating expenses. The costs and delays associated with the default by a charterer of a vessel may be considerable and may adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

We cannot predict whether our charterers will, upon the expiration of their charters, re-charter our vessels on favorable terms or at all. If our charterers decide not to re-charter our vessels, we may not be able to re-charter them on terms similar to our current charters or at all. In the future, we may also employ our vessels on the spot charter market, which is subject to greater rate fluctuation than the time charter market. If we receive lower charter rates under replacement charters or are unable to re-charter all of our vessels, our results of operations and financial condition and cash available for distribution to unitholders could be materially adversely affected.

Charter rates in the crude oil tankers sector in which we operate and in the product and chemical tanker sectors of the seaborne transportation industry have significantly declined from historically high levels in 2008 and may remain depressed or decline further in the future, which may adversely affect our earnings.

Charter rates in the crude oil, product and chemical tanker sectors have significantly declined from historically high levels in 2008 and may remain depressed or decline further. For example, the Baltic Dirty Tanker Index declined from a high of 2,347 in July 2008 to 453 in mid-April 2009, which represents a decline of approximately 81%. Since January 2013, it has traded between a low of 577 and a high of 1,344; as of February 17, 2015, it stood at 841. The Baltic Clean Tanker Index fell from 1,509 in the early summer of 2008 to 345 in April 2009, which represents a decline of approximately 77%. It has traded between a low of 483 and a high of 823 since January 2013 and stood at 592 as of February 17, 2015. Of note is that Chinese imports of crude oil have steadily increased from 3 million barrels per day in 2008 to about 7.1 million barrels per day in December 2014 and the U.S. has steadily increased its total petroleum product exports by about 313% to 3.9 million barrels per day in October 2014 from 1 million barrels per day in January 2006. If the tanker sector of the seaborne transportation industry, which has been highly cyclical, is depressed in the future 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 at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our business profitably or to meet our obligations, including payment of debt service to our lenders. Our ability to renew the charters 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 sector 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 seaborne transportation of energy resources and commodities.

Spot market rates for tanker vessels are highly volatile and may decrease in the future, which may materially adversely affect our earnings in the event that our vessels are chartered in the spot market.

We may deploy some of our VLCCs or future refined petroleum product tankers, LPG tankers and chemical tankers from time to time in the spot market. Although spot chartering is common in the refined petroleum

6

Table of Contents

product, chemical, LPG and crude oil sectors, refined petroleum product, chemical and LPG tanker and VLCCs’ charter hire rates are highly volatile and may fluctuate significantly based upon demand for seaborne transportation of crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical, as well as tanker supply. The world oil demand 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 and China. Any successful operation of our vessels in the spot charter market depends upon, among other things, obtaining profitable spot charters and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent traveling unladen to pick up cargo. Furthermore, as charter rates for spot charters are fixed for a single voyage that may last up to several weeks, during periods in which spot charter rates are rising, we will generally experience delays in realizing the benefits from such increases.

The spot market is highly volatile, and, in the past, there have been periods when spot rates have declined below the operating cost of vessels. In January 2015, VLCC time charter hire rates rose to rates not seen since early 2009, but there is no assurance that the crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical tanker charter market will increase from present levels over the next several months or will not decline.

Additionally, if the spot market rates or short-term time charter rates become significantly lower than the time charter 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, which would affect our ability to comply with our loan covenants and operate our vessels profitably. If we are not able to comply with our loan covenants and our lenders choose to accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose their liens, we could be required to sell vessels in our fleet and our ability to continue to conduct our business would be impaired.

Our fleet of VLCCs is contractually committed to time charters, with the remaining terms of these charters expiring during the period from and including January 2017 through June 2026. We are not permitted to unilaterally terminate the charter agreements of the VLCCs due to upswings in the tanker industry cycle, when spot market voyages might be more profitable. We may also decide to sell a vessel in the future. In such a case, should we sell a vessel that is committed to a long-term charter, we may not be able to realize the full charter free fair market value of the vessel during a period when spot market charters are more profitable than the charter agreement under which the vessel operates. We may re-charter the VLCCs on long-term charters or charter them in the spot market or place them in pools upon expiration or termination of the vessels’ current charters. If we are not able to employ the VLCCs profitably under time charters or in the spot market, our results of operations and operating cash flow may suffer.

The cyclical nature of the tanker industry may lead to volatility in charter rates and vessel values, which could adversely affect our future earnings.

Oil has been one of the world’s primary energy sources for a number of decades. The global economic growth of previous years had a significant impact on the demand for oil and subsequently on oil trade and shipping demand. However, the past several years were marked by a major economic slowdown which has had, and continues to have, a significant impact on world trade, including the oil trade. Global economic conditions remain fragile with significant uncertainty remaining with respect to recovery prospects, levels of recovery and long-term economic growth effects. In particular, the uncertainty surrounding the future of the Euro zone, the economic prospects of the United States and the future economic growth of China, Brazil, Russia, India and other emerging markets are all expected to affect demand for product and crude tankers going forward. Demand for oil and refined petroleum products remains weak as a result of the weak global economic environment and a general global trend towards energy efficient technologies, which in combination with the diminished availability of trade credit and deteriorating international liquidity conditions, led to decreased demand for tanker vessels, creating downward pressure on charter rates. This economic downturn has also affected vessel values overall. Despite global oil demand growth remaining marginally positive for 2014, during the last half of calendar year

7

Table of Contents

2014, energy prices sharply declined and average spot and period charter rates for product and crude tankers remained, and continue to be, at below historically average rates. If oil demand grows in the future, it is expected to come primarily from emerging markets which have been historically volatile, such as China and India, and a slowdown in these countries’ economies may severely affect global oil demand growth, and may result in protracted, reduced consumption of oil products and a 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.

If the tanker market, which has historically been cyclical, is depressed in the future, our earnings and available cash flow may be materially adversely affected. Our ability to employ our vessels profitably will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the tanker market. Fluctuations in charter rates and tanker values result from changes in the supply and demand for tanker capacity and changes in the supply and demand for liquid cargoes, including petroleum and petroleum products.

Historically, the crude oil markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and events that can affect the price, demand, production and transport of oil, including competition from alternative energy sources. Decreased demand for oil transportation may have a material adverse effect on our revenues, cash flows and profitability. The factors affecting the supply and demand for tankers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable. The current global financial crisis has intensified this unpredictability.

The factors that influence demand for tanker capacity include:

The factors that influence the supply of tanker capacity include:

8

Table of Contents

Historically, the tanker markets have been volatile as a result of the many conditions and factors that can affect the price, supply and demand for tanker capacity. The recent global economic crisis may further reduce demand for transportation of oil over long distances and supply of tankers that carry oil, which may materially affect our future revenues, profitability and cash flows.

We believe that the current order book for tanker vessels represents a significant percentage of the existing fleet; however the percentage of the total tanker fleet on order as a percent of the total fleet declined from nearly 50% at its recent peak in 2008 to 14.0% as of December 2014. An over-supply of tanker capacity may result in a reduction of charter hire rates. If a reduction in charter rates occurs, we may only be able to charter our vessels at unprofitable rates or we may not be able to charter these vessels at all, which could lead to a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

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. 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 it is estimated that it fell at around 33% in 2013 as a result of lower consumption and the substantial increase in domestic crude oil production. The IEA expects the net import share to decline to 21% in 2015, which would be the lowest level since 1969. 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 bunker savings as compared to older designs. Increased demand for and supply of “eco-type” vessels could reduce demand for our vessels that are not classified as such and expose us to lower vessel utilization and/or decreased charter rates.

The product tanker newbuilding order book as of December 2014 is estimated at 389 vessels or 15.0% of the current product tanker fleet according to Clarksons Research Services Limited. The majority of these orders are based on new vessel designs, which purport to offer material bunker savings compared to older designs, which include certain of our vessels. Such savings could result in a substantial reduction of bunker cost for charterers compared to such vessels of ours. As the supply of such “eco-type” vessel increases and if charterers prefer such vessels over our vessels that are not classified as such, this may reduce demand for our non-“eco-type” vessels, impair our ability to recharter such vessels at competitive rates and have a material adverse effect on our cash flows and operations.

9

Table of Contents

The market values of our vessels or vessels we may acquire have declined from historically high levels and may fluctuate significantly, which could cause us to breach covenants in our debt instruments, result in the foreclosure of certain of our vessels, limit the amount of funds that we can borrow and adversely affect our ability to purchase new vessels and our operating results. Depressed vessel values could also cause us to incur impairment charges.

Due to the sharp decline in world trade and tanker charter rates, the market values of our vessels and of tankers generally, are currently significantly lower than they would have been prior to the downturn in the second half of 2008. In the last ten years, the highest values for VLCCs occurred in mid 2008. The lowest prices for VLCCs occurred in the middle of 2013 and values have improved since then. For example, in July 2008, a five year old VLCC was valued by Clarksons at $165 million compared to a value of $55 million in June 2013 and at $81 million in February 2015. Vessel values may remain at current or lower levels for a prolonged period of time and can fluctuate substantially over time due to a number of different factors, including:

If the market value of our vessels decreases, we may breach some of the covenants contained in the financing agreements relating to our indebtedness at the time. If we breach any such covenants in the future and we are unable to remedy the relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate or require us to prepay a portion of our debt and foreclose on our vessels. In addition, if the book value of a vessel is impaired due to unfavorable market conditions, we would incur a loss that could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, as vessels grow older, they generally decline in value. We will review our vessels for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable. We review certain indicators of potential impairment, such as undiscounted projected operating cash flows expected from the future operation of the vessels, which can be volatile for vessels employed on short-term charters or in the spot market. Any impairment charges incurred as a result of declines in charter rates would negatively affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, if we sell any vessel at a time when vessel prices have fallen and before we have recorded an impairment adjustment to our financial statements, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount on our financial statements, resulting in a loss and a reduction in earnings. Conversely, if vessel values are elevated at a time when we wish to acquire additional vessels, the cost of acquisition may increase and this could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our ability to grow and to meet our financial needs may be adversely affected by our cash distribution policy.

Our cash distribution policy, which is consistent with our partnership agreement, requires us to distribute all of our available cash (as defined in our partnership agreement) each quarter. Accordingly, our growth may not be as fast as businesses that reinvest their available cash to expand ongoing operations.

10

Table of Contents

In determining the amount of cash available for distribution, our board of directors approves the amount of cash reserves to set aside, including reserves for future maintenance and replacement capital expenditures, working capital and other matters. We also rely upon external financing sources, including commercial borrowings, to fund our capital expenditures. Accordingly, to the extent we do not have sufficient cash reserves or are unable to obtain financing, our cash distribution policy may significantly impair our ability to meet our financial needs or to grow.

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:

Please see “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources and Uses.”

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 will be paid to Navios Tankers Management Inc. (the “Manager”) at cost under a management agreement. The initial term of the management agreement (the “Management Agreement”) expires in November 2019. Pursuant to the terms of the Management Agreement, we will pay the Manager a fixed daily fee of $9,500 per owned VLCC vessel, for the first two years of the term of such agreement. During the remaining three years of the term of the Management Agreement, 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.

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 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.

11

Table of Contents

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

We have entered into a credit facility which provided us with the ability to borrow up to $126.0 million, which has been fully drawn. We continue to have the ability to incur additional debt, subject to limitations in our new credit facility. Our level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

Our ability to service our debt will depend 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. 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 effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

Our credit facility contains restrictive covenants, which may limit our business and financing activities.

On November 13, 2014, we entered into a credit facility with Credit Suisse AG for $126.0 million, which has been fully drawn.

The operating and financial restrictions and covenants in our credit facility and any future credit facility could adversely affect our ability to finance future operations or capital needs or to engage, expand or pursue our business activities.

Our credit facility contains a covenant that Navios Acquisition and/or Navios Maritime Holdings (“Navios Holdings”) must own in the aggregate 100% of our general partner. The credit facility also contains a covenant that Ms. Frangou will at all times hold the position of our Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer. Our ability to comply with the covenants and restrictions contained in our credit facility 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 facility, 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 the credit facility are secured by our vessels, and if we are unable to repay borrowings under such credit facility, lenders could seek to foreclose on those vessels.

12

Table of Contents

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

Our payment of principal and interest on our debt will reduce cash available for distribution on our units. In addition, our credit facility prohibits 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 facility include, among other things, the following:

We anticipate that any subsequent refinancing of our current debt or any new debt will have similar restrictions. For more information regarding our financing arrangements, please read “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Liquidity and Capital Resources.”

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

Pursuant to the 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 (the “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 will depend 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 or Navios Acquisition 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, Navios Acquisition and their reputations and relationships in the shipping industry. If Navios Holdings or Navios Acquisition suffer material damage to their reputations 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.

13

Table of Contents

If we fail to manage our planned growth properly, we may not be able to expand our fleet successfully, which may adversely affect our overall financial position.

We have a two-year option to purchase up to seven additional VLCCs from Navios Acquisition and an option to purchase additional vessels from Navios Acquisition if they are placed under charters of five years or more and we intend to continue to expand our fleet in the future. Our growth will depend on:

Additionally, the marine transportation and logistics industries are capital intensive, traditionally using substantial amounts of indebtedness to finance vessel acquisitions, capital expenditures and working capital needs. If we finance the purchase of our vessels through the issuance of debt securities, it could result in:

In addition, our business plan and strategy is predicated on buying vessels at what we believe is near the low end of the cycle in what has typically been a cyclical industry. However, there is no assurance that charter rates and vessels asset values will not sink lower, or that there will be an upswing in shipping costs or vessel asset values in the near-term or at all, in which case our business plan and strategy may not succeed in the near-term or at all. Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty experienced in obtaining additional qualified personnel and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures. We may not be successful in growing and may incur significant expenses and losses.

Our future capital needs are uncertain and we may need to raise additional funds in the future.

In the future, we may need to raise additional capital to maintain, replace and expand the operating capacity of our fleet and fund our operations. Among other things, we hold options to acquire up to seven VLCCs from Navios Acquisition at fair market value and we do not currently have financing sources in place to fund the acquisition of these vessels. Our future funding requirements will depend on many factors, including the cost and timing of vessel acquisitions, and the cost of retrofitting or modifying existing ships as a result of technological advances in ship design or equipment, changes in applicable environmental or other regulations or standards, customer requirements or otherwise.

We cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional funds on acceptable terms, or at all. If we raise additional funds by issuing equity or equity-linked securities, our unitholders may experience dilution or

14

Table of Contents

reduced distributions per unit. Debt financing, if available, may involve covenants restricting our operations or our ability to incur additional debt or pay distributions. Any debt or additional equity financing that we raise may contain terms that are not favorable to us or our unitholders. If we are unable to raise adequate funds, we may have to liquidate some or all of our assets, or delay, reduce the scope of or eliminate some or all of our fleet expansion plans. Any of these factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, including cash available for distributions to our unitholders.

Our growth depends on continued growth in demand for crude oil, refined petroleum products, liquified petroleum gas ( “ LPG ” ) and bulk liquid chemicals and the continued demand for seaborne transportation of such cargoes.

Our growth depends on continued growth in world and regional demand for crude oil, refined petroleum products, LPG and bulk liquid chemicals and the transportation of such cargoes by sea, which could be negatively affected by a number of factors, including:

The refining and chemical industries may respond to any economic downturn and demand weakness by reducing operating rates partially or completely closing refineries and by reducing or cancelling certain investment expansion plans, including plans for additional refining capacity, in the case of the refining industry. Continued reduced demand for crude oil, refined petroleum products, LPG and bulk liquid chemicals and the shipping of such cargoes or the increased availability of pipelines used to transport crude oil, refined petroleum products, LPG and bulk liquid chemicals would have a material adverse effect on our future growth and could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

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:

15

Table of Contents

Our growth depends on our ability to obtain customers, for which we face substantial competition. In the highly competitive tanker industry, we may not be able to compete for charters with new entrants or established companies with greater resources, which may adversely affect our results of operations.

We employ our tanker vessels in the highly competitive crude oil, product, chemical and LPG tanker sectors of the shipping industry that is capital intensive and fragmented. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, including major oil companies and traders as well as independent tanker companies, some of whom have substantially greater resources and experience than us. Competition for the chartering of tankers can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its managers to the charterers. Such competition has been enhanced as a result of the downturn in the shipping industry, which has resulted in an excess supply of vessels and reduced charter rates.

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. Competition for the transportation of crude oil, refined petroleum products, LPG and bulk liquid chemicals can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel and our managers to the charterers.

In addition to having to meet the stringent requirements set out by charterers, it is likely that we will also face substantial competition from a number of competitors who may have greater financial resources, stronger reputations or experience than we do when we try to re-charter our vessels. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into the crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical tanker sectors, including in the ice class sector. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long-term charters. Due in part to the highly fragmented markets, competitors with greater resources could operate larger fleets through consolidations or acquisitions that may be able to offer better prices and fleets than ours.

As a result of these factors, we may be unable to obtain customers for long-term time charters on a profitable basis, if at all. Even if we are successful in employing our vessels under longer term time charters, our vessels will not be available for trading in the spot market during an upturn in the crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical tanker market cycles, 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.

Delays in deliveries of any future newbuild vessels, our decision to cancel, or our inability to otherwise complete the acquisitions of any newbuildings we may decide to acquire in the future, could harm our operating results and lead to the termination of any related charters.

Any newbuildings we may contract to acquire or order in the future, could be delayed, not completed or cancelled, which would delay or eliminate our expected receipt of revenues under any charters for such vessels. The shipbuilder or third party seller could fail to deliver the newbuilding vessel or any other vessels we acquire

16

Table of Contents

or order, or we could cancel a purchase or a newbuilding contract because the shipbuilder has not met its obligations, including its obligation to maintain agreed refund guarantees in place for our benefit. For prolonged delays, the customer may terminate the time charter.

Our receipt of newbuildings could be delayed, canceled, or otherwise not completed because of:

If delivery of any newbuild vessel acquired, or any vessel we contract to acquire in the future is materially delayed, it could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

All of the vessels we have acquired are second-hand vessels, and we may acquire more second-hand vessels in the future. The acquisition and operation of such vessels may result in increased operating costs and vessel off-hire, which could materially adversely affect our earnings.

All of our VLCCs that we have acquired are second-hand vessels, and we may acquire more second-hand vessels in the future. Our inspection of second-hand vessels prior to purchase does not 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. Generally, we will not receive the benefit of warranties on second-hand vessels.

In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increase with the age of the vessel. Due to improvements in engine technology, older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels. Cargo insurance rates increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers.

Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which the vessels may engage or the geographic regions in which we may operate. We cannot predict what alterations or modifications our vessels may be required to undergo in the future. 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.

Although we have considered the age and condition of the vessels in budgeting for operating, insurance and maintenance costs, we may encounter higher operating and maintenance costs due to the age and condition of these vessels, or any additional vessels we acquire in the future. The age of some of the VLCCs may result in higher operating costs and increased vessel off-hire periods relative to our competitors that operate newer fleets, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

17

Table of Contents

Any decrease in shipments of crude oil from the Arabian Gulf or West Africa may materially adversely affect our financial performance.

The demand for VLCC oil tankers derives primarily from demand for Arabian Gulf and West African crude oil, which, in turn, primarily depends on the economies of the world’s industrial countries and competition from alternative energy sources. A wide range of economic, social and other factors can significantly affect the strength of the world’s industrial economies and their demand for Arabian Gulf and West African crude oil.

Among the factors that could lead to a decrease in demand for exported Arabian Gulf and West African crude oil are:

Any significant decrease in shipments of crude oil from the Arabian Gulf or West Africa may materially adversely affect our financial performance.

We may face unexpected maintenance costs, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

If our vessels suffer damage or require upgrade work, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. Our vessels may occasionally require upgrade work in order to maintain their classification society rating or as a result of changes in regulatory requirements. In addition, our vessels will be off-hire periodically for intermediate surveys and special surveys in connection with each vessel’s certification by its classification society. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial and the loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and reconditioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, would decrease our earnings. Our insurance generally only covers a portion of drydocking expenses resulting from damage to a vessel and expenses related to maintenance of a vessel will not be reimbursed. In addition, space at drydocking facilities is sometimes limited and not all drydocking facilities are conveniently located. We may be unable to find space at a suitable drydocking facility on a timely basis or may be forced to move a damaged vessel to a drydocking facility that is not conveniently located to the vessel’s position. The loss of earnings while any of our vessels are forced to wait for space or to relocate to drydocking facilities that are far away from the routes on which our vessels trade would further decrease our earnings.

Future increases in vessel operating expenses, including rising fuel prices, could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under our time charter agreements, the charterer is responsible for substantially all of the voyage expenses, including port and canal charges and fuel costs and we are generally responsible for vessel operating expenses. Vessel operating expenses are the costs of operating a vessel, primarily consisting of crew wages and associated costs, insurance premiums, management fees, lubricants and spare parts and repair and maintenance costs. In particular, the cost of fuel is a significant factor in negotiating charter rates. As a result, an increase in the price of fuel beyond our expectations may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil, actions by members of OPEC and other oil and gas producers, war, terrorism and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns and regulations.

18

Table of Contents

We receive a daily rate for the use of our vessels, which is fixed through the term of the applicable charter agreement. Our charter agreements do not provide for any increase in the daily hire rate in the event that vessel-operating expenses increase during the term of the charter agreement. The charter agreements for our fleet of VLCCs expire during the period from and including January 2017 through June 2026. Because of the long-term nature of these charter agreements, incremental increases in our vessel operating expenses over the term of a charter agreement will effectively reduce our operating income and, if such increases in operating expenses are significant, materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical tanker sectors are subject to seasonal fluctuations in demand and, therefore, may cause volatility in our operating results upon the re-delivery of our vessels from fixed charters.

The crude oil, refined petroleum product, LPG and chemical tanker sectors of the shipping industry have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter hire rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results. The refined petroleum product and chemical tanker markets are typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of oil and natural gas in the northern hemisphere. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. As a result, revenues are typically weaker during the fiscal quarters ended June 30 and September 30, and, conversely, typically stronger in fiscal quarters ended December 31 and March 31. Our operating results, therefore, are subject to seasonal fluctuations.

We may enter into the LPG shipping market in the future, which is a highly competitive and cyclical market.

Currently, our fleet does not contain any LPG tankers. However, we may enter into the LPG shipping market in the future. We do not have experience in the LPG shipping market and therefore we may not be successful. Competition in the operation of LPG carriers is intense. We anticipate that an increasing number of maritime transport companies, including many with strong reputations and extensive resources and experience, will enter the LPG shipping market. Potential competitors may have significantly greater financial resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of LPG depends on the price, location, size, age, condition and acceptability of the vessel to the charterer. Further, competitors with greater resources may have larger fleets, or could operate larger fleets through consolidations, acquisitions, newbuildings or pooling of their vessels with other companies, and, therefore, may be able to offer a more competitive service than us, including better charter rates. As a result, we may be unable to obtain customers in the LPG shipping market on a profitable basis, if at all. In addition, historically, the international LPG shipping market has been cyclical with attendant volatility in profitability, charter rates and vessel values. This cyclicality can materially adversely affect our business during the downturns in the market. Our growth depends in part on our ability to succeed in the LPG market which will depend on the growth in the supply and demand for LPG products and LPG shipping, which was materially adversely affected by the sharp decrease in world trade that the global economy experienced in the latter part of 2008 and in 2009. There can be no assurance that the LPG market will be or remain strong when we enter the market.

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

19

Table of Contents

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. For example, 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 area (limits SOx emissions only); the North Sea area including the English Channel (limiting SOx emissions only) and the North American ECA (which came into effect on August 1, 2012 limiting SOx, NOx and particulate matter emissions). The United States Caribbean Sea ECA entered into force on January 1, 2013 and has been effective since January 1, 2014, limiting SOx, NOx and particulate matter emissions.

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.

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. The 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.

We operate a fleet of crude, product, chemical and LPG tankers that are subject to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels. Several international conventions impose and limit pollution liability from vessels. An owner of a tanker vessel carrying a cargo of “persistent oil” as defined by the International Convention for Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage (the “CLC”) is subject under the convention to strict liability for any pollution damage caused in a contracting state by an escape or discharge from cargo or bunker tanks. This liability is subject to a financial limit calculated by reference to the tonnage of the ship, and the right to limit liability may be lost if the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Liability may also be incurred under the CLC for a bunker spill from the vessel even when she is not carrying such cargo, but is in ballast.

When a tanker is carrying clean oil products that do not constitute “persistent oil” that would be covered under the CLC, liability for any pollution damage will generally fall outside the CLC and will depend on other international conventions or domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs. The same principle applies to any pollution from the vessel in a jurisdiction which is not a party to the CLC. The CLC applies in over 100 jurisdictions around the world, but it does not apply in the United States, where the corresponding liability laws such as the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (the “OPA”) discussed below, are particularly stringent.

20

Table of Contents

For vessel operations not covered by the CLC, 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 not covered by the CLC. 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 March 10, 2015, had 78 contracting states comprising approximately 91.45% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant fleet. 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 CLC and Bunker Convention also provide vessel owners a right to limit their liability, depending on the applicable national or international regime. The CLC includes its own liability limits. 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.

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, in 2005 the EU adopted 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

21

Table of Contents

“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.

In response to the Deepwater Horizon incident, the European Union has issued Directive 2013/30/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 12, 2013 on safety of offshore oil and gas operations. The objective of this Directive is to reduce as far as possible the occurrence of major accidents relating to offshore oil and gas operations and to limit their consequences, thus increasing the protection of the marine environment and coastal economies against pollution, establishing minimum conditions for safe offshore exploration and exploitation of oil and gas and limiting possible disruptions to Union indigenous energy production, and to improve the response mechanisms in case of an accident. The Directive has to be implemented by July 19 ^th , 2015. As far as the environment is concerned, in the UK there will be new regulations: the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Offshore Safety Directive) (Environmental Functions) Regulations 2015 (OSDEF), will amend the Merchant Shipping (Oil Pollution Preparedness, Response and Cooperation Convention) Regulations 1998 (OPRC 1998) and implement other environmental Directive requirements, specifically the Environmental Management System. The Offshore Petroleum Licensing (Offshore Safety Directive) Regulations 2015, will implement the licensing Directive requirements. There will also be changes to the Oil Pollution Emergency Plans Regualtions 1998.

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.

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, such as carbon dioxide and methane. In the United States, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“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).

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. 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

22

Table of Contents

in October 2012, the MEPC indicated that 2015 was the target year for Member States to identify market-based measures for international shipping. At its 66th session, held from March 31-April 4, 2014, the MEPC continued its work on developing technical and operational measures relating to energy-efficiency measures for ships, following the entry into force, on January 1, 2013, of the mandatory efficiency measures. It adopted the 2014 Guidelines on the Method of Calculation of the Attained EEDI, applicable to new ships. It also established a working group with an instruction to consider development of a data collection system for fuel consumption of ships. Further, it adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI concerning the extension of the scope of application of the EEDI to LNG carriers, ro-ro cargo ships (vehicle carriers), ro-ro cargo ships, ro-ro passenger ships and cruise passengers ships with nonconventional propulsion. At MEPC 67 held from October 13-17, 2014. During the session, the MEPC adopted the 2014 Guidelines on survey and certification of the EEDI, updating the previous version to reference ships fitted with dual-fuel engines using LNG and liquid fuel oil. The MEPC also adopted amendments to the 2013 Interim Guidelines for determining minimum propulsion power to maintain the manoeuvrability of ships in adverse conditions, to make the guidelines applicable to phase 1 (starting January 1, 2015) of the EEDI requirements.

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.

The EU announced in April 2007 that it planned to expand the EU emissions trading scheme by adding vessels, and a proposal from the European Commission (“EC”) was expected if no global regime for reduction of seaborne emissions had been agreed to by the end of 2011. As of January 31, 2013 the EC had stopped short of proposing that emissions from ships be included in the EU’s emissions-trading scheme. 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. On June 28, 2013, the EC adopted a Communication setting out a strategy for progressively including greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport in the EU’s policy for reducing its overall GHG emissions. The first step proposed by the EC is an EU Regulation that would establish an EU-wide system for the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from large ships starting in 2018. The draft Regulation is currently working its way through the various stages of the EU legislative process (Council agreement was obtained on December 17, 2014). The Regulation will now move to legal and linguistic review before moving to the Parliament for final approval. If adopted, the Regulation will take effect on July 1, 2015, with monitoring, reporting and verification requirements beginning on January 1, 2018. This Regulation 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. However, 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 senior management members 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.

23

Table of Contents

The Manager may on our behalf be unable to attract and retain qualified, skilled employees or crew necessary to operate our business or may have to pay substantially increased costs for its employees and crew.

Our success will depend in part on the Manager’s ability to attract, hire, train and retain highly skilled and qualified personnel. In crewing our vessels, we require technically skilled employees with specialized training who can perform physically demanding work. Competition to attract, hire, train and retain qualified crew members is intense, and crew manning costs continue to increase. If we are not able to increase our hire rates to compensate for any crew cost increases, our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to make cash distributions to our unitholders may be adversely affected. Any inability we experience in the future to attract, hire, train and retain a sufficient number of qualified employees could impair our ability to manage, maintain and grow our business.

We are subject to vessel security regulations and we incur costs to comply with adopted regulations. 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 (“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 (“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 International Ship and Port Facilities Security (“ISPS”) Code. Among the various requirements are:

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate (“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 our vessels or vessels that we charter 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 that could have significant financial impact on us.

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

The operation of ocean-going vessels entails certain inherent risks that may adversely affect our business and reputation. Our vessels and their cargoes are at risk of being damaged or lost due to events such as:

24

Table of Contents

In addition, increased operational risks arise as a consequence of the complex nature of the crude oil, product and chemical tanker industry, the nature of services required to support the industry, including maintenance and repair services, and the mechanical complexity of the tankers themselves. Compared to other types of vessels, tankers are exposed to a higher risk of damage and loss by fire, whether ignited by a terrorist attack, collision or other cause, due to the high flammability and high volume of the oil transported in tankers. Damage and loss could also arise as a consequence of a failure in the services required to support the industry, for example, due to inadequate dredging. Inherent risks also arise due to the nature of the product transported by our vessels. Any damage to, or accident involving, our vessels while carrying crude oil could give rise to environmental damage or lead to other adverse consequences. Each of these inherent risks may also result in death or injury to persons, loss of revenues or property, higher insurance rates, damage to our customer relationships, delay or rerouting.

Any of these circumstances or events could substantially increase our costs. For example, the costs of replacing a vessel or cleaning up environmental damage could substantially lower our revenues by taking vessels out of operation permanently or for periods of time. Furthermore, the involvement of our vessels in a disaster or delays in delivery, damage or the loss of cargo may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel operator and cause us to lose business. Our vessels could be arrested by maritime claimants, which could result in the interruption of business and decrease revenue and lower profitability.

Some of these inherent risks could result in significant damage, such as marine disaster or environmental incidents, and any resulting legal proceedings may be complex, lengthy, costly and, if decided against us, any of these proceedings or other proceedings involving similar claims or claims for substantial damages may harm our reputation and have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flow and financial position. In addition, the legal systems and law enforcement mechanisms in certain countries in which we operate may expose us to risk and uncertainty. Further, we may be required to devote substantial time and cost defending these proceedings, which could divert attention from management of our business. Crew members, tort claimants, claimants for breach of certain maritime contracts, vessel mortgagees, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other persons may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages, and in many circumstances a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by “arresting” a vessel through court processes. Additionally, in certain jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest not only the vessel with respect to which the claimant’s lien has arisen, but also any “associated” vessel owned or controlled by the legal or beneficial owner of that vessel. If any vessel ultimately owned and operated by us is “arrested,” this could result in a material loss of revenues, or require us to pay substantial amounts to have the “arrest” lifted.

Any of these factors may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial conditions and results of operations.

25

Table of Contents

A failure to pass inspection by classification societies could result in our vessels becoming 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. 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. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel. If any of our vessels fail 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 it was 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. Other events that may lead to off-hire periods include natural or man-made disasters that result in the closure of certain waterways and prevent vessels from entering or leaving certain ports. 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.

If we experienced a catastrophic loss and our insurance is not adequate to cover such loss, it could lower our profitability and be detrimental to operations.

The ownership and operation of vessels in international trade is affected by a number of inherent risks, including mechanical failure, personal injury, vessel and cargo loss or damage, business interruption due to political conditions in foreign countries, hostilities, piracy, terrorism, labor strikes and/or boycotts, adverse weather conditions and catastrophic marine disaster, including environmental accidents and collisions. All of these risks could result in liability, loss of revenues, increased costs and loss of reputation. We maintain hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which include environmental damage and pollution and war risk insurance, consistent with industry standards, against these risks on our vessels and other business

26

Table of Contents

assets. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to insure against all risks adequately, that any particular claim will be paid out of our insurance, or that we will be able to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future. Our insurers also require us to pay certain deductible amounts, before they will pay claims, and insurance policies may contain limitations and exclusions, which, although we believe will be standard for the shipping industry, may nevertheless increase our costs and lower our profitability. Additionally, any increase in environmental and other regulations may also result in increased costs for, or the lack of availability of, insurance against the risks of environmental damage, pollution and other claims. Our inability to obtain insurance sufficient to cover potential claims or the failure of insurers to pay any significant claims could lower our profitability and be detrimental to our operations.

Furthermore, even if insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to timely obtain a replacement ship in the event of a loss. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage for tort liability. 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 expenses to us, which could reduce our cash flows and place strains on our liquidity and capital resources.

Because international tanker companies often generate most or all of their revenues in U.S. dollars, but incur a portion of their 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 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, decreasing our income. A greater percentage of our transactions and expenses in the future may be denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollar. As part of our overall risk management policy, we will attempt to hedge these risks in exchange rate fluctuations from time to time. We may not always be successful in such hedging activities and, as a result, our operating results could suffer as a result of un-hedged losses incurred as a result of exchange rate fluctuations. For example, as of December 31, 2014, the value of the U.S. dollar as compared to the Euro increased by approximately 13.3% compared with the respective value as of December 31, 2013. A greater percentage of our transactions and expenses in the future may be denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar.

Disruptions in world financial markets and the resulting governmental action in Europe, the United States and in other parts of the world could have a material adverse impact on our ability to obtain financing required to acquire vessels or new businesses. Furthermore, such a disruption would materially adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been severely disrupted and volatile in recent years and remain subject to significant vulnerabilities, such as the deterioration of fiscal balances and the rapid accumulation of public debt, continued deleveraging in the banking sector and a limited supply of credit. The renewed crisis in Argentina, civil unrest in Ukraine and other parts of the world, and continuing concerns relating to the European sovereign debt crisis have led to increased volatility in global credit and equity markets. Several European countries including Greece, have been affected by increasing public debt burdens and weakening economic growth prospects. In recent years, Standard and Poor’s Rating Services and Moody’s Investors Service (“Moody’s”) downgraded the long-term ratings of most European countries’ sovereign debt and initiated negative outlooks. 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

27

Table of Contents

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 Greece and other European nations, which may expose us to a loss of cash deposits or cash equivalents.

The credit markets worldwide and in the U.S. have experienced significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity, and the U.S. federal government, state governments and foreign governments took highly significant measures in response to such events, including the enactment of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 in the United States, and may implement other significant responses in the future. Securities and futures markets and the credit markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and other requirements. 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. Any changes to securities, tax, environmental, or other laws or regulations, could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, and could cause the market price of our common units to decline.

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 difficulties resulted, in part, from declining markets for assets held by such institutions, particularly the reduction in the value of their mortgage and asset-backed securities portfolios. These difficulties were compounded by financial turmoil affecting the world’s debt, credit and capital markets, and the general decline in the willingness by banks and other financial institutions to extend credit, particularly to the shipping industry due to the historically low vessel earnings and values, and, in part, due to changes in overall banking regulations (for example, Basel III). As a result, the ability of banks and credit institutions to finance new projects, including the acquisition of new vessels in the future, were for a time uncertain. Following the stress tests run by the European Central Bank (the “ECB”), revised capital ratios have been communicated to European banks. This has reduced the uncertainty following the difficulties of the past several years, but it has also led to changes in each bank’s lending policies and ability to provide financing or refinancing. A recurrence of global economic weakness may adversely affect the financial institutions that provide our credit facilities and may impair their ability to continue to perform under their financing obligations to us, which could have an impact on our ability to fund current and future obligations.

Furthermore, we may experience difficulties obtaining financing commitments, including commitments to refinance our existing debt as 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 acquisition with debt financing, such uncertainty, combined with restrictions imposed by our current debt, could hamper our ability to finance vessels or other assets and new business acquisitions.

In addition, the economic uncertainty worldwide has made demand for shipping services volatile and has reduced charter rates, which may adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. Currently, the economies of China, Japan, other Asian Pacific 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.

In addition, as a result of the ongoing political and economic turmoil in Greece resulting from the sovereign debt crisis and the related austerity measures implemented by the Greek government, the operations of our managers located in Greece may be subjected to new regulations and potential shift in government policies that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. We also face the risk that strikes, work stoppages, civil unrest and violence within Greece may disrupt the shoreside operations of our managers located in Greece.

We could face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates, and instability in certain securities markets, among other factors. Major market disruptions and the uncertainty in market

28

Table of Contents

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.

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, the Indian Ocean, the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and the Red Sea. Although the frequency of sea piracy worldwide decreased during 2013 to its lowest level since its increase in 2009, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden and towards the Mozambique Channel in the North Indian Ocean and increasingly in the Gulf of Guinea. A significant example of the heightened level of piracy came in February 2011 when the M/V Irene SL, a crude oil tanker and the Arabian Sea 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, a vessel owned by Navios Partners, 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. In January 2014, the Nave Atropos, a vessel owned by Navios Acquisition, came under attack from a pirate action group in international waters off the coast of Yemen. The crew and the on-board security team successfully implemented the counter piracy action plan and standard operating procedures to deter the attack with no consequences to the vessel or her crew. These piracy attacks have 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 insurance coverage could increase significantly and insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. While the use of security guards is intended to deter and prevent the hijacking of our vessels, it could also increase our risk of liability for death or injury to persons or damage to personal property. 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 could adversely affect our business and operations.

The employment of our vessels could be adversely affected by an inability to clear the oil majors’ risk assessment process, and we could be in breach of our charter agreements with respect to the VLCCs.

The shipping industry and especially the shipment of crude oil, refined petroleum products, LPG and bulk liquid chemicals, has been, and will remain, heavily regulated. The so-called “oil majors” companies, such as Exxon Mobil, BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips and Total, together with a number of commodities traders, represent a significant percentage of the production, trading and shipping logistics (terminals) of crude oil and refined products worldwide. Concerns for the environment have led the oil majors to develop and implement a strict ongoing due diligence process when selecting their commercial partners. This vetting process has evolved into a sophisticated and comprehensive risk assessment of both the vessel operator and the vessel, including physical ship inspections, completion of vessel inspection questionnaires performed by accredited inspectors and the production of comprehensive risk assessment reports. In the case of term charter relationships, additional factors are considered when awarding such contracts, including:

29

Table of Contents

Under the terms of our charter agreements, our charterers require that these vessels and the technical manager are vetted and approved to transport oil products by multiple oil majors. Our failure to maintain any of our vessels to the standards required by the oil majors could put us in breach of the applicable charter agreement and lead to termination of such agreement, and could give rise to impairment in the value of our vessels.

Should we not be able to successfully clear the oil majors’ risk assessment processes on an ongoing basis, the future employment of our vessels, as well as our ability to obtain charters, whether medium- or long-term, could be adversely affected. Such a situation may lead to the oil majors’ terminating existing charters and refusing to use our vessels in the future, which would adversely affect our results of operations and cash flows.

Our international activities increase the compliance risks associated with economic and trade sanctions imposed by the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions.

Our international operations could expose us to risks associated with trade and economic sanctions prohibitions or other restrictions imposed by the United States or other governments or organizations, including the United Nations, the European Union and its member countries. Under economic and trade sanctions laws, governments may seek to impose modifications to, prohibitions/restrictions on business practices and activities, and modifications to compliance programs, which may increase compliance costs, and, in the event of a violation, may subject us to fines, penalties and other sanctions.

Iran

During the last few years, the scope of sanctions imposed against the government of Iran and persons engaging in certain activities or doing certain business with and relating to Iran has been expanded by a number of jurisdictions, including the United States, the European Union and Canada. In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act (“CISADA”), which expanded the scope of the former Iran Sanctions Act. The scope of U.S. sanctions against Iran were expanded subsequent to CISADA by, among other U.S. laws, the National Defense Authorization Act of 2012 (the “2012 NDAA”), the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 (“ITRA”), Executive Order 13662, and the Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act of 2012 (“IFCA”). The foregoing laws, among other things, expand the application of

30

Table of Contents

prohibitions to non-U.S. companies, such as our company, and introduce limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to specific activities such as investment in Iran, the supply or export of refined petroleum or refined petroleum products to Iran, the supply and delivery of goods to Iran which could enhance Iran’s petroleum or energy sector, and the transportation of crude oil from Iran to countries which do not enjoy Iran crude oil sanctions waivers (our tankers called in Iran but did not engage in the prohibited activities specifically identified by these sanctions). While certain of these restrictions have been suspended until June 2015 there are still limitations in place with which we need to comply. In addition to the foregoing U.S. sanctions against Iran, the sanctions applicable with respect to Iran and transactions involving Iran within U.S. jurisdiction, we must comply with any applicable prohibitions of E.U. sanctions against Iran.

In 2010, the four VLCCs that comprise our fleet, while on charter to other parties, made calls on ports in Iran aggregating 13 days (the “2010 Port Call”). In 2011, the four VLCCs that comprise our fleet, while on charter to other parties, made calls on ports in Iran aggregating approximately 12 days (the “2011 Port Call”). In 2012, three of the VLCCs in our fleet while chartered to Dalian Ocean Shipping Co. (“DOSCO”) and the remaining VLCC while chartered to Formosa Petrochemical Corporation of Taiwan (“FPCT”), made port calls to Iran for a combined length of approximately 15 days for the transportation of crude oil from Iran to China and Taiwan (the “2012 Port Call”). The shipper of the cargo in all cases was National Iranian Oil Company (“NIOC”), and the recipients of the cargoes were, respectively, Unipec Asia Company Limited, HK Intertrade Company Limited and Formosa Petrochemical. NIOC is an entity identified as the Government of Iran under the Section 560.304 of title 31, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to the definition of the Government of Iran). Neither we, nor, to our knowledge, DOSCO and FPCT had any contact or dealings with the government of Iran or affiliates of the government of Iran in connection with these port calls, other than receiving cargo owned by NIOC.

The 2012 Port Call was limited to a routine acceptance and loading of cargo for the benefit of DOSCO and FPCT while the vessels were on charter to and under complete operational control of DOSCO and FPCT. Although NIOC was an entity whose name appeared on the U.S. Office of Foreign Assets Control’s List of Blocked Persons and Specially Designated Nationals at the time of the port calls, the purchase and lifting of crude oil shipped by that entity, did not constitute prohibited activity by us as a non-U.S. person, and as such, this did not have any legal compliance consequence for us as a non-U.S. person and to the Partnership’s transactions, which had no U.S. nexus. The acceptance and transportation of the crude oil to China also did not constitute sanctionable activity under U.S. Iran sanctions laws.

With respect to the 2010 Port Call, our aggregate gross revenues attributable to those approximately 13 days of port calls was approximately $0.6 million. With respect to the 2011 Port Call, our aggregate gross revenues attributable to those approximately 12 days of port calls was approximately $0.5 million. With respect to the 2012 Port Call, our aggregate gross revenues those 15 days of port calls was approximately $0.7 million. Since May 2012, the vessels that form our fleet have not performed any voyages involving calls to Iran.

Russia/Ukraine

As a result of the crisis in Ukraine and the annexation of Crimea by Russia earlier in 2014, both the U.S. and EU have implemented sanctions against certain persons and entities. In addition, various restrictions on trade have been implemented which, amongst others, include a prohibition on the import into the EU of goods originating in Crimea or Sevastopol as well as restrictions on trade in certain dual-use and military items and restrictions in relation to various items of technology associated with the oil industry for use in deep water exploration and production, Arctic oil exploration and production, or shale oil projects in Russia.

The U.S. has imposed sanctions against certain designated Russian entities and individuals (“U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets”). These sanctions block the property and all interests in property of the U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets. This effectively prohibits U.S. persons from engaging in any economic or commercial

31

Table of Contents

transactions with the U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets unless the same are authorized by the U.S. Treasury Department. While the prohibitions of these sanctions are not directly applicable to us, we have compliance measures in place to guard against transactions with U.S. Russian Sanctions Targets which may involve the United States or U.S. persons and thus implicate prohibitions.

Other U.S. Economic Sanctions Targets

In addition to Iran and certain Russian entities and individuals, as indicated above, the United States maintains economic sanctions against Syria, Sudan, Cuba, limited sanctions against North Korea, and against entities and individuals (such as entities and individuals in the foregoing targeted countries, designated terrorists, narcotics traffickers) whose names appear on the List of SDNs and Blocked Persons maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department (collectively, “Sanctions Targets”). We are subject to the prohibitions of these sanctions to the extent that any transaction or activity we engage in involves Sanctions Targets and a U.S. person or otherwise has a nexus to the United States.

Compliance

Although we believe that we are in compliance with all applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations, and the law may change. Moreover, despite, for example, relevant provisions in charter parties forbidding the use of our vessels in trade that would violate economic sanctions, our charterers may nevertheless 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 and be imputed to us. In addition, given our relationship with Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings, we cannot give any assurance that an adverse finding against Navios Acquisition or Navios Holdings by a governmental or legal authority or others with respect to the matters discussed herein or any future matter related to regulatory compliance by Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings or ourselves will not have a material adverse impact on our business, reputation or the market price or trading of our common units.

We are constantly monitoring developments in the United States, the European Union and other jurisdictions that maintain economic sanctions against Iran, other countries, and other sanctions targets, including developments in implementation and enforcement of such sanctions programs. Expansion of sanctions programs, embargoes and other restrictions in the future (including additional designations of countries subject to sanctions), or modifications in how existing sanctions are interpreted or enforced, could prevent our vessels from calling in ports in sanctioned countries or could limit their cargoes. If any of the risks described above materialize, it could have a material adverse impact on our business and results of operations.

To reduce the risk of violating economic sanctions, we have a policy of compliance with applicable economic sanctions laws and have implemented and continue to implement and diligently follow procedures to avoid economic sanctions violations.

We could be materially adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the U.K. Bribery Act, and anti-corruption laws in other applicable jurisdictions.

As an international shipping company, we may operate in countries known to have a reputation for corruption. The U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the “FCPA”) and other anti-corruption laws and regulations in applicable jurisdictions generally prohibit companies registered with the SEC and their intermediaries from making improper payments to government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business. Under the FCPA, U.S. companies may be held liable for some actions taken by strategic or local partners or representatives. Legislation in other countries includes the U.K. Bribery Act which is broader in scope than the FCPA because it does not contain an exception for facilitating payments. We and our customers may be

32

Table of Contents

subject to these and similar anti-corruption laws in other applicable jurisdictions. Failure to comply with such legal requirements could expose us to civil and/or criminal penalties, including fines, prosecution and significant reputational damage, all of which could materially and adversely affect our business and results of operations, including our relationships with our customers, and our financial results. Compliance with the FCPA, the U.K. Bribery Act and other applicable anti-corruption laws and related regulations and policies imposes potentially significant costs and operational burdens. Moreover, the compliance and monitoring mechanisms that we have in place including our Code of Ethics, and our anti-bribery and corruption policy may not adequately prevent or detect possible violations under applicable anti-bribery and anti-corruption legislation.

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 inspections and related procedures in countries of origin and destination. Inspection procedures can result in the seizure of contents of vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or delivery and the levying of customs, duties, fines and other penalties.

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 future customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of cargo impractical. Any such changes or developments may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, and results of operations.

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

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

Increased competition in technology and innovation could reduce our charter hire income and the value of our vessels.

The charter rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy and the ability to load and discharge cargo quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new ships are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect our ability to recharter our vessels, the amount of charter payments we receive for our vessels once their initial charters expire and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, and our ability to pay dividends, could be adversely affected.

Political and government instability, terrorist attacks, increased hostilities or war could lead to further economic instability, increased costs and disruption of our business.

We conduct most of our operations outside of the United States. In particular, we derive our revenues from shipping oil and oil products from politically unstable regions and our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to make cash distributions may be adversely affected by the effects of political instability, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities. Terrorist attacks, such as the attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001 and the United States’ continuing response to these attacks, and in Paris on

33

Table of Contents

January 7, 2015, the bombings in Spain on March 11, 2004 and the attacks in London on July 7, 2005, the recent conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Ukraine and other current and future conflicts, and the continuing response of the United States to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to cause uncertainty in the world financial markets, including the energy markets. Continuing hostilities in the Middle East may lead to additional armed conflicts or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the United States or elsewhere, which could result in increased volatility and turmoil in the financial markets and may contribute further to economic instability. Current and future conflicts and terrorist attacks may adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition, ability to raise capital and future growth. Terrorist attacks on vessels, such as the October 2002 attack on the M/V Limburg, a VLCC not related to us, may in the future also negatively affect our operations and financial condition and directly impact our vessels or our customers.

In addition, oil facilities, shipyards, vessels, pipelines and oil and gas fields could be targets of future terrorist attacks. Any such attacks could lead to, among other things, bodily injury or loss of life, vessel or other property damage, increased vessel operational costs, including insurance costs, and the inability to transport oil and other refined products to or from certain locations. Terrorist attacks, war or other events beyond our control that adversely affect the distribution, production or transportation of oil and other refined products to be shipped by us could entitle our customers to terminate our charter contracts, which would harm our cash flow and our business.

Furthermore, our operations may be adversely affected by changing or adverse political and governmental conditions in the countries where our vessels are flagged or registered and in the regions where we otherwise engage in business. Any disruption caused by these factors may interfere with the operation of our vessels, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Our operations may also be adversely affected by expropriation of vessels, taxes, regulation, tariffs, trade embargoes, economic sanctions or a disruption of or limit to trading activities, or other adverse events or circumstances in or affecting the countries and regions where we operate or where we may operate in the future.

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

A government could requisition title or seize our vessels. 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. Generally, requisitions occur during periods of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition vessels in other circumstances. 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.

Labor interruptions and problems could disrupt our business.

Certain of our vessels are manned by masters, officers and crews that are employed by third parties. 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 normally and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.

We are a holding company and we depend on the ability of our subsidiaries to distribute funds to us in order to satisfy our financial obligations and to make distributions to unitholders.

We are a holding company. Our subsidiaries will conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets, including our ships. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay our obligations and to make distributions to unitholders depends entirely on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of a subsidiary to make these distributions could

34

Table of Contents

be affected by a claim or other action by a third party, including a creditor, or by the law of its jurisdiction of incorporation which regulates the payment of distributions. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, our board of directors may exercise its discretion not to make distributions to unitholders.

Risks Inherent in an Investment in Us

The Manager has limited experience in the crude oil, refined petroleum product and chemical tanker sectors. The Manager has no experience in the LPG sector.

The Manager, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navios Holdings, oversees the commercial, administrative and technical management of our fleet. Navios Holdings is a vertically-integrated seaborne shipping and logistics company with 60 years of operating history in the shipping industry. Other than with respect to South American operations and operations through Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings has limited experience in the crude oil, refined petroleum chemical and product tanker sectors. Such limited experience could cause Navios Holdings or the Manager to make decisions that a more experienced operator in the sector might not make. If Navios Holdings or the Manager is not able to properly assess or ascertain a particular aspect of the crude oil, refined petroleum product or chemical tanker sectors, it could have a material adverse effect on our operations. The Manager has no experience in the LPG sector.

Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings, Navios Partners and their respective affiliates may compete with us.

Pursuant to the omnibus agreement that we entered into with Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings and Navios Partners, Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings, Navios Partners and their controlled affiliates (other than us, our general partner and our subsidiaries) generally have agreed not to acquire or own any VLCCs, crude oil tankers, refined petroleum product tankers, LPG tankers or chemical tankers under time charters of five or more years also providing for rights of first offer on certain tanker vessels. The omnibus agreement, however, contains significant exceptions that will allow Navios Acquisition, Navios Holdings, Navios Partners or any of their controlled affiliates to compete with us under specified circumstances which could harm our business.

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

Holders of common units have only limited voting rights on matters affecting our business. We will 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 will be elected on a staggered basis and will 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 66  ² ⁄ 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 unitholders’ voting rights by providing that if any person or group owns beneficially more than 4.9% of any class of units then outstanding, any such 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 or 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 unitholders in excess of 4.9% will effectively be redistributed pro rata among the other unitholders of the same class that are not subject to this voting limitation.

35

Table of Contents

Our general partner, its affiliates and persons who acquired 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 directors.

We have limited history operating as a separate publicly traded entity and will incur increased costs as a result of being a publicly traded limited partnership.

We have limited history operating as a separate publicly traded entity. As a publicly traded limited partnership, we are required to comply with the SEC’s reporting requirements and with corporate governance and related requirements of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, the SEC and the securities exchange on which our common units will be listed. We will incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses in complying with these and other applicable regulations. We anticipate that our general and administrative expenses as a publicly traded limited partnership taxed as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes will be approximately $2.0 million annually, and will include costs associated with annual reports to unitholders, tax return, investor relations, registrar and transfer agent’s fees, director and officer liability insurance costs and director compensation.

Our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Acquisition and 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 your detriment.

Navios Acquisition indirectly owns the 2.0% general partner interest and a 55.5% limited partner interest in us and owns and controls our general partner. Navios Holdings has a ten-year option to purchase a minimum of 25% of the general partner interest held by the general partner, the incentive distribution rights held by the general partner and/or the membership interests in the general partner from Navios Acquisition, each at fair market value. Two of our executive officers also serve as executive officers of Navios Acquisition and three of our executive officers and one of our directors also serve as executive officers and/or directors of Navios Holdings and as such they have fiduciary duties to Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings that may cause them to pursue business strategies that disproportionately benefit Navios Acquisition or Navios Holdings or which otherwise are not in the best interests of us or our unitholders. Conflicts of interest may arise between Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings and their 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:

36

Table of Contents

The subordination period will extend from November 2014 until the first to occur of:

If the unitholders remove our general partner without cause, the subordination period may end before September 30, 2017.

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

Two of our executive officers, excluding our Chief Financial Officer, are also executive officers of Navios Acquisition and three of our executive officers and one of our directors also serve as executive officers and/or directors of Navios Holdings. Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings conduct substantial 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 affiliates of Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings. Our officers are not required to work full-time on our affairs and, in the future, we may have additional officers that also provide services to Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings and their affiliates. Based solely on the anticipated relative sizes of our fleet and the fleet owned by Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings and their affiliates over the next twelve months, we estimate that our officers, excluding our Chief Financial Officer, may spend a substantial portion of their monthly business time dedicated to the business activities of Navios Acquisition and Navios Holdings and their affiliates. However, the actual allocation of time could vary significantly from time to time depending on various circumstances and needs of the businesses, such as the relative levels of strategic activities of the businesses. Our Chief Financial Officer, Erifili Tsironi, is not an officer of Navios Acquisition and dedicates her time primarily to our business.

37

Table of Contents

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:

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 will pay a daily fee of $9,500 per VLCC for technical and commercial management services provided to us by the Manager. The initial term of the Management Agreement expires in November 2019 and this fee has been fixed for the first two years of that agreement. The daily fee to be paid to the Manager includes all costs incurred in providing certain commercial and technical management services to us as described under “Item 7.—Major Unitholders and Related Party Transactions.” While this fee is fixed for an initial term of two years, for the remaining three years of the term of the Management Agreement, 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 the remaining three years of the term. All of the fees we are required to pay to the Manager under the Management Agreement will be payable to our manager without regard to our financial condition or results of operations. In addition, the Manager will provide us with administrative services, including the services of our officers and directors, pursuant to an Administrative Services Agreement which has an initial term of five years, and we will reimburse the Manager for all costs and expenses reasonably incurred by it in connection with the

38

Table of Contents

provision of those services. The exact amount of these future costs and expenses are unquantifiable at this time. 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.

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, and even if public unitholders are dissatisfied, they will be unable to remove our general partner without Navios Acquisition’s consent, unless Navios Acquisition’s ownership share in us is decreased; all of which could diminish the trading price of our common units.

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.

39

Table of Contents

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

Navios Holdings has a ten-year option to purchase a minimum of 25% of the general partner interest held by the general partner, the incentive distribution rights held by the general partner and/or the membership interests in the general partner from Navios Acquisition, each at fair market value, without the consent of unitholders. The option expires on November 18, 2024. Our general partner may also 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.

Substantial future sales of our common units in the public market could cause the price of our common units to fall.

We have granted registration rights to Navios Acquisition and certain affiliates of Navios Acquisition. These unitholders have the right subject to some conditions to require us to file registration statements covering any of our common, subordinated or other equity securities owned by them or to include those securities in registration statements that we may file for ourselves or other unitholders. Navios Acquisition directly owns 1,242,692 common units and 9,342,692 subordinated units and indirectly owns 381,334 general partner units and all of the incentive distribution rights. Following their registration and sale under an applicable registration statement, those securities will become freely tradable. By exercising their registration rights and selling a large number of common units or other securities, these unitholders could cause the price of our common units to decline.

We may issue additional equity securities in connection with acquisitions and may do so without unitholder approval, which would dilute your ownership interests.

We may, without the approval of our unitholders, issue an unlimited number of additional units or other equity securities. The issuance by us of additional common units or other equity securities of equal or senior rank will have the following effects:

If we exercise our option to purchase any of the seven additional VLCCs from Navios Acquisition, we may finance such acquisition, in whole or in part, by issuing additional equity securities. 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 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 may be diminished or our financial leverage could increase or our unitholders could be diluted.

40

Table of Contents

Upon the expiration of the subordination period, the subordinated units will convert into common units and will then participate pro rata with other common units in distributions of available cash.

During the subordination period the common units have the right to receive distributions of available cash from operating surplus in an amount equal to the minimum quarterly distribution of $0.4125 per unit, plus any arrearages in the payment of the minimum quarterly distribution on the common units from prior quarters, before any distributions of available cash from operating surplus may be made on the subordinated units. Distribution arrearages do not accrue on the subordinated units. The purpose of the subordinated units is to increase the likelihood that during the subordination period there will be available cash from operating surplus to be distributed on the common units. Upon the expiration of the subordination period, the subordinated units will convert into common units and will then participate pro rata with other common units in distributions of available cash.

Although we have an independent board of directors, our general partner will likely have substantial influence on decisions made by our board of directors.

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 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. As described above in “—Risks Inherent in Our Business—We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, which 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,” 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 our unitholders to sell their common units at an undesirable time or price.

If at any time our general partner and its affiliates, including Navios Acquisition, 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 16, 2015 Navios Acquisition, an affiliate of our general partner, owns 1,242,692 of our common units. At the end of the subordination period, assuming no additional issuances of common units, and 9,342,692 of our subordinated units and conversion of our subordinated units into common units, Navios Acquisition will own 10,585,384 common units, representing a 55.5% limited partner interest based on all common and general partner units then outstanding.

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 you participate in the “control” of our

41

Table of Contents

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.

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 you 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.

We have been organized as a limited partnership under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well developed body of partnership law; as a result, unitholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests than would unitholders of a similarly organized limited partnership in the United States.

Our partnership affairs are governed by our partnership agreement and by the Marshall Islands Act. The provisions of the Marshall Islands Act resemble provisions of the limited partnership laws of a number of states in the United States, most notably Delaware. The Marshall Islands Act also provides that it is to be applied and construed to make it uniform with the Delaware Revised Uniform Partnership Act and, so long as it does not conflict with the Marshall Islands Act or decisions of the Marshall Islands courts, interpreted according to the non-statutory law (or case law) of the State of Delaware. There have been, however, few, if any, court cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the Marshall Islands Act, in contrast to Delaware, which has a fairly well-developed body of case law interpreting its limited partnership statute. Accordingly, we cannot predict whether Marshall Islands courts would reach the same conclusions as the courts in Delaware. For example, the rights of our unitholders and the fiduciary responsibilities of our general partner under Marshall Islands law are not as clearly established as under judicial precedent in existence in Delaware. As a result, unitholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by our officers or directors than would unitholders of a similarly organized limited partnership in the United States.

42

Table of Contents

Because we are organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands and our business is operated primarily from our office in Monaco, it may be difficult to serve us with legal process or enforce judgments against us, our directors or our management.

We are organized under the laws of the Marshall Islands, and all of our assets are located outside of the United States. Our business is operated primarily from our office in Monaco. In addition, our general partner is a Marshall Islands limited liability company, and our directors and officers generally are or will be non-residents of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for unitholders to bring an action against us or against these individuals in the United States if unitholders believe that their rights have been infringed under securities laws or otherwise. Even if you are successful in bringing an action of this kind, the laws of the Marshall Islands, Monaco and of other jurisdictions may prevent or restrict unitholders from enforcing a judgment against our assets or the assets of our general partner or our directors or officers.

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

Auditors of U.S. public companies, including our independent registered public accounting firm, are required by the laws of the United States to undergo periodic Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) inspections to assess their compliance with U.S. law and professional standards in connection with performance of audits of financial statements filed with the SEC. The laws of 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. Accordingly, the PCAOB is currently prevented from fully evaluating the effectiveness of our independent registered public accounting firm’s audit procedures or quality control procedures. Unlike shareholders or potential shareholders of most U.S. public companies, our unitholders would be deprived of the possible benefits of such PCAOB inspections.

We are an “emerging growth company” and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make our common units less attractive to investors.

We are an “emerging growth company”, as defined in the JOBS Act, and we may take advantage of certain exemptions from various reporting requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not “emerging growth companies”. We have elected to opt out of the extended transition period for complying with new or revised accounting standards under Section 107(b) of the JOBS Act, which election is irrevocable. We cannot predict if investors will find our common units less attractive because we may rely on these exemptions. If some investors find our common units less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common units and our unit price may be more volatile.

In addition, under the JOBS Act, our independent registered public accounting firm will not be required to attest to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting pursuant to Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act for so long as we are an emerging growth company. For as long as we take advantage of the reduced reporting obligations, the information that we provide unitholders may be different than information provided by other public companies.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read “Material U.S. Federal Income Tax Considerations” and “Non-United States Tax Consideration—Marshall Islands Tax Consequences” for a more complete discussion of the expected material U.S. federal income and Marshall Islands tax considerations relating to us and the ownership and disposition of our common units.

43

Table of Contents

We may be subject to taxes, which may reduce our cash available for distribution to our unitholders.

We and our subsidiaries may be subject to tax in the jurisdictions in which we are organized or operate, reducing the amount of cash available for distribution. In computing our tax obligation in these jurisdictions, we are required to take various tax accounting and reporting positions on matters that are not entirely free from doubt and for which we have not received rulings from the governing authorities. We cannot assure you that upon review of these positions the applicable authorities will agree with our positions. A successful challenge by a tax authority could result in additional tax imposed on us or our subsidiaries, further reducing the cash available for distribution. In addition, changes in our operations or ownership could result in additional tax being imposed on us or our subsidiaries in jurisdictions in which operations are conducted.

In accordance with the currently applicable Greek law, foreign flagged vessels that are managed by Greek or foreign ship management companies having established an office in Greece are subject to duties towards the Greek state which are calculated on the basis of the relevant vessels’ tonnage. The payment of said duties exhausts the tax liability of the foreign ship owning company and the relevant manager against any tax, duty, charge or contribution payable on income from the exploitation of the foreign flagged vessel.

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 units in the PFIC, as well as additional U.S. federal income tax filing obligations.

Based on our current and projected method of operation and on opinion of counsel, we believe that we were not a PFIC for our 2014 taxable year, and we expect that we will not become a PFIC with respect to any other taxable year. Our U.S. counsel is of the opinion that in this regard, 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, we cannot assure you that the method of our operations, or the nature or composition of our income or assets, will not change in the future and that we will not become a PFIC. Moreover, although there is legal authority for our position, there is also contrary authority and no assurance can be given that the Internal Revenue Service, or the IRS, will accept our position.

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

Under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, 50.0% of the gross transportation 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 international transportation income. U.S. source international transportation income generally is subject to a 4.0% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction or, if such U.S. source international transportation income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States, U.S. federal corporate income tax (presently imposed at up to a 35.0% rate) as well as a branch profits tax (presently imposed at a 30.0% rate on effectively connected earnings), unless the non-U.S. corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code.

44

Table of Contents

Based on an opinion of counsel and certain assumptions and representatives, we believe that we will qualify for the statutory tax exemption under Section 883 of the Code, and we intend to take this position for U.S. federal income tax return reporting purposes. However, our position is based on certain assumptions regarding us, our units and the holders thereof, and there are factual circumstances, including some that may be beyond our control, that could cause us to fail to qualify for the benefit of this tax exemption. Furthermore, our board of directors could determine that it is in our best interests to take an action or actions that would result in this tax exemption not applying to us. In addition, our position that we qualify for this exemption 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 cannot give any assurance 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 international transportation income or, if such U.S. source international transportation 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 any such taxable year or 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 subsidiaries will be conducted and operated in a manner that minimizes income taxes imposed upon us and our subsidiaries 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 subsidiaries 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 entered 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.

45

Table of Contents