PART I

Unless the context otherwise requires, references to the “company,” “we,” “us,” “our” or “Global Ship Lease” refer to Global Ship Lease, Inc.; “CMA CGM” refers to CMA CGM S.A., currently our principal charterer; “CMA Ships” refers to CMA Ships, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CMA CGM and one of our ship technical managers, “Poseidon Containers” refers to Poseidon Containers Holdings LLC and K&T Marine LLC, collectively, with whom we completed a strategic combination on November 15, 2018, Technomar Shipping Inc (“Technomar”) refers to one of our ship technical managers and ConChart Commercial Inc (“Conchart”) refers to our commercial ship manager. For the definition of certain terms used in this Annual Report, please see “Glossary of Shipping Terms” at the end of this Annual Report. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to “$” and “dollars” in this Annual Report are in U.S. dollars. We use the term “TEU”, meaning twenty-foot equivalent unit, the international standard measure of container size, in describing volumes in world container trade and other measures, including the capacity of our containerships, which we also refer to as vessels. Unless otherwise indicated, we calculate the average age of our vessels on a weighted average basis, based on TEU capacity. All share and per share amounts disclosed in this Annual Report give retroactive effect, for all periods presented, to the one-for-eight reverse stock split of our Class A common shares effected on March 25, 2019.

Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements

This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements provide our current expectations or forecasts of future events. Forward-looking statements include statements about our expectations, beliefs, plans, objectives, intentions, assumptions and other statements that are not historical facts. Words or phrases such as “anticipate,” “believe,” “continue,” “estimate,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “ongoing,” “plan,” “potential,” “predict,” “project,” “will” or similar words or phrases, or the negatives of those words or phrases, may identify forward-looking statements, but the absence of these words does not necessarily mean that a statement is not forward-looking. Examples of forward-looking statements in this Annual Report include, but are not limited to, statements regarding our disclosure concerning our operations, cash flows, financial position, dividend policy, the anticipated benefits of our strategic transaction with Poseidon Containers, and the likelihood of success in acquiring additional vessels to expand our business.

Forward-looking statements appear in a number of places in this Annual Report including, without limitation, in the sections entitled “Business Overview,” “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Conditions and Operations,” and “Dividend Policy.”

Forward-looking statements are subject to known and unknown risks and uncertainties and are based on potentially inaccurate assumptions that could cause actual results to differ materially from those expected or implied by the forward-looking statements. Our actual results could differ materially from those anticipated in forward-looking statements for many reasons, including the factors described in “Risk Factors” in this Annual Report. The risks described under “Risk Factors” are not exhaustive. Other sections of this Annual Report describe additional factors that could adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and the development of the industries in which we operate. New risks can emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all such risks, nor can we assess the impact of all such risks on our business or the extent to which any risks, or combination of risks and other factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Accordingly, you should not unduly rely on these forward-looking statements, which speak only as of the date of this Annual Report. We undertake no obligation to publicly update or revise any forward-looking statement to reflect circumstances or events after the date of this Annual Report or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. You should, however, review the factors and risks we describe in the reports we will file from time to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or “SEC,” after the date of this Annual Report.

You should read the information set forth below in conjunction with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—A. Operating Results—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, which are referred to as our consolidated financial statements, included elsewhere in this Annual Report.

The historical selected consolidated financial data as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 and operating results for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017, and 2016, are derived from our audited consolidated financial statements which are included in this report. The historical selected consolidated financial data as of December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 and for the years ended December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 have been derived from our audited financial statements not included in this report. This information is qualified by reference to, and should be read in conjunction with, “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects” and our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included elsewhere in this report.

2

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

Risks Relating to Our Business

We may not realize all of the anticipated benefits of our recent strategic transaction with Poseidon Containers.

On November 15, 2018, we completed the Poseidon Transaction, a strategic combination with Poseidon Containers whereby we acquired Poseidon Containers, including its fleet of 20 containerships, one of which was contracted to be sold, the sale of which was completed in December 2018. On the closing of the Poseidon Transaction, we issued 3,005,603 Class A common shares and 250,000 Series C Preferred Shares, which are convertible into 12,955,187 Class A common shares upon the occurrence of certain events, to the unitholders of Poseidon Containers and assumed the debt of Poseidon Containers, which amounted to $509.7 million as at November 15, 2018.

There is a risk that some or all of the expected benefits of the Poseidon Transaction may fail to materialize, or may not occur within the time periods anticipated. The realization of such benefits may be affected by a number of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including but not limited to the strength or weakness of the economy and competitive factors in the areas where we do business, the effects of competition in the markets in which we operate, and the impact of changes in the laws and regulations regulating the container shipping industry. The challenge of coordinating previously separate businesses makes evaluating our business and future financial prospects following the Poseidon Transaction difficult. Our ability to realize anticipated benefits and cost savings will depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate the operations of both us and Poseidon Containers in a manner that results in various benefits, including, among other things, an expanded market reach and operating efficiencies, and that does not materially disrupt existing relationships nor result in decreased revenues or dividends. The past financial performance of each of Global Ship Lease and Poseidon Containers may not be indicative of their future financial performance. Realization of the anticipated benefits of the Poseidon Transaction will depend, in part, on our ability to successfully integrate our business. We have devoted, and expect to continue to devote, significant management attention and resources to integrating business practices and support functions. The diversion of management’s attention and any delays or difficulties encountered relating to the Poseidon Transaction and the coordination of the two companies’ operations could have an adverse effect on our business, financial results, financial condition or our share price. The consummation of the Poseidon Transaction and the integration of Poseidon Containers with our business may also result in additional and unforeseen expenses. Failure to realize all of the anticipated benefits of the Poseidon Transaction may impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

3

Significant demands have been, and will continue to be, placed on us as a result of the Poseidon Transaction.

As a result of the completion of the Poseidon Transaction, significant demands have been, and will continue to be, placed on our managerial, operational and financial personnel and systems. We cannot assure you that our systems, procedures and controls will be adequate to support the expansion of operations resulting from the Poseidon Transaction. Our future operating results will be affected by the ability of our officers and key employees to manage changing business conditions and to implement and expand our operational and financial controls and reporting systems as a result of the Poseidon Transaction.

We are dependent on our charterers, particularly CMA CGM, and other counterparties fulfilling their obligations under agreements with us, and their inability or unwillingness to honor these obligations could significantly reduce our revenues and cash flow.

Payments to us by our charterers under time charters are and will be our sole source of operating cash flow. Seventeen of our 38 vessels are chartered to CMA CGM and we have entered into charter agreements with CMA CGM to charter an additional five of our vessels, commencing in the first half of 2019. CMA CGM’s payments to us under these charters are an important source of operating revenue. We are consequently highly dependent on the performance by CMA CGM of its obligations under these charters. The container shipping industry is cyclical, and has been suffering an extended cyclical downturn since mid-2008, and many container shipping companies have reported substantial losses. Financial performance of container shipping companies improved in 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2017. However, market conditions deteriorated in 2015 and 2016 with lower than expected growth in the demand for container shipping services and higher than expected growth in the containership fleet from the delivery of new buildings. Freight rates, charter rates and asset values were under pressure due to oversupply of container ship capacity. Industry conditions improved through 2017 and into the first half of 2018, with weakness in short term market charter rates being seen in the second half of 2018. If we lose a time charter because the charterer is unable to pay us or for any other reason, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on similarly favorable terms or at all. Also, we will not receive any revenues from such a vessel while it is un-chartered, but we will be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain and insure the vessel and service any indebtedness on it.

Whilst there were no delays in receiving charterhire in 2017 or 2018, we have previously experienced, from time to time, delays in receiving charterhire payments from CMA CGM, which under the charter contracts are due to be paid two weeks in advance. As at December 31, 2018, no charterhire was outstanding from CMA CGM.

If CMA CGM, or any other of our charterers, ceases doing business or fails to perform its obligations under our charters, our business, financial position and results of operations would be materially adversely affected as it is probable that, even if we were able to find replacement charters, such replacement charters would be at significantly lower daily rates and for shorter durations. If such events occur, there would be significant uncertainty about our ability to continue as a going concern.

We are dependent on third parties, some of which are related parties, to manage our ships and substantial fees will be payable to our ship managers regardless of our profitability.

All of our vessels are technically managed by third-party ship managers under contracts whereby, for an annual management fee, the manager provides all day-to-day ship management, including crewing, purchasing stores, lubricating oils and spare parts, paying wages, pensions and insurance for the crew, and organizing other vessel operating necessities, including the arrangement and management of drydocking. As of the date of this report, the 19 vessels acquired in the Poseidon Transaction are technically managed by Technomar, a company in which our Executive Chairman is a significant shareholder, 11 vessels were technically managed by a ship manager based in Hong Kong, seven were technically managed by CMA Ships, a wholly-owned subsidiary of CMA CGM, and one by a ship manager based in Germany. It is anticipated that the technical management of all of our vessels will transfer to Technomar during 2019.

Additionally, as of the date of this report, 20 of our vessels are commercially managed by Conchart, a company in which our Executive Chairman is a significant shareholder. The services provided by Conchart, as our commercial manager, include chartering, sale and purchase and post-fixture administration.

4

The fees and expenses payable pursuant to our technical and commercial ship management agreements will be payable without regard to our business, results of operation and financial condition. Additionally, we have limited rights to terminate our management agreements. The payment of fees to our managers could adversely affect our results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

Our third-party ship managers are privately-held companies and there is little or no publicly available information about them.

The ability of Technomar, Conchart, CMA Ships and our other third-party ship managers, to render ship management services will depend in part on their own financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair our third-party ship managers’ financial strength, and because each is a privately-held company, information about the financial strength of our third-party ship managers is not available. As a result, we and our shareholders might have little advance warning of financial or other problems affecting our third-party ship managers even though their financial or other problems could have a material adverse effect on us.

Technomar, Conchart, CMA CGM and CMA Ships have conflicts of interest with us which may make them favor their own interests to our detriment.

Our Executive Chairman, who, through Management Investor Co., also controls approximately 10.0% of the votes on any matter submitted to the vote of our common shareholders, is a significant shareholder of and controls Technomar and Conchart. As of the date of this report, CMA CGM, the parent company of CMA Ships, holds approximately 15.6% of our voting power and has nominated two members of our Board of Directors. Accordingly, CMA CGM, our principal charterer, and affiliates of Technomar, Conchart and CMA Ships, our third-party ship managers, have the power to exert considerable influence over our actions. These relationships could create conflicts of interest between us and our third-party ship managers and principal charterer. Under our bylaws, in order for the approval of contracts or transactions involving a related party not to be voidable (1) any interested director’s relationship or interest as to the contract or transaction must be disclosed to the board of directors, and such contract or transaction must be authorized by a majority of the disinterested directors (or, in certain cases, all of the disinterested directors) or (2) the contract or transaction must be specifically approved in good faith by vote of the shareholders. Furthermore, our corporate governance guidelines require a director with a personal interest in a matter being approved by the board of directors to disclose the interest, to recuse himself or herself from participation in the discussion and to not vote on the matter.

Such conflicts of interest may arise in connection with the chartering, purchase, sale and operations of the vessels in our fleet versus vessels managed or owned by other companies affiliated with our third-party ship managers or principal charterer. As a result of these conflicts, our third-party ship managers or our principal charterer may favor their own or their affiliates’ interests over our interests. These conflicts may have unfavorable consequences for us. Although Technomar and Conchart have entered into a non-competition agreement with us, and although our ship management agreements expressly prohibit CMA Ships from giving preferential treatment when performing any of its ship management services to any other vessel that is affiliated with it, or otherwise controlled by CMA CGM, conflicts of interest may arise between us and our third-party ship managers and principal charterer, and such conflicts may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our financial reporting is partly dependent on information provided by our third-party ship managers and on accounting and financial reporting services provided by Technomar.

Our ship managers are obliged to provide us with requisite financial information on a timely basis so that we can meet our own reporting obligations under U.S. securities laws. Furthermore, the accounting and financial reporting for Poseidon Containers is provided by Technomar, under an administrative support section of the ship management contracts. It is anticipated that all accounting and financial reporting for the legacy Global Ship Lease entities will transition to Technomar during 2019.    Our ship managers, including Technomar, are privately-held corporations with financial reporting arrangements different from ours. If our ship managers are delayed in providing us with key financial information, or Technomar otherwise fails to meet its obligations under the administrative support section of the ship management agreements, we could fail to meet our financial reporting deadlines, which could lead to regulatory sanctions being imposed on us and cause us to default on reporting covenants under our financing agreements. Any such results may have a material adverse effect on our results of operation, financial condition and reputation.

Certain terms in our agreements with CMA CGM and its affiliates may be the result of negotiations that were not conducted at arms-length and may not reflect market standard terms. Accordingly, they may include terms that may not be obtained from future negotiations with unaffiliated third parties.

The initial charters, the ship management agreements and the other contractual agreements, including the terms of the Series A preferred shares and the subsequent agreement to redeem these in August 2014 were entered into when we were a wholly-owned subsidiary of CMA CGM in the context of a proposed public offering of our Class A common shares in 2007, and subsequently the 2008 merger of Marathon Acquisition Corp. (“Marathon”) and Global Ship Lease, with and into GSL Holdings, Inc., Marathon’s newly-formed wholly-owned Marshall Islands subsidiary, with GSL Holdings, Inc. (now renamed Global Ship Lease, Inc.) continuing as the surviving company incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands (collectively, the “Marathon Merger”), and other related transactions. We have subsequently agreed amendments of and extensions to a number of the initial charters with CMA CGM. Our agreements with CMA CGM may include terms that could not have been obtained from arms-length negotiations with unaffiliated third parties for similar services and assets. As a result, our future operating results may be negatively affected if we do not receive terms as favorable in future negotiations with unaffiliated third parties.

5

Our growth depends on continued growth in the demand for containerships, our ability to purchase further vessels, obtain new charters and maintain our relationship with CMA CGM. We will require additional financing to be able to grow and will face substantial competition.

One of our objectives is to grow by acquiring additional vessels and chartering them out to container shipping companies potentially including CMA CGM. The opportunity to acquire additional containerships will in part depend on the state of and prospects for container shipping. The container shipping industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of supply demand balance, freight rates and charter rates and overall profitability. By and large, the industry has been under pressure since 2008, with an excess of supply of containership capacity and mediocre demand growth. The factors affecting the supply and demand for containerships, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

Acquisition of vessels will be challenging as, inter alia, we may need to obtain additional financing in order to complete vessel purchases. Due to the continuing effects of the economic downturn and the severe cyclical downturn in the container shipping industry, financing for investment in containerships, whether newbuildings or existing vessels, is severely limited. Further, the cost of any available financing has increased significantly. In addition, in recent years, the number of lenders for shipping companies has decreased and lenders have generally lowered their loan-to-value advance ratios, shortened loan terms and accelerated repayment schedules. The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers and proposed charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. These factors may hinder our ability to access financing and we may be unable to obtain adequate funding for growth.

The process of obtaining further vessels and new charters is highly competitive. The purchase of vessels and gaining of new charters depends on a variety of factors relating to the vessel owner, including:

We will face substantial competition in expanding our business from a number of experienced companies. Many of these competitors may have greater financial resources and a lower cost of capital than us, may operate larger fleets, may have been established for longer and may be able to offer better charter rates. During any industry downturn there are an increased number of vessels available for charter, including many from owners with strong reputation and experience. Excess supply of vessels in the container shipping market results in greater price competition for charters. As a result of these factors, we may be unable to purchase additional containerships, expand our relationships with CMA CGM or obtain new charters on a profitable basis, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Certain shareholders may have the power to exert control over us, and their interests could conflict with the interests of our other shareholders.

According to information contained in public filings, KEP VI (Newco Marine) Ltd. and KIA VIII (Newco Marine) Ltd., both affiliates of Kelso & Company, a U.S. private equity firm, hereafter referred to as Kelso, controls approximately 50.1% of the vote on any matter submitted to the vote of our common shareholders, through its ownership of Series C Preferred Shares and by virtue of a voting agreement with certain other of our shareholders. In addition, a Managing Director of Kelso is a member of our Board of Directors. As a result, Kelso has the power to exert considerable influence over our actions and to effectively control the outcome of matters on which our shareholders are entitled to vote, including increasing or decreasing our authorized share capital, the election of directors, declaration of dividends, the appointment of management, and other policy decisions. In addition, according to public filings, CMA CGM, George Giouroukos (our Executive Chairman) through Management Investor Co., Michael S. Gross (our former Chairman and a director) and MAAS Capital respectively hold and/or control approximately 15.6%, 10.0%, 6.8% and 5.3% of our voting power. Conflicts of interest may also arise between us and these significant shareholders or their affiliates, which may result in the conclusion of transactions on terms not determined by market forces. Any such conflicts of interest could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations, and the trading price of our common shares. Moreover, the concentration of ownership may delay, deter or prevent acts that would be favored by our other shareholders or deprive shareholders of an opportunity to receive a premium for their shares as part of a sale of our business. Similarly, this concentration of share ownership may adversely affect the trading price of our shares because investors may perceive disadvantages in owning shares in a company with concentrated ownership.

6

Due to our lack of diversification, adverse developments in our containership transportation business could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Nearly all of our cash flow is generated from our charters of containerships. Due to our lack of diversification, an adverse development in the containership industry may more significantly harm our business, results of operations and financial condition than if we maintained more diverse assets or lines of business.

We may be unable to recharter our vessels at profitable rates, if at all, upon their time charter expiry.

As of February 1, 2019, the orderbook for newbuilding containerships represented an aggregate capacity of 2.75 million TEUs, approximately 12.3% of the total worldwide containership fleet capacity as of that date. The size of the orderbook will result in the increase in the size of the world containership fleet over the next few years. As of that date, 195 containerships were idle, with a capacity of 0.6 million TEUs, or 2.5% of the total cellular fleet. An over-supply of containership capacity, combined with lack of growth in the demand for containerships, may result in a continuation of low charter rates. The time charters for nine of our 38 containerships can be terminated before the end second quarter 2019 and a further ten vessels have charters that can be terminated during the second half of 2019. We cannot be assured that we will be able to obtain new time charters for our vessels on expiry of existing charters or that if we do, the new rates will be favorable. If we are unable to obtain new time charters for our containerships at favorable rates or are unable to secure new charters promptly, or at all, the vessels would be idle. We would continue to incur certain operating costs but earn no revenue, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financings, results of operations and financial condition.

Our substantial indebtedness could adversely affect our ability to raise additional capital to fund our operations and limit our ability to react to changes in the economy or our industry.

We are highly leveraged. As at December 31, 2018, we had (i) $340.0 million of secured indebtedness outstanding under our 9.875% First Priority Senior Secured Notes due 2022 (the “ 2022 notes”), (ii) $34.8 million drawn and outstanding under a secured term loan, (iii) $8.1 million drawn under a growth facility and (iv) $506.3 million secured debt associated with the 19 Poseidon Fleet.

Our high degree of leverage could have important consequences, including:

7

Despite our indebtedness levels, we may be able to incur substantially more indebtedness. This could further exacerbate the risks associated with our substantial indebtedness.

We may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future. Although the indenture governing the 2022 notes and our secured term loan contain restrictions on the incurrence of additional indebtedness, these restrictions are subject to a number of significant qualifications and exceptions, and under certain circumstances, the amount of indebtedness that could be incurred in compliance with these restrictions could be substantial. In addition, the indenture governing the 2022 notes and our secured term loan will not prevent us from incurring obligations that do not constitute indebtedness thereunder. Our covenants also permit us to incur substantial non-recourse indebtedness in subsidiaries that do not guarantee our obligations under our 2022 notes. If we incur substantially more indebtedness, the risks associated with our indebtedness as described above could be exacerbated.

Our debt agreements, including those assumed in the Poseidon Transaction, contain restrictions that limit our flexibility in operating our business.

Our debt agreements, including those assumed in the Poseidon Transaction, contain various covenants that limit our ability to engage in specified types of transactions. These covenants limit our ability and the ability of our restricted subsidiaries to, among other things:

In addition, certain of our debt agreements require us to satisfy certain financial covenants, including a minimum liquidity covenant, minimum net worth covenant, a debt service coverage ratio test, loan to value covenant, and book leverage ratio and value adjusted leverage ratio tests. Our ability to meet those financial covenants and tests will depend on our ongoing financial and operating performance, which, in turn, will be subject to economic conditions and to financial, market, and competitive factors, many of which are beyond our control.

Due to restrictions in our debt agreements, we may need to seek consent from our noteholders and other lenders in order to engage in some corporate and commercial actions that we believe would be in the best interest of our business, and a denial of consent may make it difficult for us to successfully execute our business strategy or effectively compete with companies that are not similarly restricted. For example, our debt agreements restrict our entry into certain transactions or the termination or amendment of our third-party ship management agreements, and require that George Giouroukos remain our Executive Chairman. Our lenders’ and/or noteholders’ interests may be different from ours, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain their permission when needed. This may prevent us from taking actions that are in our best interest. Any future agreements governing our indebtedness may include similar or more restrictive restrictions.

A breach of any of the covenants could result in a default under one or more of these agreements, including as a result of cross default provisions, and, in the case of our secured term loan, permit the lenders to cease making loans to us. Upon the occurrence of an event of default under our credit facilities, the lenders could elect to declare all amounts outstanding under the loan to be immediately due and payable. Such actions by the lenders could cause cross defaults under our other credit facilities and the indenture governing our 2022 notes.

Substantially all of the assets currently owned by us serve as security under our secured debt agreements. If our operating performance declines, we may be required to obtain waivers from the holders of our 2022 notes and the lenders under our credit facilities to avoid default thereunder. If we are not able to obtain a waiver from the holders of our 2022 notes and the lenders under our credit facilities, the lenders could exercise their rights upon default and we could be forced into bankruptcy or liquidation.

8

The vessels’ mortgagor or other maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which could interrupt the charterer’s or our cash flow.

If we default under our 2022 notes, or any other credit facility, holders of our 2022 notes and lenders under our other credit facilities who hold mortgages on our vessels could arrest some or all of our vessels and cause them to be sold. We would not receive any proceeds of such sale unless all amounts outstanding under such indebtedness had been repaid in full. Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against that vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels, for valid or invalid reasons, could interrupt the charterer’s or our cash flow and require the charterer or us or our insurance to pay a significant amount to have the arrest lifted. In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another vessel in our fleet. In any event, any lien imposed may adversely affect our results of operations by delaying the revenue gained from ships.

Vessel values may fluctuate, which may adversely affect our financial condition, result in the incurrence of a loss upon disposal of a vessel or increase the cost of acquiring additional vessels.

Vessel values may fluctuate due to a number of different factors, including:

In addition, as vessels grow older, they generally decline in value. If a charter terminates, we may be unable to re-deploy the vessel at attractive rates, or at all and, rather than continue to incur costs to maintain and finance the vessel, may seek to dispose of it. Our inability to dispose of the containership at a reasonable price, or at all, could result in a loss on its sale and harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. Additionally, under most of our time charter agreements with CMA CGM, the charterer has a right of first refusal should we decide to sell the vessel during or at the end of the charter period. If they do not exercise this right, we are entitled to sell the vessel, subject to their prior approval, which cannot be unreasonably withheld. We may be forced to sell our vessels for a lesser amount because of these constraints. Moreover, if the book value of a vessel is impaired due to unfavorable market conditions, we may incur a loss that could adversely affect our operating results.

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 adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flow and financial condition.

In addition, if we determine at any time that a vessel’s value has been impaired, we may need to recognize a significant impairment charge that will reduce our earnings and net assets. We review our containership assets for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable, which occurs when the assets’ carrying value is greater than the undiscounted future cash flows the asset is expected to generate over its remaining useful life. In our experience, certain assumptions relating to our estimates of future cash flows are more predictable by their nature, including, estimated revenue under existing contract terms and remaining vessel life. Certain assumptions relating to our estimates of future cash flows require more judgement and are inherently less predictable, such as future charter rates beyond the firm period of existing contracts, the amount of time a vessel is off-charter, ongoing operating costs and vessel residual values, due to factors such as the volatility in vessel charter rates and vessel values. We believe that the assumptions used to estimate future cash flows of our vessels are reasonable at the time they are made. We can provide no assurances, however, as to whether our estimates of future cash flows, particularly future vessel charter revenues or vessel values, will be accurate. Vessels that currently are not considered impaired may become impaired over time if the future estimated undiscounted cash flows decline at a rate that is faster than the depreciation of our vessels. Future fluctuations in charter rates and vessel values may trigger a possible impairment of our vessels as described in Item 5.A. “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Results of Operations—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.”

9

Declining containership values could affect our ability to raise cash by limiting our ability to refinance vessels or use unencumbered vessels as collateral for new loans or result in prepayments under certain of our credit facilities. This could harm our business, results of operations, financial condition or ability to raise capital.

If impairment testing is required and time charter rates do not improve meaningfully from current market rates, we may need to recognize further impairment charges. The determination of the fair value of vessels will depend on various market factors, including charter and discount rates, ship operating costs and vessel trading values, and our reasonable assumptions at that time. The amount, if any, and timing of any impairment charges we may recognize in the future will depend upon then current and expected future charter rates, vessel utilization, operating and dry-docking expenditures, vessel residual values, inflation and the remaining expected useful lives of our vessels, which may differ materially from those used in our estimates at December 31, 2018.

Our vessels may be subject to extended periods of off-hire, which could materially adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Under the time charters for our vessels, when the vessel is not available for service, it will likely be “off-hire,” in which case the charterer is generally not required to pay hire, and we will be responsible for all costs unless the charterer is responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the lack of availability. A vessel generally will be deemed to be off-hire if there is an occurrence that affects the full working condition of the vessel, such as:

Additionally, the charterer may have the right to terminate the charter agreement under a number of circumstances, such as, if:

Our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected if our vessels are subject to extended periods of off-hire.

10

We may be unable to make or realize expected benefits from acquisitions of vessels or container shipping-related assets, and implementing our growth strategy through acquisitions which may harm our business, financial condition and operating results.

Our growth strategy includes, among other things, selectively acquiring secondhand and, potentially, newbuilding vessels and possibly seeking to diversify our asset base by acquiring containers and other container shipping-related assets if an attractive investment opportunity presents itself in the future. Growing any business through acquisition presents numerous risks, such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, the possibility that indemnification agreements will be unenforceable or insufficient to cover potential losses and obtaining the necessary resources to manage an enlarged business. We cannot give any assurance that we will be successful in executing our growth plans, that we will be able to employ any acquired vessels under long-term charters, that we will be able to purchase secondhand vessels or newbuildings at satisfactory prices or obtain ship management agreements with similar or better terms than those we have obtained from our current ship managers, that we will be able to purchase containers and subsequently lease them out at satisfactory prices or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection with our future growth.

Factors that may limit our ability to acquire additional vessels and container shipping-related assets include competition from other owners and lessors, availability of financing, shipyard capacity for newbuildings and the limited number of modern vessels with appropriate characteristics not already subject to existing long-term or other charters. Competition from other purchasers could reduce our acquisition opportunities or cause us to pay higher prices.

Any acquisition of a vessel or container shipping-related assets may not be profitable to us and may not generate cash flow sufficient to justify our investment. In addition, our acquisition growth strategy exposes us to risks that may harm our business, financial condition and operating results, including risks that we may:

Should we expand our business or provide additional services to third parties, we may need to improve our operating and financial systems, expand our commercial and technical management staff, and recruit suitable employees and crew for our vessels.

Our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate if we expand the size of our fleet or begin to lease containers, and attempts to improve those systems may be ineffective. In addition, we may need to recruit suitable additional administrative and management personnel to manage any growth. We may not be able to continue to hire suitable employees in such circumstances. If a shortage of experienced labor exists or if we encounter business or financial difficulties, we may not be able to adequately staff our vessels. If we expand our fleet, or begin to lease containers, and we are unable to grow our financial and operating systems or to recruit suitable employees, our business, results of operations and financial condition may be harmed.

We are exposed to risks associated with the purchase and operation of secondhand vessels.

Secondhand vessels typically do not carry warranties as to their condition at the time of acquisition. While we would generally inspect secondhand containerships prior to purchase, such an inspection would normally not provide us with as much knowledge of the vessel’s condition as if it had been built for and operated by us during its life. Future repairs and maintenance costs for secondhand vessels are difficult to predict and may be substantially higher than for equivalent vessels of which we have had direct experience. These additional costs could decrease our cash flow and reduce our liquidity. There can be no assurance that market conditions will justify such expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of the economic lives of such vessels.

We may not perform underwater inspections of vessels prior to purchase.

Although we would perform physical inspections of any vessel prior to its purchase, it may not be possible for us to undertake any underwater inspections. As a result, we will not be aware of any damage to a vessel that may have existed at the time of purchase and which could only be discovered through an underwater inspection. However, if any damage is subsequently found, we could incur substantial costs to repair the damage which would not be recoverable from the sellers.

11

Our ability to grow may be reduced by the introduction of new accounting rules for leasing.

The U.S. accounting standard-setting organization has issued its new standard on leases which has the effect of bringing most off-balance sheet leases onto a lessee’s balance sheet as a right-of-use asset and a lease liability for all leases, including operating leases, with a term greater than 12 months. This change could affect our customers and potential customers and may cause them to breach certain financial covenants. This may make them less likely to enter into time charters for our containerships, which could reduce our growth opportunities. This new standard has become effective for fiscal years which began after December 15, 2018.

We must make substantial expenditures to maintain our fleet, meet new regulatory requirements or to acquire vessels.

We must make substantial expenditures to maintain our fleet and we generally expect to finance these expenditures from operating cash flow. In addition, we will need to make substantial capital expenditures to acquire vessels in accordance with our growth strategy. Further, we may be obliged to incur substantial expenditure to become compliant with changes in the regulatory environment, particularly concerning emission control and ballast water treatment. Maintenance expenditures could increase as a result of, among other things, the cost of labor and materials, customer requirements and governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards relating to safety, security or the environment. If we are unable to generate sufficient operating cash flow, we will need to fund these significant expenditures, including those required to maintain our fleet, with borrowings under our secured term loan or otherwise find alternative sources of financing. Such alternatives may not be available on economic terms or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

As our fleet ages, we may incur increased operating costs beyond normal inflation, which would adversely affect our results of operations.

In general, the day-to-day cost of operating and maintaining a vessel increases with age. In addition, older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and may attract lower charter rates compared to modern, more fuel efficient vessels. Governmental regulations and safety or other equipment standards may also require expenditures for modifications or the addition of new equipment and may restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, market conditions will justify any such expenditures or expenditures to otherwise improve their operating characteristics, such as fuel efficiency to enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives, which could adversely affect our results of operations. Our fleet of 38 vessels as at December 31, 2018 had an average age weighted by TEU capacity of 11.0 years.

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

Our fleet of 38 containerships as at December 31, 2018 had an average age weighted by TEU capacity of 11.0 years. Unless we maintain reserves or are able to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement, we will be unable to replace the older vessels in our fleet. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our containerships. The inability to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. Any reserves set aside by any of our subsidiaries for vessel replacement will not be available for servicing our indebtedness.

Our business depends upon certain individuals who may not necessarily continue to be affiliated with us.

Our current performance and future success depend to a significant extent upon our Executive Chairman, George Giouroukos, our Chief Executive Officer, Ian J. Webber, our Chief Commercial Officer, Thomas A. Lister, and our Chief Financial Officer, Anastasios Psaropoulos, who collectively have almost 100 years of cumulative experience in the shipping industry and have worked with several of the world’s largest shipping, ship leasing and ship management companies. They and members of the board of directors are crucial to the execution of our business strategies and to the growth and development of our business. Mr. Giouroukos is committed to spend approximately 50% on his time on matters related to our affairs. If these individuals were no longer to be affiliated with us, or if we were to otherwise cease to receive advisory services from them, we may be unable to recruit other employees with equivalent talent and experience, and our business and financial condition may suffer as a result.

Rising crew and other vessel operating costs may adversely affect our profits.

Acquiring and renewing charters with leading liner companies depends on a number of factors, including our ability to man our containerships with suitably experienced, high quality masters, officers and crews. The limited supply of and increased demand for well-qualified crew, due to the increase in the size of the global shipping fleet, has from time to time created upward pressure on crewing costs, which we generally bear under our time charters. Increases in crew costs and other vessel operating costs such as insurance, repairs and maintenance, and lubricants may adversely affect our profitability. In addition, if we cannot retain a sufficient number of high quality onboard seafaring personnel, our fleet utilization will decrease, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

12

Increased fuel prices may have a material adverse effect on our profits.

The cost of fuel is a significant factor in negotiating charter rates and can affect us both directly and indirectly. The cost of fuel will be borne by us when our vessels are being positioned for drydockings, between charters and when employed on voyage charters or contracts of affreightment. We currently have no voyage charters or contracts of affreightment, but we may enter into such arrangements in the future, and to the extent we do so, an increase in the price of fuel beyond our expectations may adversely affect our profitability. We also bear the cost of fuel associated with dry-dockings and when a vessel is off-hire. Even where the cost of fuel is borne by the charterer, which is the case with all of our existing time charters, that cost will affect the level of charter rates that charterers are prepared to pay, depending in part on the fuel efficiency of a particular vessel.

The price of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including but not limited to geo-political developments, supply and demand for oil, actions by members of the OPEC and other oil and gas producers, economic or other sanctions levied against oil and gas producing countries, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns and regulations.

Volatility in the London Interbank Offered Rate, or LIBOR, could affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

LIBOR may be volatile, with the spread between LIBOR and the prime lending rate widening significantly at times. These conditions are the result of disruptions in the international markets. At times when we have loans outstanding which are based on LIBOR, the interest rates borne by such loan facilities fluctuate with changes in LIBOR, and this would affect the amount of interest payable on our debt, which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow. Recently, however, there is uncertainty relating to the LIBOR calculation process which may result in the phasing out of LIBOR in the future, and lenders have insisted on provisions that entitle the lenders, in their discretion, to replace published LIBOR as the base for the interest calculation with their cost-of-funds rate. If we are required to agree to such a provision in future loan agreements, our lending costs could increase significantly, which would also have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

In addition, the banks currently reporting information used to set LIBOR will likely stop such reporting after 2021, when their commitment to reporting information ends. The Alternative Reference Rate Committee, or “Committee,” a committee convened by the U.S. Federal Reserve that includes major market participants, has proposed an alternative rate to replace U.S. Dollar LIBOR: the Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or “SOFR.” The impact of such a transition away from LIBOR would be significant for us because of our substantial indebtedness.

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 and other obligations.

We are a holding company and have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. Our subsidiaries own all of the vessels and payments under charters are made to them. As a result, our ability to pay dividends and meet any debt service obligations and other liabilities depends on the performance of our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of our subsidiaries to pay dividends or make other distributions or payments to us will be subject to the availability of profits or funds for such purpose which, in turn, will depend on the future performance of the subsidiary concerned which, to a certain extent, is subject to general economic, financial, competitive, legislative, regulatory and other factors that may be beyond its control. Additionally, the ability of our subsidiaries to make these distributions could be affected by the provisions of our financing arrangements or a claim or other action by a third party, including a creditor, or by English, Marshall Islands, Cypriot or Hong Kong law or the laws of any jurisdiction which regulates the payment of dividends by companies. Applicable tax laws may also subject such payments to further taxation. Applicable law may also limit the amounts that some of our subsidiaries will be permitted to pay as dividends or distributions on their equity interests, or even prevent such payments. Limitations on our ability to transfer cash among and within our group may mean that even though we, in aggregate, may have sufficient resources to meet our obligations, we may not be permitted to make the necessary transfers from one entity in our group to another entity in our group in order to make payments on our obligations. Therefore, if we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, we may not be able to pay dividends, including on our preferred shares, or meet our debt service obligations or our other liabilities.

13

Because we generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could hurt our results of operations.

We generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars and some of our expenses are denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollars. This currency mismatch could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value could increase, thereby decreasing our net income. We have not hedged any of this exposure and our U.S. dollar denominated results of operations and financial condition and ability to pay dividends could suffer from adverse currency exchange rate movements. Future declines in the U.S. dollar versus other currencies could have a material adverse effect on our operating expenses and net income.

Our insurance may be insufficient to cover losses that may occur to our property or result from our operations.

The shipping industry has inherent operational risks. Although we carry hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance and protection and indemnity insurance (which includes coverage for environmental damage and pollution) and other insurances commonly held by vessel owners, we may not be adequately insured against all risks or our insurers may not pay every claim. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to obtain a replacement vessel in the event of a total or constructive total loss in a timely manner. Further, under our financings, we are subject to restrictions on the use of any proceeds we may receive under claims in the event of a total or constructive total loss. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage for tort liability. In addition, insurers typically charge additional premiums if vessels transit certain “excluded areas,” which may be subject to higher risk of piracy, war or terrorism. We cannot be certain that our insurers will continue to provide such cover, or that we will be able to recover these increased costs from our charterers. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which, although we believe are standard in the shipping industry, may nevertheless increase our costs.

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

We are incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate law.

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

A cyber-attack could materially disrupt our business.

We rely on information technology systems and networks in our operations and administration of our business. Information systems are vulnerable to security breaches by computer hackers and cyber terrorists. We rely on industry accepted security measures and technology to securely maintain confidential and proprietary information maintained on our information systems. However, these measures and technology may not adequately prevent security breaches. Our business operations could be targeted by individuals or groups seeking to sabotage or disrupt our information technology systems and networks, or to steal data. A successful cyber-attack could materially disrupt our operations, including the safety of our operations, or lead to unauthorized release of information or alteration of information in our systems. Any such attack or other breach of our information technology systems could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, the unavailability of the information systems or the failure of these systems to perform as anticipated for any reason could disrupt our business and could result in decreased performance and increased operating costs, causing our business and results of operations to suffer. Any significant interruption or failure of our information systems or any significant breach of security could adversely affect our business and results of operations.

14

Risks Relating to Our Industry

Our growth and long-term profitability depend mainly upon growth in demand for containerships, the condition of the charter market and the availability of capital. The container shipping industry is cyclical and volatile.

Container shipping industry is both seasonal and cyclical, but has shown positive demand growth in every year of its history except 2009. Between 2000 and 2007, during a period of super-cyclical growth partly fueled by a significant increase in trade with China, containerized trade exhibited annual growth averaging almost 11%. The global financial crisis, from late 2008, prompted a contraction of demand, with 2009 volumes falling by over 8%. In 2010, demand rebounded, with volume growth of approximately 15%. From 2011 through 2017, containerized trade grew, year-on-year, by between 1.7% and 7.4%. In 2018, containerized trade is estimated to have grown approximately 3.9%, notwithstanding negative sentiment, including from increased trade tensions between the US and China, particularly in the second half of the year. On the supply side, cellular containership capacity grew annually by between 1.3% and 8.6% in the years 2011 through 2017. With much reduced levels of scrapping, net supply growth in 2018 is estimated at 5.1%. .

Weak conditions in the containership sector may affect our ability to generate cash flows and maintain liquidity, as well as adversely affect our ability to obtain financing.

The factors affecting the supply and demand for containerships and container shipping services are outside our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

The factors that influence demand for containership capacity include:

The factors that influence the supply of containership capacity include:

Our ability to recharter our containerships upon the expiration or termination of their current charters; the time charters for nine of our 38 containerships can be terminated before the end second quarter 2019 and a further ten vessels have charters that can be terminated during the second half of 2019. Charter rates receivable under any renewal or replacement charters will depend upon, among other things, the prevailing state of the containership charter market. If the charter market is depressed when our charters expire, we may be forced to recharter our containerships at reduced or even unprofitable rates, or we may not be able to recharter them at all, which may reduce or eliminate our results of operations or make our results of operations volatile. The same issues will exist in respect of any additional vessels we may acquire either when obtaining the initial charters or on rechartering at their expiry.

15

Seasonal fluctuations could affect our operating results and available cash from quarter to quarter.

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal, as well as cyclical, variations in demand and, as a result, in charter hire rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results, which could affect the amount of our cash flow.

A decrease in the level of export of goods or an increase in trade protectionism will harm our customers’ business and, in turn, harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Much of our customers’ containership business revenue is derived from the shipment of goods from the Asia Pacific region, primarily China, to various overseas export markets, including the United States and Europe. Any reduction in or hindrance to the output of China-based exporters could negatively affect the growth rate of China’s exports and our customers’ business. For instance, the government of China has implemented economic policies aimed at increasing domestic consumption of Chinese-made goods. This may reduce the supply of goods available for export and may, in turn, result in a decrease in shipping demand. Additionally, though in China there is an increasing level of autonomy and a gradual shift in emphasis to a “market economy” and enterprise reform, many of the reforms, particularly some limited price reforms that result in the prices for certain commodities being principally determined by market forces, are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition. The level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by changes to these economic reforms by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government. Changes in laws and regulations in China, including with regards to tax matters, and their implementation by local authorities could affect our charterers’ business and have a material adverse impact on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our international operations expose us to the risk that increased trade protectionism will harm our business. If global economic challenges exist, governments may turn to trade barriers to protect their domestic industries against foreign imports, thereby depressing shipping demand. In particular, the leaders of the United States have indicated the United States may seek to implement more protective trade measures. Increasing trade protectionism in the markets that our customers serve has caused and may continue to cause an increase in the cost of goods exported from Asia Pacific, the length of time required to deliver goods from the region and the risks associated with exporting goods from the region. Such increases may also affect the quantity of goods to be shipped, shipping time schedules, voyage costs and other associated costs.

Any increased trade barriers or restrictions on global trade, especially trade with China, would harm our customers’ business, results of operations and financial condition and could thereby affect their ability to make timely charter hire payments to us and to renew and increase the number of their time charters with us. This could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Adverse economic conditions, especially in the Asia Pacific region, the European Union or the United States, could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Because a significant number of the port calls made by our vessels involves the loading or discharging of containerships in ports in the Asia Pacific region, economic turmoil in that region may exacerbate the effect of any economic slowdown on us. China has been one of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, or GDP, which has increased the demand for shipping. However, China’s rate of real GDP growth is fallen from its highs. The United States have also indicated they may seek to implement more protectionist trade measures to protect and enhance its domestic economy. Additionally, the European Union, or the EU, and certain of its member states are facing significant economic and political challenges, including a risk of increased protectionist policies and the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Our business, results of operations and financial condition will likely be harmed by any significant economic downturn in the Asia Pacific region, including China, or in the EU or the United States.

The global economy experienced disruption and volatility following adverse changes in global capital markets commencing in 2007 and 2008. The deterioration in the global economy caused, and any renewed deterioration may cause, a decrease in worldwide demand for certain goods and shipping. Economic instability could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Disruptions in world financial markets and the resulting governmental action in the United States and in other parts of the world could have a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

Global financial markets and economic conditions have been severely disrupted and volatile at times 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 limited supply of credit. Credit markets and the debt and equity capital markets have been exceedingly distressed and volatile. The sovereign debt crisis in countries such as Cyprus and Greece, for example, and concerns over debt levels of certain other European Union member states and other countries around the world, as well as concerns about some international banks, has increased volatility in global credit and equity markets. These issues, along with the re-pricing of credit risk and the difficulties currently experienced by financial institutions have made, and will likely continue to make, it difficult to obtain financing. As a result of the disruptions in the credit markets, many lenders have increased margins, enacted tighter lending standards, required more restrictive terms (including higher collateral ratios for advances, shorter maturities and smaller loan amounts), or refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to our current debt. Furthermore, certain banks that have historically been significant lenders to the shipping industry have announced an intention to reduce or cease lending activities in the shipping industry. New banking regulations, including larger capital requirements and the resulting policies adopted by lenders, could reduce lending activities. We may experience difficulties obtaining financing commitments in the future if current or future lenders are unwilling to extend financing to us or unable to meet their funding obligations due to their own liquidity, capital or solvency issues.

16

We cannot be certain that financing or refinancing will be available on acceptable terms or at all. If financing or refinancing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our future obligations as they come due. Our failure to obtain such funds could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as our cash flows, including cash available for dividends to our shareholders. In the absence of available financing, we also may be unable to take advantage of business opportunities or respond to competitive pressures.

We may have more difficulty entering into long-term charters if a more active and cheaper short-term or spot container shipping market develops.

At the expiration of our charters or if a charter terminates early for any reason or if we acquire vessels charter-free, we will need to charter or recharter our vessels. If an excess of vessels is available on the spot or short-term market at the time we are seeking to fix new longer-term charters, we may have difficulty entering into such charters at all or at profitable rates and for any term other than short term and, as a result, our cash flow may be subject to instability in the mid to long-term. In addition, it would be more difficult to fix relatively older vessels should there be an oversupply of younger vessels on the market. A depressed spot market may require us to enter into short-term spot charters based on prevailing market rates, which could result in a decrease in our cash flow.

An over-supply of containership capacity may lead to reductions in charter hire rates and profitability.

While the size of the containership orderbook has declined substantially since the peak of 2008/2009, the containership newbuilding orderbook as at January 1, 2019 represented approximately 12.3% of the total on the water fleet capacity. Further containerships are likely to be ordered. Delivery of newly built containerships will result in an increase in the size of the world containership fleet over the next few years. An over-supply of containership capacity, combined with any decline in the rate of growth in demand for containerships, would be likely to result in a reduction of charter hire rates. If such a reduction occurs when we seek to charter newbuilding vessels, our growth opportunities may be diminished. If such a reduction occurs upon the expiration or termination of our containerships’ current time charters, we may only be able to recharter our containerships for reduced rates or unprofitable rates or we may not be able to recharter our containerships at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operation.

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 and fuel economy. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits together with other vessel specifications such as the capacity to carry temperature controlled containers (reefers). Physical life is related to the original design and construction, maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new ship designs currently promoted by shipyards as being more fuel efficient perform, or if new containerships built in future that are more efficient or flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced containerships could adversely affect our ability to re-charter, the amount of charter-hire payments that we receive for our containerships once their current time charters expire and the resale value of our containerships. This could adversely affect our ability to service our debt or pay dividends to our shareholders.

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

Piracy is an inherent risk in the operation of ocean-going vessels and particularly affects vessels operating in specific regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Gulf of Aden, the Arabian Sea, off the coast of West Africa and off the coast of Somalia. Generally, we do not control the routing of our vessels, which is determined by the charterer. Pirate attacks on any of our vessels could result in loss of life, the kidnapping of crew or the theft, damage or destruction of vessels or of containers or cargo being transported thereon. 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.

17

We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, insurance premiums and costs such as onboard security guards, should we decide to employ them, could increase in such circumstances. Further, acts of piracy may materially adversely affect our charterer’s business, impairing its ability to make payments to us under our charters.

Terrorist attacks and international hostilities could affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Terrorist attacks and the continuing response of the United States and other countries to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to cause uncertainty in the world financial markets and may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition from increased security costs and more rigorous inspection procedures at borders and ports. From time to time, acts of terrorism, regional conflict and other armed conflict around the world may contribute to further economic instability in the global financial markets. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all.

Terrorist attacks targeted at oceangoing vessels may also negatively affect our future operations and financial condition from, for example, increased insurance costs, and directly impact our containerships or our charterer. Future terrorist attacks could result in increased market volatility or even a recession in the United States or elsewhere or negatively affect global financial markets, and could further increase inspection and security requirements and regulation that could slow our operations and negatively affect our profitability. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our operating results, revenue and costs.

Our vessels may call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the United States government, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition.

From time to time, on charterers’ instructions, our vessels may call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and in countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. In addition, as a result of actions taken by our charterers, we may be deemed to have engaged in financial transactions that are prohibited by such sanctions or embargoes. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time.

To the best of our knowledge, none of our vessels have called at ports in Iran, Syria, Sudan or Cuba since January 1, 2014, nor have we provided any services or products to Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba, or entered into any agreements, commercial arrangements or had any contact with the governments of, or entities controlled by the governments of, the aforementioned countries, during this time period. Additionally, to the best of our knowledge, we have not, since January 1, 2014, directly provided any services or products to Iran, or entered into any agreements, commercial arrangements or had any contact with the government of, or entities controlled by the government of Iran.

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. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in us. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may also be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

It may not be possible for some of our vessels to call on Turkish ports due to the Turkish embargo on Cypriot flag vessels and vessels owned by Cypriot companies.

In 1987, the Turkish Government introduced certain restrictive measures against Cypriot owned or flagged vessels prohibiting such vessels to call on Turkish ports. In 1997, the restrictive measures were extended and since then they apply not only against Cypriot flag vessels but also against vessels registered under a foreign flag (of any nationality) sailing to Turkish ports directly from any Cypriot port under the effective control of the Republic of Cyprus or against vessels of any flag related to the Republic of Cyprus in terms of ownership or ship management. Cypriot vessels will be allowed passage through the Turkish Straits (Bosphorus) with or without pilot but no other services or provisions will be given, including bunker supply. Currently, 13 of our 18 vessels are owned by Cypriot companies and of these eight are Cyprus flagged. Whilst the restrictive measures remain in place, our vessels which are either Cypriot flagged or owned by a Cypriot company may not call on Turkish ports. This may restrict the use of Cypriot ports by our charterers and may have an adverse effect on the possible operation of our vessels by them in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Black Sea or give rise to costs to change the ownership and flag of relevant vessels to permit trading to Turkey.

18

The smuggling of drugs, weapons or other contraband and stowaways on our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

We expect that our vessels will call in areas where smugglers attempt to hide drugs, weapons and other contraband on vessels or stowaways attempt to board, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent our vessels are found with contraband or stowaways, whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew or charterers, we may face governmental or other regulatory claims, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition.

We are exposed to significant risks in relation to compliance with anti-corruption laws and regulations.

Our business entails numerous interactions with government authorities, including port authorities, health, safety, and environment authorities, labor and tax authorities and customs and immigration authorities. Furthermore, at our charterer’s direction, our vessels call at ports throughout the world, including in some countries where corruption is endemic. Although we have strict and adequate procedures prohibiting our employees or persons associated with us from making unlawful payments to government officials, we cannot guarantee that such payments may not be made despite our procedures and without our approval. In such case, such payments may be deemed to have violated anti-corruption laws potentially applicable to us, including the UK Bribery Act 2010 (the “Bribery Act”) and the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (the “FCPA”). Both civil and criminal penalties may be imposed on us as a result of violations of anti-corruption laws, and such penalties could have a material adverse impact on our reputation, business and financial condition.

Risks inherent in the operation of containerships could impair the ability of the charterer to make payments to us, increase our costs or reduce the value of our assets.

Our containerships and their cargoes are at risk of being damaged or lost because of events such as marine accidents, bad weather, mechanical failures, human error, war, terrorism, piracy, environmental accidents and other circumstances or events. Any of these events connected to our vessels or other vessels under the charterer’s control, or any other factor which negatively affects the charterer’s business such as economic downturn and significant cyclical depression in the container shipping industry, could impair the ability of the charterer to make payments to us pursuant to our charters. Although the charterer is obligated to pay us charterhire regardless of the amount of cargo being carried on board, it is possible that generally low cargo volumes and low freight rates or events noted above may render the charterer financially unable to pay us its hire. Furthermore, there is a risk that a vessel may become damaged, lost or destroyed during normal operations and any such occurrence may cause us additional expenses to repair or substitute the vessel or may render us unable to provide the vessel for chartering, which will cause us to lose charter revenue.

These occurrences could also result in death or injury to persons, loss of property or environmental damage, loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts, governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business, higher insurance rates, and damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally. Any of these circumstances or events could increase our costs or lower our revenues, which could result in reduction in the market price of our common shares.

Governments could requisition our vessels during a period of war or emergency without adequate compensation, which under most of our time charter agreements would permit the customer to terminate the charter agreement for that vessel.

A government could requisition one or more of our vessels for title or for hire. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes its owner, while requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes its charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during periods of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition vessels in other circumstances. Although we would likely be entitled to compensation in the event of a requisition of one or more of our vessels, the amount and timing of payment would be uncertain. Additionally, under most of our time charter agreements, if a vessel is requisitioned, our customer has the option to terminate the charter agreement within 14 days of receipt of notice of the requisition. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels may negatively impact our revenues and cash flow.

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

In addition to providing services to us our technical managers are responsible for recruiting the senior officers and other crew members for our vessels. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest or any other labor interruption, could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out as we expect and could have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition, operating results, distribution of dividends or the trading price of our common shares.

19

Reliability of suppliers may limit our ability to obtain supplies and services when needed.

We rely, and will in the future rely, on a significant supply of consumables, spare parts and equipment to operate, maintain, repair and upgrade our fleet of ships. Delays in delivery or unavailability of supplies could result in off-hire days due to consequent delays in the repair and maintenance of our fleet. This would negatively impact our revenues and cash flows. Cost increases could also negatively impact our future operations.

Compliance with safety and other vessel requirements imposed by classification societies may be costly and may adversely affect our business and operating results.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must conform to the rules and standards of a classification society approved by the vessel’s country of registry. Such societies set the rules and standards for the design, construction, classification, and surveys of vessels and conduct surveys to determine whether vessels are in compliance with such rules and standards. A certification by a society is an attestation that the vessel is in compliance with the society’s rules and standards. A vessel involved in international trade must also conform to national and international regulations on safety, environment and security, including (but not limited to) the Safety of Life at Sea Convention, or SOLAS, and the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. A vessel conforms to such regulations by obtaining certificates from its country of registry and/or a classification society authorized by the country of registry.

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys and special surveys. In lieu of a special or class renewal survey, a vessel’s machinery may be reviewed on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed over a five-year period. See Item 4.B. “Information on the Company—Business Overview—Inspection by Classification Societies” for more information regarding annual surveys, intermediate surveys and special surveys. Bureau Veritas, Lloyd’s Register, DNV-GL & RINA and American Bureau of Shipping, the classification societies for the vessels in our fleet, may approve and carry out in-water inspections of the underwater parts of our vessels once every three to five years, in lieu of drydocking inspections. In-water inspections are typically less expensive than drydocking inspections and we intend to conduct in-water inspections when that option is available to us.

If a vessel does not maintain its “in class” certification or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, port authorities may detain the vessel, refuse her entry into port or refuse to allow her to trade resulting in the vessel being unable to trade and therefore rendering her unemployable. In the event that a vessel becomes unemployable, we could also be in violation of provisions in our charters, insurance coverage, covenants in our loan agreements and ship registration requirements and our revenues and future profitability would be negatively affected.

We are subject to regulation and liability under environmental laws that could require significant expenditures and affect our cash flows and net income.

Our business and the operation of our containerships are materially affected by environmental regulation in the form of international conventions, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our containerships operate, as well as in the countries of their registration, including those governing the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of oil spills and other contamination, air emissions, water discharges, ballast water management and vessel recycling. Because such conventions, laws and regulations are often revised, we cannot predict the ultimate cost or effect of complying with such requirements or the effect of such compliance on the current market value, resale price or useful life of our containerships. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business, which may negatively impact our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Environmental requirements may also require a reduction in cargo capacity, ship modifications or operational changes or restrictions, lead to decreased availability of insurance coverage for environmental matters or result in substantial penalties, fines or other sanctions, including the denial of access to certain jurisdictional waters or ports or detention in certain ports. Under local, national and foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material liabilities, including cleanup obligations and natural resource damages, if there is a release of petroleum or other hazardous materials from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our operations. We could also become subject to personal injury or property damage claims relating to the release of hazardous materials associated with our operations, even if not carried as cargo.

In addition, in complying with existing environmental laws and regulations and those that may be adopted, we may incur significant costs in meeting new maintenance and inspection requirements and new restrictions on air emissions from our containerships, in managing ballast water, in developing contingency arrangements for potential spills and in obtaining insurance coverage. Government regulation of vessels, particularly in the areas of safety, security and environmental requirements, can be expected to become stricter in the future and require us to incur significant capital expenditures on our vessels to keep them in compliance, or even to scrap or sell certain vessels altogether. Substantial violations of applicable requirements or a catastrophic release of bunker fuel from one or more of our containerships could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition. For additional information about the environmental regulations to which we are subject, please read Item 4.B. “Information on the Company—Business Overview—Environmental and Other Regulations.”

20

Increased inspection procedures, tighter import and export controls and new security regulations could increase costs and cause disruption of our containership business.

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

Since the events of September 11, 2001, U.S. authorities have substantially increased container inspections. Government investment in non-intrusive container scanning technology has grown and there is interest in electronic monitoring technology, including so-called “e-seals” and “smart” containers, which would enable remote, centralized monitoring of containers during shipment to identify tampering with or opening of the containers, along with potentially measuring other characteristics such as temperature, air pressure, motion, chemicals, biological agents and radiation. Also, as a response to the events of September 11, 2001, additional vessel security requirements have been imposed, including the installation of security alert and automatic identification systems on board vessels.

It is unclear what additional changes, if any, to the existing inspection and security procedures may ultimately be proposed or implemented in the future, or how any such changes will affect the industry. It is possible that such changes could impose additional financial and legal obligations on us. Furthermore, changes to inspection and security procedures could also impose additional costs and obligations on our customers and may, in certain cases, render the shipment of certain types of goods in containers uneconomical or impractical. Any such changes or developments could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our shareholders.

The operation of our vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or the ISPS Code. The ISPS Code requires vessels to develop and maintain a ship security plan that provides security measures to address potential threats to the security of ships or port facilities. Although each of our containerships is ISPS Code certified, any failure to comply with the ISPS Code or maintain such certifications may subject us to increased liability and may result in denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Furthermore, compliance with the ISPS Code requires us to incur certain costs. Although such costs have not been material to date, if new or more stringent regulations relating to the ISPS Code are adopted by the International Maritime Organisation, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by vessels (the “IMO”) and the flag states, these requirements could require significant additional capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

Sulfur regulations to reduce air pollution from ships are likely to require retrofitting of vessels and may cause us to incur significant costs.

In October 2016, the IMO set January 1, 2020 as the implementation date for vessels to comply with its sulfur emission limit of 0.5% m/m. These regulations may be complied with by (i) using low sulfur fuel which will likely be at a higher cost that existing heavy fuel oil, (ii) installing scrubbers for cleaning of exhaust gas; or (iii) by retrofitting vessels to be powered by, for example, liquefied natural gas, which is not likely to be a viable option for smaller older vessels due to the high costs involved. The higher cost of low sulfur fuel will in the first instance be borne by the vessel operator, our charterer, whereas the installation of scrubbers or retrofitting for an alternative fuel source, would in the first instance be borne by us as the vessel owner. Costs of compliance with these regulatory changes may be significant and may have a material adverse effect on our future performance, results of operations, cash flows and financial position.

21

Regulations relating to ballast water discharge coming into effect in September 2019 may adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

The IMO has imposed updated guidelines for ballast water management systems specifying the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged from a vessel’s ballast water. Existing vessels constructed before September 8, 2017, must comply with updated standards on or after September 8, 2019, with the exact date depending on the date of the next International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) renewal survey. In some cases, such as where vessels are due to trade to U.S. ports, the implementation date may be before the IMO deadline. For most vessels, compliance with the standard will involve installing on-board systems to treat ballast water to eliminate unwanted organisms. Ships constructed on or after September 8, 2017 have been obligated to comply with the standards on or after September 8, 2017. We currently have nine vessels which have a ballast water management system fitted and 29 vessels that do not. The costs of compliance may be substantial and adversely affect our revenues and profitability.

Furthermore, United States regulations are currently changing. Although the 2013 Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) program and U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”) are currently in effect to regulate ballast discharge, exchange and installation, the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2018, requires that the U.S. Coast Guard develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement regulations regarding ballast water within two years. The new regulations could require the installation of new equipment, which may cause us to incur substantial costs.

Depending on the outcome of an ongoing EU investigation of container liner companies related to potential antitrust violations, our growth, results of operations and our ability to charter our vessels may be reduced.

In July 2016, the European Commission completed its investigations of certain major container liner companies, including some of our existing customers, related to potential violations of EU competition (antitrust) rules. The liner companies under investigation offered to enter into the following binding commitments regarding their future conduct for a period of three years, starting December 7, 2016;

Although we have no basis for assessing the effect of these commitments, it is possible that additional financial and legal obligations may be imposed on one or more of these liner companies. Such obligations may make these customers or similarly situated potential customers less likely to enter into or renew time charters for our containerships, which could reduce our growth opportunities and harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Risks Relating to our Common Stock and Depositary Shares Representing Series B Preferred Shares

We cannot assure you if and when we will pay dividends on our common shares.

We are not currently paying dividends on our common shares. Subject to the limitations contained in our secured term loan, the indenture governing our 2022 notes and other contractual obligations, we may resume the distribution of a portion of our cash flow to our shareholders, while retaining the remaining cash flow for costs such as drydockings, reinvestment in our business, funding vessel or fleet acquisitions, making debt repayments and for other purposes, as determined by our board of directors. The timing and amount of any dividends declared will depend on, among other things (a) our results of operations, financial condition, cash flow and cash requirements, (b) our liquidity, including our ability to obtain debt and equity financing on acceptable terms as contemplated by our vessel acquisition strategy, (c) restrictive covenants in our existing and future debt instruments and (d) provisions of Marshall Islands law. The declaration and payment of dividends is also subject at all times to the discretion of our board of directors.

22

The international containership and containership leasing industry is highly volatile, and we cannot predict with certainty the amount of cash, if any, that will be available for distribution as dividends in any period. Also, there may be a high degree of variability from period to period in the amount of cash, if any, that is available for the payment of dividends. The amount of cash we generate from operations and the actual amount of cash we will have available for dividends in each quarter will vary based upon, among other things:

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our net income or loss for the period, which will be affected by non-cash items. We may incur other expenses or liabilities that could reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends.

In addition, Marshall Islands law generally prohibits the payment of dividends other than from surplus (retained earnings and the excess of consideration received from the sale of shares above the par value of the shares) or if there is no surplus, from the net profits for the current and prior fiscal years, or while a company is insolvent or if it would be rendered insolvent by the payment of such a dividend. We may not have sufficient surplus or net profits in the future to pay dividends, and our subsidiaries may not have sufficient funds, surplus or net profits to make distributions to us. As a result of these and other factors, we may not be able to pay dividends during periods when we record losses and may not pay dividends during periods when we record net income. We can give no assurance that dividends will be paid in the future.

There may be a substantial number of our common shares available for sale in the future that may adversely affect the market price of our Class A common shares.

On the closing of the Poseidon Transaction, we issued 3,005,603 Class A common shares and 250,000 Series C Preferred Shares, which are convertible into 12,955,187 Class A common shares upon the occurrence of certain events. Further, in connection with the Poseidon Transaction, we entered into an Amended and Restated Registration Rights Agreement with affiliates of Kelso, CMA CGM, George Giouroukos (our Executive Chairman) through Management Investor Co., Michael S. Gross (our former Chairman and a director) and MAAS Capital with respect to all Class A common shares, including those issuable on conversion of the Series C Preferred Shares, held by such shareholders as of the closing of the Poseidon Transaction. The registration and availability of such a significant number of securities for trading in the public market may have a material adverse effect on the market price of our Class A common shares.

23

The price of our securities may be volatile.

The price of our common shares and depositary shares representing Series B Preferred Shares may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors such as:

The international containership industry has been highly unpredictable and volatile. The market for common shares and depositary shares representing Series B preferred shares in companies operating in this industry may be equally volatile.

The market price of our Class A common shares has recently declined significantly, and our Class A common shares could be delisted from the NYSE or trading could be suspended.

On November 13, 2018, we announced that we had been notified by the NYSE that the average closing price of the Company’s common shares over a period of 30 consecutive trading days had fallen below the minimum required level of $1.00 per share. This notification initiated a six-month period during which we can cure the deficiency, and we intend to do so within the prescribed period. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—A. History and Development of the Company.”

A decline in the closing price of our Class A common shares could result in a breach of the requirements for listing on the NYSE. Although we undertook a one-for-eight reverse stock split effective March 25, 2019 in order to cure the deficiency, if we do not succeed, the NYSE could commence suspension or delisting procedures in respect of our Class A common shares. The commencement of suspension or delisting procedures by an exchange remains, at all times, at the discretion of such exchange and would be publicly announced by the exchange. If a suspension or delisting were to occur, there would be significantly less liquidity in the suspended or delisted securities. In addition, our ability to raise additional necessary capital through equity or debt financing would be greatly impaired. Furthermore, with respect to any suspended or delisted common shares, we would expect decreases in institutional and other investor demand, analyst coverage, market making activity and information available concerning trading prices and volume, and. Additionally, fewer broker-dealers would be willing to execute trades with respect to such common shares. A suspension or delisting would likely decrease the attractiveness of our Class A common shares to investors, may constitute a breach under certain of our credit facilities, constitute an event of default under certain classes of our preferred stock and cause the trading volume of our Class A common shares to decline, which could result in a further decline in the market price of our Class A common shares.

We have anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents that may discourage a change of control.

Certain provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws may have an anti-takeover effect and may delay, defer or prevent a tender offer or takeover attempt that a shareholder might consider in its best interest, including those attempts that might result in a premium over the market price for the shares held by shareholders.

Certain of these provisions provide for:

24

These anti-takeover provisions could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us, even if the third party’s offer may be considered beneficial by many shareholders. As a result, shareholders may be limited in their ability to obtain a premium for their shares.

Our management is required to devote substantial time to complying with public company regulations.

As a public company, we incur significant legal, accounting and other expenses. In addition, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (“Sarbanes-Oxley”) as well as rules subsequently adopted by the SEC and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), including the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, have imposed various requirements on public companies, including changes in corporate governance practices. Our directors, management and other personnel devote a substantial amount of time to comply with these requirements. Moreover, these rules and regulations relating to public companies increase our legal and financial compliance costs and make some activities more time-consuming and costly.

Sarbanes-Oxley requires, among other things, that we maintain and periodically evaluate our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we are required to include in each of our annual reports on Form 20-F a report containing our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and, if we are an accelerated filer or a large accelerated filer, a related attestation of our independent registered public accounting firm. While we did not identify any material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal controls under the current assessment, we cannot be certain at this time that our internal controls will be considered effective in future assessments and that our independent registered public accounting firm would reach a similar conclusion. Therefore, we can give no assurances that our internal control over financial reporting will satisfy regulatory requirements in the future.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the NYSE rules, and as such we are entitled to exemption from certain NYSE corporate governance standards, and you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the securities laws of the United States and the rules of the NYSE. Under the securities laws of the United States, “foreign private issuers” are subject to different disclosure requirements than U.S. domiciled registrants, as well as different financial reporting requirements. Under the NYSE rules, a “foreign private issuer” is subject to less stringent corporate governance requirements. Subject to certain exceptions, the rules of the NYSE permit a “foreign private issuer” to follow its home country practice in lieu of the listing requirements of the NYSE.

Accordingly, you may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

Future sales of our common stock could cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Sales of a substantial number of shares of our common stock in the public market, or the perception that these sales could occur, may depress the market price for our common stock. These sales could also impair our ability to raise additional capital through the sale of our equity securities in the future.

Subject to the rules of the NYSE, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock, and other equity securities of equal or senior rank, without shareholder approval, in a number of circumstances. The issuance by us of additional shares of common stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would have the following effects:

Our shareholders also may elect to sell large numbers of shares held by them from time to time. The number of shares of common stock available for sale in the public market will be limited by restrictions applicable under securities laws, and agreements that we and our executive officers, directors and existing shareholders may enter into with the underwriters at the time of an offering. Subject to certain exceptions, these agreements generally restrict us and our executive officers, directors and existing shareholders from directly or indirectly offering, selling, pledging, hedging or otherwise disposing of our equity securities or any security that is convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for our equity securities and from engaging in certain other transactions relating to such securities for a period of 180 days after the date of an offering prospectus without the prior written consent of the underwriter(s).

25

We may not have sufficient cash from our operations to enable us to pay dividends on or to redeem our Series B Preferred Shares, and accordingly the depositary shares, as the case may be, and our ability to pay dividends on or redeem our Series B Preferred Shares is limited by Marshall Islands law and our contractual obligations.

We pay quarterly dividends on the Series B Preferred Shares, and accordingly the depositary shares, only from funds legally available for such purpose when, as and if declared by our board of directors. We may not have sufficient cash available each quarter to pay dividends. In addition, if our board of directors does not authorize and declare a dividend for any dividend period prior to the relevant dividend payment date, holders of the Series B Preferred Shares and accordingly the depositary shares would not be entitled to receive a dividend for that dividend period. However, any unpaid dividends will accumulate. In addition, on or after August 20, 2019, we will have the option to redeem the Series B Preferred Shares, and accordingly the depositary shares, although we may have insufficient cash available to do so or may otherwise elect not to do so.

The amount of cash we can use to pay dividends or redeem our Series B Preferred Shares and the depositary shares depends upon the amount of cash we generate from our operations, which may fluctuate significantly, and other factors, including the following:

The amount of cash we generate from our operations may differ materially from our net income or loss for the period, which will be affected by noncash items, and our board of directors in its discretion may elect not to declare any dividends. We may incur other expenses or liabilities that could reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. As a result of these and the other factors mentioned above, we may pay dividends during periods when we record losses and may not pay dividends during periods when we record net income.

Marshall Islands law provides that we may pay dividends on and redeem the Series B Preferred Shares only to the extent that assets are legally available for such purposes. Legally available assets generally are limited to our surplus, which essentially represents our retained earnings and the excess of consideration received by us for the sale of shares above the par value of the shares. In addition, under Marshall Islands law we may not pay dividends on or redeem Series B Preferred Shares if we are insolvent or would be rendered insolvent by the payment of such a dividend or the making of such redemption.

Further, the terms of our outstanding 2022 notes and our secured term loan prohibit us from declaring or paying any dividends or distributions on preferred stock, including the Series B Preferred Shares, or redeeming, purchasing, acquiring or making a liquidation payment on preferred stock in certain circumstances.

Risks Related to Tax Matters

Our operating income could fail to qualify for an exemption from U.S. federal income taxation, which would reduce our cash flow.

We do not expect to be engaged in a U.S. trade or business. In the case of a foreign corporation that is not so engaged, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), imposes a 4% U.S. federal income tax (without allowance of any deductions) on 50% of the corporation’s gross transportation income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States, unless the corporation qualifies for the exemption provided in Section 883 of the Code or an applicable income tax treaty. The imposition of this tax could have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Under the charter agreements, the charterer has agreed to provide reimbursement for any such taxes as the charterer determines where each vessel trades.

26

We will qualify for the exemption under Section 883 if, among other things, our stock is treated as primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market in the United States. However, under the Treasury regulations, a class of stock will not be treated as primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market if, during more than half the number of days during the taxable year, one or more shareholders who actually or constructively own at least 5% of the vote and value of the outstanding shares of such class of stock (“5% Shareholders”), own, in the aggregate, 50% or more of the vote and value of the outstanding shares of such class of stock, unless a sufficient amount of stock is owned by 5% Shareholders that are considered to be “qualified shareholders” to preclude non-qualifying 5% Shareholders from owning 50% or more of the total value of the stock held by the 5% Shareholders group.

Generally, a 5% Shareholder is a qualified 5% Shareholder if the 5% Shareholder is an individual who is a resident of a qualified foreign country, the government of a qualified foreign country, a foreign corporation organized in a qualified foreign country that meets the “publicly-traded” test discussed herein, a non-profit organization organized in a qualified foreign country or an individual beneficiary (resident in a qualified foreign country) of a pension plan administered in or by a qualified foreign country. Generally, a foreign country is a qualified foreign country if it grants an equivalent exemption from tax to corporations organized in the United States.

Based on information that we have as to our shareholders and other matters, we believe that we qualified for the Section 883 exemption for 2009 through 2018 under the “publicly-traded” test. However, it is likely that our ownership may change such that nonqualified 5% Shareholders may own, in the aggregate, 50% or more of the total value of the our Class A common stock.

Such an ownership change, and certain other requirements for our stock to be treated as primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market, will be outside of our control and, as a result, no assurances can be provided that our stock will be so treated for any year. Moreover, since the availability of the Section 883 exemption depends on other matters over which we have no control, we can give no assurances that we will, or will continue to, qualify for the Section 883 exemption. See Item 10.E. “Additional Information—Taxation—Taxation of Global Ship Lease—The Section 883 exemption” for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax rules related to Section 883.

We could be taxed as a U.S. corporation.

Section 7874 of the Code provides that a foreign corporation which acquires substantially all the properties of a U.S. corporation is generally treated as though it were a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes if, after the acquisition, at least 80% (by vote or value) of the stock of the foreign corporation is owned by former shareholders of the U.S. corporation by reason of owning stock in the U.S. corporation. Although we believe that this rule should not apply to us in the context of the Marathon Merger, there is no definitive legal authority applying the principles of Section 7874 of the Code and therefore there can be no assurance that the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) would not seek to challenge such position, or that such a challenge would not be successful. If we were to be treated as a U.S. corporation, our net income would be subject to U.S. federal corporate income tax, currently imposed at a rate of 21%. The imposition of this tax would likely have a negative effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Certain adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences could arise for U.S. holders.

Shareholders of a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, that are U.S. persons within the meaning of the Code (“U.S. shareholders”) are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the distributions they receive from a PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in a PFIC (as discussed below). In addition, dividends paid by a PFIC do not constitute qualified dividend income and, hence, are ineligible for the preferential rate of tax that applies to qualified dividend income.

A foreign corporation is treated as a PFIC if either (1) 75% or more of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income” or (2) 50% or more of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business; income derived from the performance of services does not, however, constitute “passive income.”

Based on the projected composition of our income and valuation of our assets, we do not expect that we will constitute a PFIC with respect to the current or any future taxable year, although there can be no assurance in this regard. Our expectation is based principally on the position that, for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, the majority, if not all, of the gross income we derive from our chartering activities should constitute services income rather than rental income.

27

In this regard, we have been advised by our tax advisor that the income from our chartering activities is, more likely than not, services income. There is, however, no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our current and projected future operations or supporting our position. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS will not assert that we are a PFIC with respect to any taxable year, nor that a court would not uphold any such assertion and we have not obtained advice from our tax advisor on whether we are a PFIC.

Further, in a case not concerning PFICs, Tidewater Inc. v. U.S., 2009-1 USTC ¶ 50,337, the Fifth Circuit held that a vessel time charter at issue generated rental, rather than services, income. However, the court’s ruling was contrary to the position of the IRS that the time charter income should be treated as services income. Subsequently, the IRS has stated that it disagrees with and will not acquiesce to the rental versus services distinction in the Tidewater decision, and in its discussion stated that the time charters at issue in Tidewater would be treated as producing services income for PFIC purposes. The IRS’s statement with respect to Tidewater cannot be relied upon or otherwise cited as precedent by taxpayers. Further, the facts in Tidewater are not directly analogous to our facts. No assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law would accept our position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that the company is a PFIC.

If the IRS were to determine that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our U.S. shareholders will face adverse U.S. tax consequences. Distributions paid by us with respect to our shares will not constitute qualified dividend income if we were a PFIC in the year we pay a dividend or in the prior taxable year and, hence, will not be eligible for the preferential rate of tax that applies to qualified dividend income. In addition, our U.S. shareholders (other than shareholders who have made a “qualified electing fund” or “mark-to-market” election) will be subject to special rules relating to the taxation of “excess distributions”—with excess distributions being defined to include certain distributions we may make on our Class A common shares as well as gain recognized by a U.S. holder on a disposition of our Class A common shares. In general, the amount of any “excess distribution” will be allocated ratably to each day of the U.S. holder’s holding period for our Class A common shares. The amount allocated to the current year and any taxable year prior to the first taxable year for which we were a PFIC will be included in the U.S. holder’s gross income for the current year as ordinary income. With respect to amounts allocated to prior years for which we were a PFIC, the tax imposed for the current year will be increased by the “deferred tax amount,” which is an amount calculated with respect to each prior year by multiplying the amount allocated to such year by the highest rate of tax in effect for such year, together with an interest charge as though the amounts of tax were overdue. See Item 10.E. “Additional Information—Taxation —Tax Consequences of Holding Class A common shares—Consequences of possible passive foreign investment company classification” for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders if we were treated as a PFIC (including those applicable to U.S. shareholders who make a qualified electing fund or mark-to-market election).

We may be subject to taxation on all or part of our income in the United Kingdom, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

If we or our vessel owning subsidiaries were considered to be a resident of the United Kingdom (or “UK”) or to have a permanent establishment in the United Kingdom, all or a part of our profits could be subject to UK corporate tax, which had a maximum rate of 24%, 23% and 21% for the years ended March 31, 2013, 2014 and 2015, respectively, and 20% thereafter. We and our vessel owning subsidiaries are strategically managed and controlled from outside the United Kingdom and have restricted activities within the United Kingdom. Certain intra-group services are provided from within the United Kingdom and UK corporate tax will be payable on the arms-length price for those services. The appropriate arms-length price in these circumstances is likely to be a matter of negotiation with the UK taxing authorities.

We do not believe that we or our vessel owning subsidiaries are residents of the United Kingdom, or that we or our vessel owning subsidiaries have permanent establishments in the United Kingdom. However, because some administrative and executive services are provided to us or our vessel owning subsidiaries by a subsidiary company located in the United Kingdom and certain of our directors reside in the United Kingdom, and because UK statutory and case law fail to definitively identify the activities that constitute a trade being carried on in the United Kingdom through a permanent establishment, the UK taxing authorities may contend that we or our vessel owning subsidiaries are subject to UK corporate tax on all of our income, or on a greater portion of our income than we currently expect to be taxed. If the UK taxing authorities made such a contention, we could incur substantial legal costs defending our position, and, if we were unsuccessful in our defense, our results of operations would be materially adversely affected.]

28

We may be subject to taxes which will reduce our cash flow.

We and our vessel owning subsidiaries are subject to tax in certain jurisdictions in which we are organized, own assets or have operations, which reduces the amount of our cash available for distribution. In computing our tax obligations 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, or a change in law in a jurisdiction in which we operate (including Cyprus and Hong Kong, where a number of our vessel owning subsidiaries are entered in the local tonnage tax regime), could result in additional tax imposed on us, further reducing the cash available for distribution.

B. Business Overview

Our Fleet

Our fleet, as of December 31, 2018, consisted of 38 containerships with an aggregate capacity of 200,615 TEU and a TEU weighted average age of approximately 11.0 years and a non-weighted average age of 12.7 years.

The table below provides information about our fleet of 38 containerships as at December 31, 2018:

30

Time Charters

A time charter is a contract for the use of a vessel for a fixed period of time at a specified daily rate. Under a time charter, the vessel owner provides crew, lubricating oil, all maintenance and other services related to the vessel’s operation, the cost of which is included in the daily rate. The vessel owner is also responsible for insuring its interests in the vessel and liabilities as owner arising from its use. The charterer is responsible for substantially all of the vessel’s voyage costs, such as fuel (bunker) costs, canal fees, port expenses, extra war risk insurance costs if the vessel is deployed outside normal insurance limits and for entering areas which are specified by the insurance underwriters as being subject to additional premiums and cargo handling charges.

The initial term for a time charter commences on the vessel’s delivery to the charterer. Time charters agreements may include options, in favor of the owner or the charterer, to extend the charter on pre-agreed terms. At the end of a charter, the vessel may be re-delivered by the charterer within a pre-agreed time window, to allow for operational flexibility. Charters may be extended on mutually agreed terms, or the vessel is re-delivered, in which case we would seek alternate employment with another charterer.

Our charters expire on different dates and over a period of time. We believe the staggered expirations of our charters reduces our exposure to rechartering risk and may mitigate the impact of the cyclical nature of the container shipping industry.

Daily Charter Rate

Daily charter rate refers to the gross amount per day payable by the charterer to the owner for the use of the vessel. It may be reduced by chartering commission payable to a broker or other party. Under our time charters, hire is payable to us typically every 15 days in advance and in U.S. dollars. The daily charter rate is a fixed daily amount that will remain the same for the duration of the charter, although the charter rate can be reduced in certain circumstances where there are added costs to the charterer due to vessel performance deficiencies in speed or fuel consumption. Hire can also be reduced, pro-rata for any cost savings that we may realize, if the vessel is laid up or idled at the charterers’ request.

Operations and Expenses

As owners, we are required to maintain each vessel in class and in an efficient state of hull and machinery and are responsible for vessel costs such as crewing, lubricating oil, maintenance, insurance and drydocking. The charterer is responsible for the voyage costs, which includes bunker fuel, stevedoring, port charges and towage. As described below, we have entered into ship management agreements to sub-contract the day-to-day technical management of our vessels.

31

Right of First Refusal

Pursuant to the terms of the initial time charters with CMA CGM, of which 11 were in place at December 31, 2018, CMA CGM has a right of first refusal to purchase the vessel at matching terms to any offer of any third party if we decide to sell it during, or at the end of, the charter period. Should CMA CGM decline to exercise its right of first refusal in case of a sale during the charter period, we will be entitled to sell the vessel, subject to CMA CGM’s prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. CMA CGM has the right to reject a sale of a vessel to owners whose business or shareholding is determined to be detrimental or contrary to its interest.

Off-hire

Under a time charter, when the vessel is not available for service, and is “off-hire,” the charterer generally is not required to pay charter hire (unless the charterer is responsible for the circumstances giving rise to the ship’s unavailability), and we are responsible for costs during any off-hire period, and possible additional costs of fuel to regain lost time. A vessel generally will be deemed to be off-hire if there is an occurrence that affects the full working condition of the vessel, including:

Ship Management and Maintenance

Under each of our time charters, we are responsible for the operation and technical management of each vessel, which includes crewing, provision of lubricating oils, maintaining the vessel, periodic drydocking and performing work required by regulations. The day-to-day crewing and technical management of our vessels are provided by our ship managers pursuant to the terms of ship management agreements.

Termination and Withdrawal

Generally, if a vessel is off-hire for a significant number of consecutive days, then the charterer may cancel the charter without any further consequential claims provided the vessel is free of cargo. The number of these days varies from 20 to 90 days and depends on the relevant charter agreement. Some of our charters provide that we can in some circumstances provide a substitute vessel during an anticipated extended period of off-hire.

For a number of vessels chartered to CMA CGM, if a vessel’s fuel consumption exceeds a level specified in the charter over a continuous period of 30 days, and the reason is within our or the vessel’s control, CMA CGM may request that we cure the deficiency. If the deficiency is not cured within 30 days after we receive notice, then CMA CGM may terminate the charter. OOCL does not have a similar right.

Generally, if either party informs the other party of a default under the charter, and the default is not rectified within 60 days of such notice, then the party giving the notice has the right to terminate the time charter with respect to that vessel.

The charter will terminate in the event of a total (actual or constructive) loss of the vessel or if the vessel is requisitioned.

We may suspend the performance of our obligations under the charter if the charterer defaults on its payment obligations under the charter.

Ship Management

As at December 31, 2018, Technomar provided day-to-day technical ship management services on 19 of our vessels, a third-party ship manager based in Hong Kong provided such services for 11 vessels, CMA Ships, a subsidiary of CMA CGM, provided such services for seven of our vessels and one vessel was managed by a third-party ship manager based in Germany. We anticipate that Technomar will assume all technical ship management services during 2019.

32

Under the ship management agreements, our ship managers are responsible for all day-to-day ship management, including crewing, purchasing stores, lubricating oils and spare parts, paying wages, pensions and insurance for the crew, and organizing other vessel operating necessities, including the arrangement and management of drydocking. We reimburse the ship managers for the costs they incur on our behalf. Each ship management agreement provides that we have the right to audit the accounts of our ship manager to verify the costs incurred. The ship managers have agreed to maintain our vessels so that they remain in class with valid certification. In addition, they are responsible for our current fleet’s compliance with all applicable government and other regulations, and compliance with class certifications.

We pay Technomar a daily management fee of Euro 685, payable in U.S. dollars at an agreed rate of exchange, which, in addition to the technical ship management services noted above, includes administrative support services provided to the GSL group including accounting and financial reporting, treasury management services and legal services. We pay CMA Ships an annual management fee of $123,000 per vessel; a similar annual fee is paid to the other managers of our vessels.

The ship managers are required to use their best endeavors to provide the services specified in the ship management agreements. Pursuant to the terms of the ship management agreements, we provide customary indemnification to the manager and its employees, agents and sub-contractors.

The ship management agreements with Technomar are for a minimum term of 36 months. The management agreements may be terminated by either party by giving six months’ written notice with termination to be effective no sooner than the expiry of the minimum term. A termination payment of 50% of the annual fee is payable if the management agreement is terminated by the mangers and a termination fee of two times the annual fee is payable if the management agreement is terminated by the owners. Our other ship management agreements may generally be terminated by either party on two months written notice. The Technomar ship management agreements may also be terminated by one party on change of control in the other party.

Either party may terminate a ship management agreement in the event of default, which has not been cured, an order being made or a resolution being passed for the winding up, dissolution or bankruptcy of either party, or if a receiver is appointed, or if it suspends payment, ceases to carry on business or makes a special arrangement with its creditors. The ship management agreement will also terminate if the vessel becomes a total loss, is declared as a constructive or compromised or arranged total loss, is requisitioned or sold.

Commercial Management

Commercial management of vessels includes evaluating possible daily rate and duration of future employment, marketing a vessel for such employment, agreeing the detailed terms of a new charter or extension of an existing charter, administering the conduct of the charter including collection of charter-hire where necessary. Commercial management also includes negotiating sale and purchase transactions.

Global Ship Lease Services Limited (“GSLS”), a wholly owned subsidiary of the company, is the commercial manager for the 18 vessels provided as security under the 2022 notes and one of our credit facilities. It has entered into a Commercial Advisory Services and Exclusive Brokerage Services Agreement (“EBSA”) with Conchart, whereby Conchart is appointed to provide commercial advisory and exclusive brokerage services.

GSLS has agreed to pay Conchart a commission of 1.25% on all monies earned under each charter fixture, other than charters with CMA CGM, and 1.00% commission on any sale and purchase transaction. No commission is payable on any charter of a vessel in the GSL Fleet to CMA CGM in place as of November 15, 2018, or extension thereof. Also, no commission is payable to Conchart in cases when not more than 30 days have elapsed between the conclusion of a new charter to CMA CGM and the end of a preexisting CMA CGM charter which was in place on November 15, 2018, provided that the relevant vessel has not been chartered to any non-CMA CGM charterer in the period between the two CMA CGM charters. For any other new charters to CMA CGM or its affiliates, the rate of commission is 0.75%. However, no commission is payable for such charters if CMA CGM or its affiliates waive their own address commission.

The EBSA has a minimum term of three years and can thereafter be terminated on six months’ notice in which case a termination payment of six times the average monthly commission paid in the previous six months is due if the EBSA is terminated by Conchart and 12 times the average monthly commission paid in the previous six months is due if the EBSA is terminated by GSLS. The EBSA may also be terminated by one party on change of control in the other party. Either party may terminate the EBSA in the event of default, which has not been cured, an order being made or a resolution being passed for the winding up, dissolution or bankruptcy of either party, or if a receiver is appointed, or if it suspends payment, ceases to carry on business or makes a special arrangement with its creditors.

33

The remaining 20 vessels are or will be subject to a Commercial Management Agreement directly with Conchart, on terms substantially similar to those of the EBSA.

Insurance

We arrange for insurance coverage for each of our vessels, including hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance and war risk insurance. We are responsible for the payment of all premiums. See “—Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance.”

Global Expense Agreement

Under our ship management agreements with CMA Ships, we have agreed to reimburse CMA Ships for ship operating expenses incurred by it on our behalf in the operation of our vessels.

Pursuant to the global expense agreement that we entered into with CMA Ships and CMA CGM, this reimbursement is subject to a cap. CMA CGM has agreed to compensate us, for any vessel in our fleet which remains on its initial charter, by the amount (not to exceed $500 per day per vessel) by which actual operating costs per day (excluding any exceptional repair costs, drydock costs and insurance premiums) are greater than $500 over a specified amount, which specified amount is reset annually at a predetermined and increasing amount as set out in the global expense agreement, provided that more than 50% of such increase is attributable to crew and lubricating oil costs. This arrangement is designed to provide some protection from unexpected and significant increases in operating costs, particularly for crew and lubricating oil costs, which are driven mainly by global markets over which we have no control.

Our remaining ship management agreements with CMA Ships are expected to be terminated in 2019 as all technical ship management transfers to Technomar. As a consequence, the global expense agreement will no longer apply.

Inspection by Classification Societies

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by the vessel’s country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, or SOLAS Convention. Most insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified “in class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies, the IACS. All of our vessels are certified as being “in class” by all the applicable Classification Societies.

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

Annual Surveys

For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and the machinery, including the electrical plant, and where applicable, on special equipment classed at intervals of 12 months from the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.

Intermediate Surveys

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

Class Renewal Surveys

Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out on the ship’s hull and machinery, including the electrical plant, and on any special equipment classed at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull. During the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to determine the thickness of the steel structures. Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals. Substantial amounts of funds may have to be spent for steel renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear. In lieu of the special survey which is generally every five years, a shipowner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel’s hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle. At a ship-owner’s application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to

34

extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal. All areas subject to surveys as defined by the classification society are required to be surveyed at least once per class period, unless shorter intervals between surveys are otherwise prescribed. The period between two consecutive surveys of each area must not exceed five years.

All vessels are also dry-docked at least once every five years for inspection of their underwater parts and for repairs related to such inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a “recommendation” which must be rectified by the ship-owner within prescribed time limits.

If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The following table shows the classification societies for our vessels and lists the month by which they need to have completed their next drydocking:

The table does not take account of discretionary drydockings which might be planned to effect upgrades, or in response to proposed or actual regulatory changes such as for ballast water treatment.

35

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive. We expect to compete for vessel purchases and charters based upon price, customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation and size, age and condition of the vessel. We also expect to compete with many other companies, both other owners and operators including CMA CGM and its subsidiaries, to, among other things, purchase newbuildings and secondhand vessels to grow our fleet.

We expect substantial competition in obtaining new containership charters from a number of experienced and substantial companies. Many of these competitors may have greater financial resources than us, may operate larger fleets, may have been established for longer and may be able to offer better charter rates. Due to the recent industry downturn, there have been an increased number of vessels available for charter, including many from owners with strong reputations and experience. Excess supply of vessels in the container shipping market results in a more active short-term charter market and greater price competition for charters. As a result of these factors, we may be unable to purchase additional containerships, expand our relationships with existing customers or obtain new charterers on a profitable basis, if at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Permits and Authorizations

We are required by various governmental and other agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses and certificates required depend upon several factors, including the commodities transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel’s crew and the age of a vessel. Not all of the permits, licenses and certificates currently required to operate the vessels globally have been obtained by us or our ship managers. For example, the Delmas Keta, GSL Julie, Kumasi and Marie Delmas have not been certified to comply with all U.S., Canadian and Panama Canal regulations, as CMA CGM does not intend to operate them in these waters.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Government regulation significantly affects our business and the operation of our vessels. We are subject to international conventions and codes, and national, state, and local laws and regulations in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, including, among others, those governing the generation, management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of oil spills and other contamination, air emissions and water discharges. Because such laws and regulations frequently change, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements or the impact of these requirements on the resale or current market value or useful lives of our vessels.

A variety of government, quasi-government and private entities require us to obtain permits, licenses or certificates for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend the operation of one or more of our vessels in one or more ports.

Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to the strictest environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with United States and international regulations and with flag state administrations.

The following is an overview of certain material governmental regulations that affect our business and the operation of our vessels.

36

International Maritime Organization

The IMO is the United Nations’ agency for maritime safety. The IMO has adopted international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and a signatory’s territorial waters. For example, the IMO’s International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, imposes environmental standards on the shipping industry relating to, among other things, pollution prevention and procedures, technical standards, oil spills management, transportation of marine pollutants and air emissions. Annex VI of MARPOL, which regulates air pollution from vessels, sets limits on sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide and particulate matter emissions from vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. We believe all of our vessels currently are Annex VI compliant. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil with a lower cap (currently 0.1%) on the sulfur content applicable inside Emission Control Areas, or ECAs. Existing ECAs include the Baltic Sea, the North Sea, including the English Channel, the North American area and the U.S. Caribbean Sea area. Other areas in China are subject to local regulations that impose stricter emission controls. Additional geographical areas may be designated as ECAs in the future.

Annex VI calls for incremental reductions in sulfur in fuel between 2012 and 2020 (or 2015 in the case of ECAs), and the use of advanced technology engines designed to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxide, with a “Tier II” emission limit applicable to engines installed on or after January 1, 2011, and a more stringent “Tier III” emission limit applicable to engines installed on or after 2016 operating in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea nitrogen oxide ECAs and for engines installed on or after 2021 for vessels operating in the Baltic and North Sea. For future nitrogen oxide ECA designations, Tier III standards will apply to engines installed on ships constructed on or after the date of ECA designation, or a later date as determined by the country applying for the ECA designation. Additional ECAs could be established in the future. The IMO has undertaken a study for a new 0.1% m/m low sulphur ECA in the Mediterranean.

In 2016, the IMO confirmed its decision to implement a global sulfur cap of 0.5% m/m in 2020. This represents a significant cut from the 3.5% m/m global limit currently in place and demonstrates a clear commitment by IMO to ensuring shipping meets its environmental obligations. Effective from January 1, 2020, vessels should either be fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers, allowing the vessel to use the existing, less expensive, high sulfur content fuel or should have undertaken fuel system modification and tank cleaning, allowing the use of more expensive, low sulfur fuel. From March 1, 2020, vessels not fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers cannot have high sulfur content fuel on board.

Our existing time charters call for our customers to supply fuel that complies with Annex VI. It may be that charterers of certain of our vessels will seek to comply with Annex VI by agreeing with us to have exhaust gas cleaning systems installed. The technology for exhaust gas cleaning systems is under development, and the cost estimates for the supply and operation of these systems vary.

These amendments or other changes could require modifications to our vessels to achieve compliance, and the cost of compliance may be significant to our operations.

The IMO has also adopted technical and operational measures aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions from vessels. These include the “Energy Efficiency Design Index,” which is mandatory for newbuilding vessels, and the “Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plan,” which is mandatory for all vessels. The IMO now requires ships of 5,000 gross tonnage, or grt, or more to record and report their fuel consumption to their flag state at the end of each calendar year. The IMO plans to use this data to adopt an initial greenhouse gas emissions reduction strategy.

The IMO’s International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, imposes, subject to limited exceptions, strict liability on vessel owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states, which does not include the United States, caused by discharges of “bunker oil.” The Bunker Convention also requires owners of registered vessels over a certain size to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount generally equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime. With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in a ship’s bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur on a fault or strict-liability basis. We believe our vessels comply with the Bunker Convention.

The IMO’s International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, requires the installation of ballast water treatment systems on certain newbuilding vessels for which the keel is laid after September 8, 2017 and for existing vessels at the renewal of their International Oil Pollution Prevention Certificate after September 8, 2019. The BWM Convention also requires ships to carry an approved ballast water management plan, record books and statement of compliance. We will be required to incur significant costs to install these ballast water treatment systems on all our vessels before the applicable due dates.

The IMO’s International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, or the Anti-fouling Convention,” prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels and requires vessels over 400 grt engaged in international voyages to undergo an initial survey before the vessel is put into service or before an International Anti fouling System Certificate is issued for the first time, or subsequent surveys when the anti fouling systems are altered or replaced. We have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti-fouling Convention.

37

Amendments to MARPOL Annex V (regulation for the prevention of pollution by garbage from ships) adopted at MEPC 70 entered into force on March 1, 2018. The changes include criteria for determining whether cargo residues are harmful to the marine environment, and a new Garbage Record Book format with a new garbage category for e-waste. As all our existing containerships are compliant with MARPOL Annex V requirements, the amendments could cause us to incur additional operational costs for the handling of garbage produced on our fleet.

The IMO also regulates vessel safety. The International Safety Management Code, or the ISM Code, provides an international standard for the safe management and operation of ships and for pollution prevention. The ISM Code requires our vessels to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy and implementation procedures. A Safety Management Certificate is issued under the provisions of the SOLAS Convention to each vessel with a Safety Management System verified to be in compliance with the ISM Code. Failure to comply with the ISM Code may subject a 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. All of the vessels in our fleet are ISM Code-certified. Furthermore, all seafarers are required to meet the standards of the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers, or STCW, and be in possession of a valid STCW certificate. Flag states that have ratified the SOLAS Convention and STCW generally employ the classification societies to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

Furthermore, recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and United States agencies indicate that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. For example, cyber-risk management systems must be incorporated by ship-owners and managers by 2021. This might cause companies to create additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures.

Increasingly, various regions are adopting additional, unilateral requirements on the operation of vessels in their territorial waters. These regulations, such as those described below, apply to our vessels when they operate in the relevant regions’ waters and can add to operational and maintenance costs, as well as increase the potential liability that applies to violations of the applicable requirements.

United States

The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and CERCLA

The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990, (“OPA”), establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, (“CERCLA”), governs spills or releases of hazardous substances other than petroleum or petroleum products. Under OPA and CERCLA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers whose vessels trade or operate within the U.S., its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which includes the U.S.’s territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the U.S., are jointly and, subject to limited exceptions, strictly liable for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil or hazardous substances, as applicable, from their vessels. OPA and CERCLA define these damages broadly to include certain direct and indirect damages and losses, including but not limited to assessment of damages, remediation, damages to natural resources such as fish and wildlife habitat, and agency oversight costs. Although our vessels do not carry oil as cargo, they do carry oil as bunkers, or fuel.

Under OPA and CERCLA, the liability of responsible parties is limited to a specified amount, which is periodically updated. Under both OPA and CERCLA, liability is unlimited if the incident is caused by gross negligence, wilful misconduct or a violation of certain regulations. Similarly, liability limits do not apply (i) under OPA if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident where the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident or reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities, or (ii) under CERCLA if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.

We maintain pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident for each of our vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage it could harm our business, financial condition and results of operation. Vessel owners and operators must establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential aggregate liabilities under OPA and CERCLA. Evidence of financial responsibility may be demonstrated by showing proof of insurance, surety bonds, self-insurance or guarantees. We have obtained the necessary U.S. Coast Guard financial assurance certificates, or COFRs, for each of our vessels currently in service and trading to the United States. Owners or operators of certain vessels operating in U.S. waters also must prepare and submit to the U.S. Coast Guard a response plan for each vessel, which plan, among other things, must address a “worst case” scenario environmental discharge and describe crew training and drills to address any discharge. Each of our vessels has the necessary response plans in place.

OPA and CERCLA do not prohibit individual states from imposing their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution or hazardous substance incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for spills. In some cases, states that have enacted such legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call. Nevertheless, future changes to OPA, CERCLA and other United States environmental regulations could adversely affect our operations.

38

Clean Water Act

The Clean Water Act, or CWA, establishes the basic structure for regulating discharges of pollutants into the “waters of the United States” and regulating quality standards for surface waters. The CWA authorizes civil and criminal penalties for discharging pollutants without a permit, failure to meet any requirement of a permit, and also allows for citizen suits against violators. The CWA imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges, and substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In 2015, the EPA expanded the definition of “waters of the United States,” thereby expanding federal authority under the CWA, but following litigation, the EPA and Department of the Army proposed a limited definition of “waters of the United States” in December 2018. The effect of this proposal is still unknown. The CWA does not prohibit individual states from imposing more stringent conditions, which many states have done.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, requires certain vessels to comply with a Vessel General Permit, or VGP, before the vessel can legally operate and discharge wastewaters, including ballast water, in U.S. waters. The 2013 VGP, which expired on December 19, 2018, was written to include existing U.S. Coast Guard management and ballast water exchange requirements. The EPA will now regulate these ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (“VIDA”), which was signed into law on December 4, 2018 and will replace the 2013 VGP program (which authorizes discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in U.S. waters, stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, and requirements for the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants) and current Coast Guard ballast water management regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, such as mid-ocean ballast exchange programs and installation of approved USCG technology for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks bound for U.S. ports or entering U.S. waters. Under NISA, newbuilding vessels constructed after December 1, 2013 are required to have a U.S. Coast Guard-approved ballast water treatment system installed, and existing vessels, are required to have a ballast water treatment system installed on the first scheduled dry-dock after January 1, 2016

VIDA establishes a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under the CWA, requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment, and requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years of EPA’s promulgation of standards. Under VIDA, all provisions of the 2013 VGP and USCG regulations regarding ballast water treatment remain in force and effect until the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard regulations are finalized. Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length must continue to comply with the requirements of the VGP, including submission of a Notice of Intent, or NOI, or retention of a Permit Authorization and Record of Inspection form and submission of annual reports. We have submitted NOIs for our vessels where required.    Compliance with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard and state regulations could require the installation of ballast water treatment equipment on our vessels or the implementation of other port facility disposal procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

In addition, the Act to Prevent Pollution from Ships, or APPS, implements various provisions of MARPOL and applies to larger foreign-flag ships when operating in U.S. waters. The regulatory mechanisms established in APPS to implement MARPOL are separate and distinct from the CWA and other federal environmental laws. Civil and criminal penalties may be assessed under APPS for non-compliance.

Additional Ballast Water Regulations

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations also require vessels to maintain a vessel-specific ballast water management plan that addresses training and safety procedures, fouling maintenance and sediment removal procedures. Individual U.S. states have also enacted laws to address invasive species through ballast water and hull cleaning management and permitting requirements.

Clean Air Act

The Clean Air Act, or the CAA, and its implementing regulations subject our vessels to vapor control and recovery requirements when cleaning fuel tanks and conducting other operations in regulated port areas and to air emissions standards for our engines while operating in U.S. waters. The EPA has adopted standards that apply to certain engines installed on U.S. vessels and to marine diesel fuels produced and distributed in the United States. These standards are consistent with Annex VI of MARPOL and establish significant reductions for vessel emissions of particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides.

The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in primarily major metropolitan and industrial areas. Several SIPs regulate emissions from degassing operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment on vessels. California has enacted regulations which apply to ocean-going vessels’ engines when operating within 24 miles of the California coast and require operators to use low sulfur fuels. California also approved regulations to reduce emissions from diesel auxiliary engines on certain ocean-going vessels while in California ports, including container ship fleets that make 25 or more annual visits to California ports. These federal and state requirements may increase our capital expenditures and operating costs while in applicable ports. As with other U.S. environmental laws, failure to comply with the Clean Air Act may subject us to enforcement action, including payment of civil or criminal penalties and citizen suits.

39

European Union Requirements

In waters of the EU, our vessels are subject to regulation by EU-level legislation, including directives implemented by the various member states through laws and regulations of these requirements. These laws and regulations prescribe measures, among others, to prevent pollution, protect the environment and support maritime safety. For instance, the EU has adopted directives that require member states to refuse access to their ports to certain sub-standard vessels, according to various factors, such as the vessel’s condition, flag, and number of previous detentions (Directive 2009/16/EC on Port State Control as amended and supplemented from time to time). Member states must, among other things, inspect minimum percentages of vessels using their ports annually (based on an inspection “share” of the relevant member state of the total number of inspections to be carried out within the EU and the Paris Memorandum of Understanding on Port State Control region), inspect all vessels which are due for a mandatory inspection (based, among other things, on their type, age, risk profile and the time of their last inspection) and carry out more frequent inspections of vessels with a high risk profile. If deficiencies are found that are clearly hazardous to safety, health or the environment, the state is required to detain the vessel or stop loading or unloading until the deficiencies are addressed. Member states are also required to implement their own separate systems of proportionate penalties for breaches of these standards.

Our vessels are also subject to inspection by appropriate classification societies. Classification societies typically establish and maintain standards for the construction and classification of vessels, supervise that construction in accordance with such standards, and carry out regular surveys of ships in service to ensure compliance with such standards. The EU has adopted legislation (Regulation (EC) No 391/2009 and Directive 2009/15/EC, as amended and supplemented from time to time) that provides member states with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of classification societies that are negligent in their duties. The EU requires member states to monitor these organizations’ compliance with EU inspection requirements and to suspend any organization whose safety and pollution prevention performance becomes unsatisfactory.

The EU’s directive on the sulfur content of fuels (Directive (EU) 2016/802, which consolidates Directive 1999/32/EC and its various amendments) restricts the maximum sulfur content of marine fuels used in vessels operating in EU member states’ territorial seas, exclusive economic zones and pollution control zones. The directive provides for more stringent rules on maximum sulfur content of marine fuels applicable in specific Sulfur Emission Control Areas, or SECAs, such as the Baltic Sea and the North Sea, including the English Channel. Further sea areas may be designated as SECAs in the future by the IMO in accordance with Annex VI of MARPOL. Under this directive, we may be required to make expenditures to comply with the sulfur fuel content limits in the marine fuel our vessels use in order to avoid delays or other obstructions to their operations, as well as any enforcement measures which may be imposed by the relevant member states for non-compliance with the provisions of the directive. We also may need to make other expenditures (such as expenditures related to washing or filtering exhaust gases) to comply with relevant sulfur oxide emissions levels. The directive has been amended to bring the above requirements in line with Annex VI of MARPOL. It also makes certain of these requirements more stringent. These and other related requirements may require additional capital expenditures and increase our operating costs.

Through Directive 2005/35/EC (as amended by Directive 2009/123/EC and as further amended and supplemented from time to time), the EU requires member states to cooperate to detect pollution discharges and impose criminal sanctions for certain pollution discharges committed intentionally, recklessly or by serious negligence and to initiate proceedings against ships at their next port of call following the discharge. Penalties may include fines and civil and criminal penalties. Directive 2000/59/EC (as amended and supplemented from time to time) requires all ships (except for warships, naval auxiliary or other state-owned or state-operated ships on non-commercial service), irrespective of flag, calling at, or operating within, ports of member states to deliver all ship-generated waste and cargo residues to port reception facilities. Under the directive, a fee is payable by the ships for the use of the port reception facilities, including the treatment and disposal of the waste. The ships may be subject to an inspection for verification of their compliance with the requirements of the directive and penalties may be imposed for their breach.

The EU also authorizes member states to adopt the IMO’s Bunker Convention, discussed above, that imposes strict liability on shipowners for pollution damage caused by spills of oil carried as fuel in vessels’ bunkers and requires vessels of a certain size to maintain financial security to cover any liability for such damage. Most EU member states have ratified the Bunker Convention.

The EU has adopted a regulation (EU Ship Recycling Regulation (1257/2013)) which sets forth rules relating to vessel recycling and management of hazardous materials on vessels. The regulation contains requirements for the recycling of vessels at approved recycling facilities that must meet certain requirements, so as to minimize the adverse effects of recycling on human health and the environment. The regulation also contains rules for the control and proper management of hazardous materials on vessels and prohibits or restricts the installation or use of certain hazardous materials on vessels. The regulation seeks to facilitate the ratification of the IMO’s Hong Kong International Convention for the Safe and Environmentally Sound Recycling of Ships, 2009 . The regulation applies to vessels flying the flag of a member state and certain of its provisions apply to vessels flying the flag of a third country calling at a port or anchorage of a member state. For example, when calling at a port or anchorage of a member state, a vessel flying the flag of a third country will be required, among other things, to have on board an inventory of hazardous materials which complies with the requirements of the new regulation and the vessel must be able to submit to the relevant authorities of that member state a copy of a statement of compliance issued by the relevant authorities of the country of the vessel’s flag verifying the inventory.

40

The regulation entered into force on December 30, 2013, although certain of its provisions are to apply at different stages, with certain of them applicable from December 31, 2020. Pursuant to this regulation, the EU Commission adopted the first version of a European List of approved ship recycling facilities meeting the requirements of the regulation, as well as four further implementing decisions dealing with certification and other administrative requirements set out in the regulation.

The EU is considering other proposals to further regulate vessel operations. The EU has adopted an Integrated Maritime Policy for the purposes of achieving a more coherent approach to maritime issues through coordination between different maritime sectors and integration of maritime policies. The Integrated Maritime Policy has sought to promote the sustainable development of the European maritime economy and to protect the marine environment through cross-sector and cross-border cooperation of maritime participants. The EU Commission’s proposals included, among other items, the development of environmentally sound end-of-life ship dismantling requirements (as described above in respect of the EU Ship Recycling Regulation (1257/2013)), promotion of the use of shore-side electricity by ships at berth in EU ports to reduce air emissions, and consideration of options for EU legislation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from maritime transport. The European Maritime Safety Agency has been established to provide technical support to the EU Commission and member states in respect of EU legislation pertaining to maritime safety, pollution and security. The EU, any individual country or other competent authority may adopt additional legislation or regulations applicable to us and our operations.

Other Greenhouse Gas Legislation

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the Kyoto Protocol, became effective. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. More than 27 nations, including the United States, have entered into the Copenhagen Accord, which is non-binding but is intended to pave the way for a comprehensive, international treaty on climate change. The Paris Agreement, which was adopted in 2015 by a large number of countries and entered into force in November 2016, deals with greenhouse gas emission reduction measures and targets from 2020 to limit the global average temperature increase to well below 2 ^° Celsius above pre-industrial levels. International shipping was not included in this agreement, but it is expected that its adoption may lead to regulatory changes in relation to curbing greenhouse gas emissions from shipping.

The IMO, EU, the United States and other individual countries, states and provinces are evaluating various measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, which may include some combination of market-based instruments, a carbon tax or other mandatory reduction measures. The EU adopted Regulation (EU) 2015/757 concerning the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from vessels, or the MRV Regulation, which entered into force in July 2015 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2016/2071). The MRV Regulation applies to all vessels over 5,000 gross tonnage (except for a few types, including, but not limited to, warships and fish-catching or fish-processing vessels), irrespective of flag, in respect of carbon dioxide emissions released during voyages within the EU as well as EU incoming and outgoing voyages. The first reporting period commenced on January 1, 2018. The monitoring, reporting and verification system adopted by the MRV Regulation may be the precursor to a market-based mechanism to be adopted in the future. The EU is currently considering a proposal for the inclusion of shipping in the EU Emissions Trading System as from 2021 in the absence of a comparable system operating under the IMO.

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, including (1) decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through implementation of further phases of the EEDI for new ships; (2) reducing carbon dioxide emissions per transport work, as an average across international shipping, by at least 40% by 2030, pursuing efforts towards 70% by 2050, compared to 2008 emission levels; and (3) reducing the total annual greenhouse emissions by at least 50% by 2050 compared to 2008 while pursuing efforts towards phasing them out entirely. The initial strategy notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the overall ambition. These regulations could cause us to incur additional substantial expenses.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states to 20% below 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. Starting in January 2018, large ships calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information.

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, the U.S. President signed an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The EPA or individual U.S. states could enact environmental regulations that would affect our operations.

41

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, EU, Canada, the United States or other individual jurisdictions where we operate, that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels, could require us to make significant capital expenditures and may materially increase our operating costs.

Other Regions

We may be subject to environmental and other regulations that have been or may become adopted in other regions of the world that may impose obligations on our vessels and may increase our costs to own and operate them. Compliance with these requirements may require significant expenditures on our part and may materially increase our operating costs.

Of particular importance, due to the trade intensity in these areas, are four ECAs created in Hong Kong and in China (Pearl River Delta, the Yangtze River Delta and Bohai Sea), aiming to reduce the levels of ship-generated air pollution and focus on the sulfur content of fuels. As of January 1, 2017, vessels at berth in a core port within an emission control area are required to use fuel with a maximum sulfur content of 0.5% m/m—except one hour after arrival and one hour before departure. Since January 1, 2018, all ports within Chinese emission control areas have implemented this standard. As of January 1, 2019, vessels must switch to fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% m/m prior to entering China’s territorial sea, in defined areas. Vessels capable of receiving shore power must use shore power if they berth for more than three hours in ports in the coastal ECA that have shore power capabilities (or more than two hours in ports with such capabilities in the Inland ECAs). Furthermore, ships of 400 gross tonnage or over, or ships powered by main propulsion machinery greater than 750 kW of propulsion power, calling at a port in China should report energy consumption data of their last voyage to China MSA before leaving port (China Regulation on Data Collection for Energy Consumption of Ships). Hong Kong’s current Fuel at Berth Regulation requiring ships to burn fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% m/m while at berth are expected to be replaced by a regulation extending the standard to ships operating in Hong Kong waters. Ships not fitted with scrubbers will be required to burn fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% m/m within Hong Kong waters, irrespective of whether they are sailing or at berth. In Taiwan, ships not fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers must burn fuel with a sulfur content not exceeding 0.5% m/m when entering its international commercial port areas.

In connection with the introduction of the ban of high sulfur fuel for vessels not fitted with exhaust gas scrubbers, a number of countries are introducing rules as to the type of exhaust gas scrubber that may be acceptable to be operated on vessels, in effect prohibiting the operation in their waters of hybrid or open loop type exhaust gas scrubbers and forcing vessels to use more expensive closed loop systems or to burn low sulfur fuel when sailing in their waters.

International Labor Organization

The International Labor Organization is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006 (“MLC 2006”). A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships above 500 gross tons in international trade. We believe that all our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.

Vessel Security Regulations

Since September 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. In November 2002, the U.S Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or the MTSA, came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the U.S. Coast Guard has issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in U.S. waters. Similarly, amendments to the SOLAS Convention created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security, which came into effect in July 2004. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state. Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained, expelled from, or refused entry at port until they obtain an ISSC. The new chapter imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code, or ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

The United States Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures if such vessels have on board a valid International Ship Security Certificate, that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Our existing vessels have implemented the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.

42

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, physical damage, collision, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, piracy incidents, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon shipowners, operators and bareboat charterers of any vessel trading in the exclusive economic zone of the United States for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for shipowners and operators trading in the United States market. We carry insurance coverage as customary in the shipping industry. However, not all risks can be insured, specific claims may be rejected, and we might not be always able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull & Machinery, Loss of Hire and War Risks Insurance

We maintain marine hull and machinery and war risks insurances, which cover the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of our vessels. Our vessels are each covered up to at least fair market value, which we expect to assess at least annually, with certain deductibles per vessel per incident. We also maintain increased value coverage for each of our vessels under which in the event of total loss or constructive total loss of a vessel, we will be entitled to recover amounts otherwise not recoverable under our basic hull and machinery or war policies due to under-insurance. As required by the terms of the secured term loan and the indenture governing the 2022 notes, we have assigned certain of our insurance policies to our lenders under the secured term loan and the holders of the 2022 notes and will be subject to restrictions on our use of any proceeds therefrom.

We do not have loss-of-hire insurance covering the loss of revenue during extended off-hire periods. We evaluate obtaining such coverage on an ongoing basis, taking into account insurance market conditions and the employment of our vessels.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I associations, which insure our third-party and crew liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. Coverage includes third-party liability, crew liability and other related expenses resulting from the abandonment, injury or death of crew, and other third parties, the loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by P&I associations. Subject to the limit for pollution discussed below, our coverage is virtually unlimited, but subject to the rules of the particular protection and indemnity insurer.

Our protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is up to $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. The 13 P&I associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial blue-water tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. We are members of a number of P&I associations, all of which are included in the International Group. As such, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on the International Group’s claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations.

C. Organizational Structure

Our holding company, Global Ship Lease, Inc., is a Marshall Islands corporation. Each vessel is owned by a separate wholly-owned subsidiary. Twenty vessels are owned by companies incorporated in Marshall Islands; thirteen vessels are owned by companies incorporated in Cyprus and five by companies incorporated in Hong Kong. In addition, GSLS, a company incorporated in England and Wales and which is directly wholly owned by the holding company, provides certain administrative services to the group.

A list of our subsidiaries and the country of incorporation of each one is provided as Exhibit 8.1 to this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

43

D. Property, Plants and Equipment

Our only material properties are the vessels in our fleet, which are described in Item 4.B. “Information on the Company—Business Overview.” The vessels are affected by environmental and other regulations. See Item 4.B “Information on the Company – Environmental and Other Regulations”. Our vessels serve as security under our debt agreements. See item 5.B “Operating and Financial Review—Liquidity and Financial Resources – Indebtedness ”. We do not own any real property.

The container shipping industry suffered a cyclical downturn in 2011 and many container shipping companies reported substantial losses. Financial performance of container shipping companies improved in 2012; however, the industry remains under pressure due to oversupply of container ship capacity. Charter payments have been received on a timely basis from 2014 and charterhire was received on a timely basis in 2018 and, as of December 31, 2018, charterhire was up-to-date. If our charterers are unable to make charter payments to us, our results of operations and financial condition will be materially adversely affected. If our existing charters with our charterers were terminated and we were required to recharter at lower rates or if we were unable to find new charters due to market conditions, our results of operations and financial condition would be materially adversely affected.

Recent Developments

Poseidon Transaction

On November 15, 2018, we completed the Poseidon Transaction, a strategic combination with Poseidon Containers whereby we acquired Poseidon Containers, including its fleet of 20 containerships, one of which was contracted to be sold, the sale of which was completed in December 2018. On the closing of the Poseidon Transaction, we issued 3,005,603 Class A common shares and 250,000 Series C Preferred Shares, which are convertible into 12,955,187 Class A common shares upon the occurrence of certain events, to the unitholders of Poseidon Containers and assumed the debt of Poseidon Containers, which amounted to $509.7 million as at November 15, 2018.

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates

The consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP, which requires us to make estimates in the application of certain accounting policies based on our best assumptions, judgments and opinions. We base these estimates on the information available to us at the time and on various other assumptions we believe are reasonable under the circumstances. The following is a discussion of our principal accounting policies, some of which involve a high degree of judgment, and the methods of their application.

For a further description of our material accounting policies, please see note 3 to the consolidated financial statements included at Item 18. “Financial Statements.”

Revenue Recognition

Our revenue is generated from long-term time charters for each vessel. The charters are regarded as operating leases and provide for a per vessel fixed daily charter rate. Revenue is recorded on a straight-line basis. Assuming our vessels are not off-hire, our charter revenues are fixed for the period of the current charters and, accordingly, little judgment is required to be applied to the amount of revenue recognition. Operating revenue is stated net of address commissions, which represent a discount provided directly to the charterer based on a fixed percentage of the agreed upon charter rate.

Vessels in Operation

Vessels are generally recorded at their historical cost, which consists of the acquisition price and any material expenses incurred upon acquisition. Vessels acquired in a corporate transaction accounted for as an asset acquisition are stated at the acquisition price, which consists of consideration paid, plus transaction costs less any negative goodwill, if applicable. Vessels acquired in a corporate transaction accounted for as a business combination are recorded at fair value. Vessels acquired as part of the Marathon Merger in 2008 were accounted for under ASC 805, which required that the vessels be recorded at fair value, less the negative goodwill arising as a result of the accounting for the merger.

Subsequent expenditures for major improvements and upgrades are capitalized, provided they appreciably extend the life, increase the earnings capacity or improve the efficiency or safety of the vessels.

Borrowing costs incurred during the construction of vessels or as part of the prefinancing of the acquisition of vessels are capitalized. There was no capitalized interest for the years ended December 31, 2018 or 2017. Other borrowing costs are expensed as incurred.

Vessels are stated less accumulated depreciation and impairment, if applicable. Vessels are depreciated to their estimated residual value using the straight-line method over their estimated useful lives which are reviewed on an ongoing basis to ensure they reflect current technology, service potential and vessel structure. The useful lives are estimated to be 30 years from original delivery by the shipyard.

For any vessel group which is impaired, the impairment charge is recorded against the cost of the vessel and the accumulated depreciation as at the date of impairment is removed from the accounts.

45

The cost and related accumulated depreciation of assets retired or sold are removed from the accounts at the time of sale or retirement and any gain or loss is included in the Consolidated Statements of Income.

Vessels acquisitions

The Poseidon Transaction has been accounted for under ASU 2017-01 as an asset acquisition. The vessels acquired on November 15, 2018, described in note 1, were recorded at their fair value, based on valuations obtained from third party independent ship brokers, less negative goodwill arising as a result of the accounting for the overall Poseidon Transaction, allocated pro-rata.

Drydocking

Our vessels are drydocked approximately every five years for their special survey and for major repairs and maintenance that cannot be performed while the vessels are operating. Costs associated with the drydocks are capitalized as a component of the cost of the relevant vessel as they occur and are amortized on a straight line basis over the period to the next anticipated drydock, which are typically at five year intervals. Other expenditures relating to maintenance and repairs are expensed when incurred.

Prior to the completion of the Poseidon Transaction on November 15, 2018, the Company allocated an element of the purchase price of a vessel to a drydocking component which was amortized on a straight-line basis to the next anticipated drydocking date.

Costs capitalized as part of the drydock include costs directly associated with the special survey of the ship, its hull and its machinery and for the defouling and repainting of the hull. Any cost of repair to hull or machinery that extends useful life is capitalized. Other repair costs are expensed. Two drydockings were completed in 2018 for regulatory reasons the total cost of which, excluding the effect of the associated 34 days of offhire, was $2.5 million. Four drydockings were completed in 2017, the total cost of which, excluding the effect of the associated 62 days of offhire, was $4.0 million. Six drydockings were completed in 2016 for regulatory reasons, the total cost of which, excluding the effect of the associated 100 days of offhire, was $7.9 million. One such drydocking was completed in 2015, the total cost of which, excluding the effect of nine days offhire, was $1.5 million.

Impairment of Long-lived Assets

Tangible fixed assets, such as vessels, are reviewed individually for impairment when events or changes in circumstances indicate that their carrying amounts may not be recoverable. Undiscounted projected operating cash flows are determined for each vessel group, which comprises of the vessel, the unamortized portion of deferred drydocking related to the vessel and the related carrying value of the intangible asset or liability (if any) with respect to the time charter attached to the vessel at its purchase, if applicable (together the “vessel group”) and compared to the carrying value of the vessel group (step one). Within the shipping industry, vessels can be purchased with a charter attached. The value of the charter may be favorable or unfavorable when comparing the contracted charter rate to then current market rates. An impairment charge is recognized when the sum of the expected undiscounted future cash flows from the vessel group over its estimated remaining useful life is less than its carrying amount (step one) and is recorded equal to the amount by which the vessel group’s carrying amount exceeds its fair value, including any applicable charter. Fair value is determined with the assistance from valuations obtained from third party independent ship brokers (step two).

The assumptions used involve a considerable degree of estimation. Actual conditions may differ significantly from the assumptions and thus actual cash flows may be significantly different to those estimated with a material effect on the recoverability of each vessel’s carrying amount. The most significant assumptions made for the determination of expected cash flows are:

46

Whilst charter rates in the spot market and asset values saw overall improvements through 2018, taking into account the seasonal as well as cyclical nature of the container shipping industry, the recovery was not considered to have been sufficiently sustained not to undertake a fleet-wide review for impairment as at December 31, 2018 for the 19 vessels in the GSL Fleet.

As a result, we performed step one of the impairment assessment of each of the vessel groups in the GSL Fleet by comparing the undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel group to the carrying value of the vessel group.

During the three months ended December 31, 2018, our assessment concluded that step two of the impairment analysis was required for three of our vessels groups that were held and used, as the undiscounted projected net operating cash flows did not exceed the carrying value. As a result, an impairment loss of $71,834 was recorded for three vessels, shown as “Impairment of vessels” in the Consolidated Statements of Income, being the difference between the fair value of the vessel group (which included the charter attached) and the vessel group’s carrying value.

No impairment test was performed for the vessels comprising the Poseidon Fleet as at December 31, 2018, as no events or circumstances existed indicating that their carrying value may not be recoverable. The carrying value of the vessels at December 31, 2018 was significantly lower than their fair value, mainly as a result of the allocation of negative goodwill arising from the accounting for the Poseidon Transaction.

In September 2018, we agreed with CMA CGM to extend the charter on GSL Julie and entered a new charter with Maersk Line for GSL Ningbo (formerly OOCL Ningbo). These extensions triggered the performance of an impairment test on the two vessels; no impairment was identified.

In January 2018, we agreed with CMA CGM to extend the charter on GSL Tianjin by eight to 12 months (at the charterer’s option) at a fixed rate of $11,900 per day, commencing January 26, 2018. In February 2018, we agreed with OOCL to extend the charter of OOCL Qingdao to between January 1, 2019 and March 15, 2019 (at the charterer’s option) at a fixed rate of $14,000 per day, commencing March 11, 2018. These extensions triggered the performance of an impairment test on the two vessels; no impairment was identified.

The impairment assessment performed for 2017 and 2016 resulted in impairment charges of $87.6 million and $92.4 million, respectively.

Although we currently intend to continue to hold and operate all of our vessels, the following table presents information with respect to the carrying value of our vessels, which are after the impairment charges noted above, and indicates whether their estimated market values, based on charter attached valuations as at December 31, 2018 with the assistance of an independent ship broking firm and totaling $1,331.0 million, are below their carrying values as at December 31, 2018. The carrying value of each of the vessels does not necessarily represent its fair market value or the amount that could be obtained if the vessel were sold. We would not record an impairment for any of the vessels for which the market value based on charter attached valuations is below its carrying value unless and until we either determine to sell the vessel for a loss or determine that the vessel’s carrying amount is not recoverable. We believe that the undiscounted cash flows over the estimated remaining useful lives for those vessels that show estimated market values below their carrying values exceed such vessels’ carrying values as at December 31, 2018, and accordingly have not recorded any further impairment charge.

As noted above, for impairment testing we assume that charter rates will revert to historic averages after four years, where relevant. Over the last few years, historic average rates have declined as stronger earlier years are replaced with weaker later years. If time charter rates do not show material and sustained improvement, we expect that our average estimated daily time charter rates used in future impairment analyses will decline, resulting in reduced estimated undiscounted future net cash flows to an amount which is less than the carrying value of certain vessels. In accordance with our accounting policy, if this occurs and we are required to perform any impairment tests, we may be required to recognize a non-cash impairment charge equal to the excess of the impacted vessels’ carrying value over their fair value. Sensitivity analysis as at December 31, 2018 suggests that a reduction of 10.0% in the charter rates assumed after expiry of the existing charter contracts under the current methodology would trigger an increase in the theoretical impairment charge of approximately $4.7 million. A reduction of 5.0% in the assumed charter rates would trigger an increase in the impairment charge of approximately $1.2 million.

The amount, if any, and timing of any impairment charges we may recognize in the future will depend upon then current and expected future charter rates and vessel values, which may differ materially from those used in our estimates at December 31, 2018. In addition, vessel values are highly volatile; as such, the estimated market values may not be indicative of the current or future market value of our vessels or prices that we could achieve if we were to sell them, with or without charters attached.

47

The table below sets out the purchase price and carrying value of each of our vessels as of December 31, 2018:

48

Share-Based Compensation

We have awarded restricted stock units to certain of our employees. For 2016 and 2017, 20% of the base compensation paid to our directors was in the form of stock issued under the 2015 Equity Incentive Plan, with the number of stock units issued based on a value of $32.00 per unit. The accounting fair value of restricted stock unit grants is determined by reference to the quoted stock price on the date of grant, as adjusted for estimated dividends forgone until the restricted stock units vest. Compensation expense is recognized based on a graded expense model over the expected vesting period.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In February 2016, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, “Leases (Topic 842)” (“ASU 2016-02”). ASU 2016-02 will apply to both types of leases – capital (or finance) leases and operating leases. According to the new Accounting Standard, lessees will be required to recognize assets and liabilities on the balance sheet for the rights and obligations created by all leases with terms of more than 12 months. ASU 2016 – 02 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2018, including interim periods within those fiscal years. Early application is permitted. This guidance requires companies to identify lease and non-lease components of a lease agreement. Lease components relate to the right to use the leased asset and non-lease components relate to payments for goods or services that are transferred separately from the right to use the underlying asset. Total lease consideration is allocated to lease and non-lease components on a relative standalone basis. The recognition of revenues related to lease components will be governed by ASC 842 while revenue related to non-lease components will be subject to ASC 606. In March 2018, the FASB tentatively approved a proposed amendment to ASU 842, that would provide an entity the optional transition method to initially account for the impact of the adoption with a cumulative adjustment to retained earnings on the effective date of the ASU, January 1, 2019 rather than January 1, 2017, which would eliminate the need to restate amounts presented prior to January 1, 2019. In addition, lessors can elect, as a practical expedient, not to allocate the total consideration to lease and non-lease components based on their relative standalone selling prices. As adopted by the Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-11 in July 2018, this practical expedient will allow lessors to elect and account for the combined component based on its predominant characteristic.

ASC 842 provides practical expedients that allow entities to not (i) reassess whether any expired or existing contracts are considered or contain leases; (ii) reassess the lease classification for any expired or existing leases; and (iii) reassess initial direct costs for any existing leases. In July 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-10, “Codification Improvements to Topic 842, Leases” and in December 2018 the Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-20 “Narrow-scope improvements for lessors”, which further improve and clarify ASU 2016-02. The Company plans to adopt the standard on January 1, 2019 and expects to elect the use of all practical expedients. Based on a preliminary assessment, the Company is expecting that the adoption will not have a material effect on its consolidated financial statements since the Company is primarily a lessor and the changes to the lessor model are minor.

The Company is continuing its assessment of other miscellaneous leases and may identify additional impacts this guidance will have on its consolidated financial statements and disclosures. The Company currently does not have any other miscellaneous leases that are greater than 12 months and the Company is the lessee that would be impacted by the adoption of this standard.

In June 2016, the FASB issued ASU 2016-13, “Financial Instruments—Credit Losses (Topic 326): Measurement of Credit Losses on Financial Instruments” (“ASU 2016-13”), which amends the impairment model by requiring entities to use a forward-looking approach based on expected losses to estimate credit losses on certain types of financial instruments, including trade receivables. In December 2018, the FASB issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2018-19 “Codification improvements to Topic 326”, which clarifies that impairment of receivables arising from operating leases should be accounted for in accordance with Topic 842, Leases. The ASU 2016-13 is effective for public entities for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2019, with early adoption permitted. The Company is currently evaluating the impact of the new standard on the Company’s consolidated financial statements.

The Company does not believe that any other recently issued, but not yet effective, accounting pronouncements would have a material impact on its interim unaudited consolidated financial statements.

49