PART I

Full Year 2016 and Recent Highlights

During 2016:

To date in 2017, the Company has closed on $317.4 million of farm acquisitions totaling 26,734 acres.

       For a definition of AFFO and a reconciliation of net income to AFFO, see “Item 7.  Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations – Non-GAAP Financial Measures.”

AFCO Mergers

       On February 2, 2017, we completed the previously announced merger with AFCO at which time one of the Company’s wholly owned subsidiaries was merged with and into American Farmland Company L.P. (“AFCO OP”) with AFCO OP surviving as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Operating Partnership (the “Partnership Merger”), and AFCO merged with and into another one of our wholly owned subsidiaries with such wholly owned subsidiary surviving. 

       At the effective time of the Company Merger, each share of common stock of AFCO, par value $0.01 per share (“AFCO Common Stock”), issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Company Merger (other than any shares of AFCO Common Stock owned by any wholly owned subsidiary of AFCO or by us or the Operating Partnership or any wholly owned subsidiary of us or the Operating Partnership), was automatically converted into the right to receive, subject to certain adjustments, 0.7417 shares of our common stock (the “Company Merger Consideration”). In addition, in connection with the Company Merger, each outstanding AFCO restricted stock unit that had become fully earned and vested in accordance with its terms was, at the effective time of the Company Merger, converted into the right to receive the Company Merger Consideration. We issued 14,763,604 shares of our common stock as consideration in the Company Merger and 17,373 shares of our common stock in respect of fully earned and vested AFCO restricted stock units.

       At the effective time of the Partnership Merger, each common unit of limited partnership interest in AFCO OP issued and outstanding immediately prior to the effective time of the Partnership Merger, was converted automatically into the right to receive, subject to certain adjustments, 0.7417 OP units. We issued 218,525 OP units as consideration in the Partnership Merger.

       We believe that following the AFCO Mergers, our portfolio gives investors exposure to the increasing global food demand trend in the face of growing scarcity of high quality farmland and will reflect the approximate breakdown of U.S. agricultural output between primary crops and animal protein (whose production relies principally on primary crops as feed), on one hand, and specialty crops, on the other. We are now the largest public farmland REIT in the nation with a portfolio comprised of approximately 142,223 acres across 16 states, along both Coasts, the Midwest, the Plains, the Southeast and the Delta.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe the following competitive strengths distinguish us from many of our competitors:

Our Business and Growth Strategies

Our principal business objective is to provide attractive stockholder returns through a combination of: (1) quarterly cash distributions to our stockholders; (2) sustainable long-term growth in cash flows from increased rents, which we hope to pass on to stockholders in the form of increased distributions; (3) additional cash flows derived from increased rents in connection with farm improvements (such as irrigation and drainage) and non-farming income streams (such as wind and solar leases); and (4) potential long-term appreciation in the value of our properties due in part to increasing farmland scarcity in the face of growing global food demand. Our primary strategy to achieve our business objective is to invest in, own and lease a portfolio of farmland and properties related to farming operations. Key components of our strategy include the following:

Our ability to effectively implement our business and growth strategies is subject to numerous risks and uncertainties, including those set forth under "Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Properties."

Investment Focus

We seek to invest in farmland that will give our stockholders exposure to a well-diversified portfolio of high-quality U.S. farmland, while offering an attractive risk-adjusted combination of stable rental income generation and value appreciation. Our principal investment focus is on farmland located in agricultural markets throughout North America; however, we may seek to acquire farmland outside of North America in the future. We also may acquire properties related to farming, such as grain storage facilities, grain elevators, feedlots, cold storage facilities, processing plants and distribution centers, as well as livestock farms or ranches. In addition, under the FPI Loan Program, we may provide mortgage loans secured by farmland and properties related to farming.

Crop Categories

Primary vs Specialty Crops

Farm crops generally can be divided into two principal categories: primary crops and specialty crops. Primary crops include, among others, corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton. Specialty crops can be again divided into two categories: annual specialty crops (generally vegetables) and permanent specialty crops (fruits and nuts grown on trees, bushes or vines). Over the long term, we expect that our farmland portfolio will continue to be comprised of approximately 75% primary crop farmland and 25% specialty crop farmland, which we believe will give investors exposure to the increasing global food demand trend in the face of growing scarcity of high quality farmland and will reflect the approximate composition of U.S. agricultural output between primary crops and animal protein (whose production relies principally on primary crops as feed), on one hand, and specialty crops, on the other.

Annual and Permanent Crops

Our portfolio includes farms that produce both annual and permanent crops. Annual crops are planted every year whereas permanent crops, such as trees, bushes and vines, are planted and bear crops over multiple years. We believe exposure to both annual and permanent crops is an attractive strategy and offers diversification benefits to our portfolio. Annual and permanent crops typically serve different end-markets and generally have uncorrelated pricing.

U.S. Farmland Property

We believe that the United States offers farmland investors exposure to financial benefits driven by the fundamentals of agricultural production and farmland appreciation without many of the risks that come with farmland investments in many other countries. In the United States, the farmland market is relatively liquid and there is virtually no land title risk. Moreover, the United States has the largest, lowest-cost grain transportation infrastructure in the world, leaving more margin to the grain producer and landowner. Lastly, we believe that in most major U.S. agricultural markets, multiple quality farm-operator tenants compete for farmland lease opportunities.

We may consider investing in farmland in other countries that, like the United States, offer virtually no land title risk, a sophisticated farm-operator tenant environment and attractive rental rates, such as Canada, Australia or New Zealand.

Leased Properties

Farming land for crops carries significant operating risk, although it can be mitigated through crop insurance and other risk management tools. If a crop fails or the land does not produce the anticipated amount of crops, the farm operator may experience an economic loss. We believe that through leasing farmland, rather than farming it ourselves, we will mitigate this risk significantly. We expect to continue to lease a majority of our properties on a fixed-rent basis that does not depend on the success of the tenant's farming operations. Moreover, a majority of the leases in our portfolio provide that at least 50% (and often 100%) of the annual rent is due and payable in advance of each spring planting season, and we expect that a majority of the fixed-rent leases we enter into in the future will have a similar requirement, which reduces our credit-risk exposure in the event of operational issues with the farm-operator tenant. However, to the extent we enter into leases that do not require advance payment of 100% of the annual rent or have terms greater than one year, we may be subject to tenant credit risk and more susceptible to the risks associated with declines in the profitability of tenants’ farming operations, and we take such risk into consideration when evaluating the potential return on a farm. We may use variable-rent leases, which depend in part on crop yields and prices, in regions where such arrangements are prevalent or when we expect that such arrangements will be more profitable to us on a risk-adjusted basis. We also may utilize hybrid lease arrangements that require a modest rent payment at lease inception and an additional rent payment based on a percentage of the revenue from the tenant's harvest for that year.

We expect to continue to lease the majority of our primary crop farmland and other farming related properties under leases that require the tenant to either pay or reimburse us for substantially all of the property’s operating expenses, including maintenance, water usage and insurance, as well as all of the input costs related to the farming operations, such as seed, fertilizer, labor and fuel. Consistent with industry practices, we expect that we will generally be responsible for the maintenance of plantings and associated improvements on our permanent crop farmland while our tenants will be responsible for all operating costs. Several of our leases provide for the reimbursement by the tenant of the property’s real estate taxes that we pay in connection with the farms they rent from us. The rental payments we receive from the farm operators will be the primary source of any distributions that we make to our stockholders.

We expect that over time rental income will increase. Most farmland in the areas where we own or intend to acquire land is leased under short-term leases (typically five years or less), and we plan to lease our property under short-term leases. By entering into short-term leases, we believe we will be in a position to increase our rental rates when the leases expire and are renewed or the land is re-leased, if prevailing rental rates have increased. However, we can provide no assurances that we will be able to increase our rental rates, or even maintain them at the same level, when the leases are renewed or the land is re-leased.

We believe quality farmland has a near-zero vacancy rate, and we believe that high-quality farmland in an area with a competitive tenant environment is generally leased and farmed each year. For leases that provide that a substantial portion of rental payments for a crop year are due in advance of the spring planting season, in the event of a tenant's failure to pay rent when due, we will seek to terminate the lease and rent the property to another tenant that could then plant and harvest a crop that year. As a result, we believe there is a reduced risk of vacancy on our properties when compared to most other types of commercial properties, such as office buildings or retail properties.

Tenants

We believe the areas where we own and intend to acquire farmland are characterized by a competitive farm-operator tenant environment, with multiple experienced farm operators seeking to expand their operations by leasing additional farmland.

Non-Farming Leases

In addition to leases entered into in connection with farming operations, we seek additional sources of income from our properties that are either incremental, such as wind easements and recreational leases, or are higher than farming rents, such as leases for solar power installations. While we do not believe that such other sources of income will constitute a significant percentage of our total revenues, they offer opportunities to enhance returns to stockholders at little or no cost to us.

Family-Owned Properties

According to the USDA, as of 2012, approximately 87% of farms in the United States were owned by families. We believe that many farm families and individuals may wish to simultaneously sell some of their property and lease it back, continuing their operation of such property under a leasing arrangement. Sellers in these sale-leaseback transactions can use the sale proceeds to repay existing indebtedness, for growth of their farming operations or in other business endeavors. Under some circumstances, these sale-leaseback transactions might be driven by estate planning reasons. We believe that the farmland that we acquire and do not simultaneously lease back to the seller can be leased at attractive rental rates to other independent or corporate farm operators.

As an alternative to selling their farmland to us in an all-cash transaction, we believe that many farm owners may be interested in selling their farmland to us in exchange for OP units in order to have an equity interest in our company and participate in any appreciation in value of our properties. By making such an exchange, these farm owners would become investors in a more diversified portfolio of agricultural real estate. Under certain circumstances, the exchange of real estate for OP units is a tax-deferred exchange under U.S. federal income tax laws. In addition, because we intend to make cash distributions each quarter, OP unit holders would receive regular quarterly cash distributions. Finally, OP unit holders would have the flexibility to redeem their OP units in the future for cash, or, at our election, shares of our common stock that they could then sell in the public market, thereby allowing these sellers to determine the timing of recognizing taxable gain. Because we expect the issuance of OP units in exchange for farmland generally will be driven by the desires of prospective sellers, we do not know how frequently we will issue OP units in exchange for farmland properties. However, we believe that using OP units as acquisition consideration can be a significant part of our property acquisition strategy.

Other Investments

In addition to farmland, we also may acquire properties related to farming, such as grain storage facilities, grain elevators, feedlots, processing plants and distribution centers, as well as livestock ranches. During 2016 we acquired one livestock ranch property in the state of Colorado. In addition, through the FPI Loan Program, we provide mortgage loans secured by farmland and properties related to farming.

Underwriting Criteria and Due Diligence Process

Selecting the Property

We seek to acquire high quality farmland that offers an attractive risk-adjusted balance of current returns and appreciation potential. We believe our management team’s deep understanding of agribusiness fundamentals and insight into factors affecting the value of farmland allow us to identify properties consistent with our investment criteria. We believe the following factors are important in the selection of farmland:

We perform a due diligence review with respect to each potential property acquisition. The due diligence investigation includes both property-specific factors (e.g., soil types and fertility, water availability and rights, topographical characteristics and property taxes) and location-specific factors (e.g., climate, tenant availability and quality, and market access). As part of our due diligence process, we also perform a valuation of each target property and estimate expected lease rates.

Selecting Tenants

We intend to continue to focus primarily on farm properties located in areas with a robust and competitive environment of experienced tenants. In general, the tenant selection process focuses primarily on candidates' experience and reputation based upon background and reference checks of potential tenants, as well as their willingness and ability to pay competitive rental rates. We consider similar factors in analyzing sale-leaseback transactions. In geographic areas where we already own one or more properties, we may give our existing local tenants priority consideration, especially in exchange for sourcing a property acquisition opportunity. We often mitigate tenant credit risk by requiring a significant portion of a year's rent in advance of each spring planting season whenever possible, by requiring a tenant to adopt crop insurance, and/or by securing agricultural or statutory liens on growing crops. In addition, we monitor our existing tenants by periodically conducting site visits of the farms and meeting with the tenants to discuss their farming operations and the

condition of the farms. However, in some circumstances, we may be exposed to tenant credit risk and may be subject to farming operation risks, such as adverse weather conditions and declines in commodity prices, particularly with respect to leases that do not require advance payment of 100% of the annual rent, variable-rent leases for which the rent is based on a percentage of a tenant's farming revenues and leases with terms greater than one year. See "Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Properties.” We do not intend to continuously monitor and evaluate tenant credit quality and may be subject to risks associated with our tenants' financial condition and liquidity position.

FPI Loan Program

We believe that our existing systems and personnel are well suited to source, diligence, close and manage loans under the FPI Loan Program at little or no additional cost to us. We believe that the business of making loans secured by mortgages on farmland is highly complementary to, and synergistic with, our core business of investing in farmland. We generally find potential borrowers during the process of sourcing farm acquisitions. We conduct due diligence on loan collateral the same way we conduct due diligence on potential farm acquisitions, and we screen potential borrowers the same way we screen potential tenants. The FPI Loan Program offering gives us an increased visibility in the marketplace, thereby benefiting our core farmland investing business.

Seasonality

Because the leases for many of the properties in our portfolio require significant payments in advance of the spring planting season, we receive a significant portion of our cash rental payments in the first calendar quarter of each year, although we recognize rental revenue from these leases on a pro rata basis over the non-cancellable term of the lease in accordance with GAAP. The highly seasonal nature of the agriculture industry causes seasonality in our business to some extent. Our financial performance should be evaluated on an annual basis, which eliminates quarterly performance variability due to crop share revenues, lease periods not matching fiscal years, and other similar factors that may cause our quarterly results to vary during the course of the year.

Our Properties 

As of the date of this Annual Report, we own approximately 142,223 total acres of farmland. See “Managements’ Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” for more information about our portfolio. The distribution of farms by regions is as follows:

Corn Belt includes farm located in Illinois, Michigan, eastern Nebraska. Delta + South includes farms located in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. High Plains includes farms located in Colorado, Kansas, western Nebraska, and Texas. Southeast includes farms located in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Virginia. West Coast includes farms located in California.

As of the date of this Annual Report, our portfolio has the following rents or rent estimates for 2017 by lease type or status:

Tax Status

We elected and qualified to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes commencing with our short taxable year ended December 31, 2014. Our qualification as a REIT will depend upon our ability to meet, on a continuing basis, through actual investment and operating results, various complex requirements under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), relating to, among other things, the sources of our gross income, the composition and values of our assets, our distribution levels and the diversity of ownership of our capital stock. We believe that we are organized in conformity with the requirements for qualification as a REIT under the Code and that our intended manner of operation will enable us to meet the requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

As a REIT, we generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income that we distribute to our stockholders. Under the Code, REITs are subject to numerous organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that they distribute on an annual basis at least 90% of their REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding any net capital gains. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year and do not qualify for certain statutory relief provisions, our income for that year will be subject to tax at regular corporate rates, and we would be disqualified from taxation as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year during which we ceased to qualify as a REIT. Even if we qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we may still be subject to state and local taxes on our income and assets and to U.S. federal income and excise taxes on our undistributed income. Additionally, any income earned by FPI Agribusiness Inc., our taxable REIT subsidiary, and any other taxable REIT subsidiaries (“TRSs”) that we form or acquire in the future will be fully subject to U.S. federal, state and local corporate income tax.

Insurance

Under the terms and conditions of the leases on our current properties, tenants are generally required, at their expense, to obtain and keep in full force during the term of the lease, liability and property damage insurance policies and to name us an additional insured party. These policies include liability coverage for bodily injury and property damage arising out of the ownership, use, occupancy or maintenance of the properties and all of their appurtenant areas. In addition to our tenants' insurance policies under which we will be an additional insured party, we also maintain comprehensive liability and casualty insurance covering all of our properties under a blanket insurance policy, which provides coverage to the extent there is insufficient coverage under our tenants' policies.

Regulation

Farming Regulation

The farmland that we own and intend to acquire is used for growing crops and is subject to the laws, ordinances and regulations of state, local and federal governments, including laws, ordinances and regulations involving land use and usage, water rights, treatment methods, disturbance, the environment and eminent domain.

Farmland is principally subject to environmental and agricultural laws, ordinances and regulations. Each governmental jurisdiction has its own distinct laws, ordinances and regulations governing the use of farmland. Many such laws, ordinances and regulations seek to regulate water usage and water runoff because water can be in limited supply, as is the case where certain of the properties in our portfolio are located.

All of the farms in our portfolio have sources of water, including expected precipitation, wells and/or surface water, that currently provide sufficient amounts of water necessary for the current farming operations at each location. However, should the need arise for additional water from wells and/or surface water sources, such permits and approvals may be difficult to obtain in areas with limited supply of available water. We believe that as of the date of this Annual Report our farms are in compliance with applicable state, county and federal environmental and agricultural regulations.

In addition to the regulation of water usage and water runoff, state, local and federal governments also seek to regulate the type, quantity and method of use of chemicals and materials for growing crops, including fertilizers, pesticides and nutrient rich materials. Such regulations could include restricting or preventing the use of such chemicals and materials near residential housing or near water sources. Further, some regulations have strictly forbidden or significantly limited the use of certain chemicals and materials.

As an owner of farmland, we may be liable or responsible for the actions or inactions of our tenants with respect to these laws, regulations and ordinances.

Real Estate Industry Regulation

Generally, the ownership and operation of real properties is subject to various laws, ordinances and regulations, including regulations relating to zoning, land use, water rights, wastewater, storm water runoff and lien sale rights and procedures. These laws, ordinances or regulations, such as the Comprehensive Environmental Response and Compensation Liability Act (“CERCLA”) and its state analogs, or any changes to any such laws, ordinances or regulations, could result in or increase the potential liability for environmental conditions or circumstances existing, or created by tenants or others, on our properties. Laws related to upkeep, safety and taxation requirements may result in significant unanticipated expenditures, loss of our properties or other impairments to operations, any of which would adversely affect our cash flows from operating activities.

Environmental Matters

As an owner of real estate, we will be subject to various federal, state and local environmental laws, regulations and ordinances and also could be liable to third parties resulting from environmental contamination or noncompliance at our properties. Environmental laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of or was responsible for the presence of the contaminants. The costs of any required investigation or cleanup of these substances could be substantial. The liability is generally not limited under such laws and could exceed the property’s value and the aggregate assets of the liable party. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination at our properties also may expose us to third-party liability for personal injury or property damage or adversely affect our ability to lease the real property or to borrow using the real estate as collateral. These and other risks related to environmental matters are described in more detail in “Item 1A. Risk Factors.”

Competition

Competition to our efforts to acquire farmland can come from many different entities. Individual farmers are the most active buyers of farmland. Institutional investors, investment funds, other farmland REITs, individual investors and others also compete for farmland acreage. Investment firms that we might compete directly against could include agricultural investment firms such as Westchester Agriculture Asset Management (a TIAA company), Hancock Agricultural Investment Group, Ceres Partners, Gladstone Land Corp, and UBS Agrivest, LLC. These firms engage in the acquisition, asset management, valuation and disposition of farmland properties.

Employees

At February 23, 2017, we had 18 employees. None of our employees is a member of a labor union.

Corporate Information

Our executive offices are located at 4600 South Syracuse Street, Suite 1450, Denver, Colorado 80237. Our telephone number at our executive offices is (720) 452-3100 and our corporate website is www.farmlandpartners.com. The information on, or accessible through, our website is not incorporated into and does not constitute a part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any other report or document we file with or furnish to the SEC.

Available Information

We file our Annual Report on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports with the SEC. You may obtain copies of these documents by visiting the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20549, by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330 or by accessing the SEC’s website at www.sec.gov. In addition, as soon as reasonably practicable after such materials are furnished to the SEC, we make copies of these documents available to the public free of charge through our website or by contacting our Secretary at the address set forth above under “—Corporate Information.” 

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the charters of our audit committee, compensation committee and nominating and corporate governance committee are all available in the Governance Documents section of the Corporate Information section of our website.

Financial Information

For required financial information related to our operations, please refer to our consolidated financial statements, including the notes thereto, included within this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Risks Related to Our Business and Properties

Our business is dependent in part upon the profitability of our tenants' farming operations, and a sustained downturn in the profitability of their farming operations could have a material adverse effect on the amount of rent we can collect and, consequently, our cash flow and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We depend on our tenants to operate the farms we own in a manner that generates revenues sufficient to allow them to meet their obligations to us, including their obligations to pay rent and real estate taxes, maintain certain insurance coverage and maintain the properties generally. The ability of our tenants to fulfill their obligations under our leases depends, in part, upon the overall profitability of their farming operations, which could be adversely impacted by, among other things, adverse weather conditions, crop prices, crop disease, pests, and unfavorable or uncertain political, economic, business or regulatory conditions. We are susceptible to any decline in the profitability of our tenants' farming operations for our variable-rent leases, pursuant to which the amount of rent depends on crop yields and prices realized by our tenants, as well as for our leases with terms longer than one year. In addition, many farms are dependent on a limited number of key individuals whose injury or death may affect the successful operation of the farm. We can provide no assurances that, if a tenant defaults on its obligations to us under a lease, we will be able to lease or re-lease that farm on economically favorable terms in a timely manner, or at all. In addition, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment.

As a result, any downturn in the profitability of the farming operations of our tenants or a downturn in the farming industry as a whole could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We have a substantial amount of indebtedness outstanding and near-term maturities, which may expose us to the risk of default under our debt obligations, restrict our operations and our ability to grow our business and revenues and restrict our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders.

As of December 31, 2016 and as of February 23, 2017, we had approximately $309.9 million and $420.5 million, respectively, of outstanding indebtedness, all of which is secured by mortgages on our farms. We intend to incur additional debt in connection with future acquisitions or for other purposes and, if necessary, we may borrow funds to make distributions to our stockholders in order to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes. We have approximately $81.2 million of indebtedness maturing in 2017, including $20.7 million maturing on September 5, 2017, $5.5 million maturing on October 23, 2017, $10.7 million maturing on November 24, 2017, $13.4 million maturing on December 18, 2017 and $30.9 million maturing on December 22, 2017. To the extent that we do not have sufficient funds to repay our debt at maturity, it may be necessary to refinance the debt through new debt or equity financings, which may not be available on acceptable terms or at all and which could be dilutive to our stockholders. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms or at all, we may be forced to dispose of farms at inopportune times or on disadvantageous terms, which could result in losses. In addition, our debt agreements include customary events of default, the occurrence of any of which, after any applicable cure period, would permit the lenders to, among other things, accelerate payment of all amounts outstanding under the loans and to exercise their remedies with respect to the collateral, including foreclosure and sale of the agricultural real estate securing the loans. Certain of our debt agreements also contain cross-default provisions that give the lender the right, in certain circumstances, to declare a default if we are in default under other loans. If any one of these events were to occur, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and ability to pay distributions to our stockholders could be materially and adversely affected.

Approximately 75% of our portfolio is comprised of properties used to grow primary crops such as corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton, which subjects us to risks associated with primary row crops.

Approximately 75% of our portfolio is comprised of properties used to grow primary crops, such as   corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton. As a result, any development or situation that adversely affects the value of properties generally or the prices of corn, soybeans, wheat, rice or cotton could have a more significant adverse impact on us than if our portfolio had less exposure to primary crops, which could materially and adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Investments in farmland used for permanent/specialty crops have a different risk profile than farmland used for annual row crops.

Approximately 25% of our portfolio is used for permanent crops, and, in the future, we may add to our investments in farmland used for permanent crops, as opposed to annual row crops. Permanent crops have plant structures (such as trees, vines or bushes) that produce yearly crops without being replanted. Examples include blueberries, oranges, apples, almonds and grapes. Permanent crops require more time and capital to plant and bear fruit and are more expensive to replace. If a farmer loses a permanent/specialty crop to drought, flooding, fire or disease, there generally would be significant time and capital needed to return the land to production because a tree or vine may take years to grow before bearing fruit.

Permanent crop plantings also reduce a farmer’s ability to adapt to changing market conditions by changing crops. If demand for one type of permanent crop decreases, the permanent crop farmer cannot easily convert the farm to another type of crop because permanent crop farmland is dedicated to one crop during the lifespan of the trees or vines and therefore cannot easily be rotated to adapt to changing environmental or market conditions.

Integrating the assets of AFCO and realizing the anticipated synergies of the AFCO Mergers may take longer than projected and not all cost saving may be realized.

The AFCO Mergers involved the consolidation of assets from a company that previouslyoperated as an independent public company. Following the AFCO Mergers, our portfolio is larger and more diverse, with more than $850 million in farmland assets comprised of over 145,000 acres of farmland in 16 states and more than 25 crop types. We expect to benefit from the elimination of duplicative costs associated with supporting our public company platform and resulting economies of scale. As of the date of this Annual Report, we believe that we have realized the majority of these synergies. However, you should be aware that it is possible that the integration process could result in the distraction of our management, the disruption of our ongoing business or inconsistencies in our operations, which could adversely affect our business and could delay and partially reduce realization of the anticipated benefits of the AFCO Mergers.

In addition, we expect to use our increased scale and enhanced geographic footprint gained through the AFCO Mergers to continue to expand our operations through additional acquisitions of farmland properties, some of which may involve complex challenges. Our future success will depend, in part, upon our ability to manage our expansion opportunities, which may pose substantial challenges for our company to integrate new operations into our existing business in an efficient and timely manner, and upon our ability to successfully monitor our operations, costs, regulatory compliance and relationships with tenant farmers, and to maintain other necessary internal controls. There is no assurance that our expansion or acquisition opportunities will be successful, or that we will realize our expected operating efficiencies, cost savings, revenue enhancements, synergies or other expected benefits.

Our failure to continue to identify and consummate suitable acquisitions would significantly impede our growth and our ability to further diversify our portfolio by geography, crop type and tenant, which could materially and adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Our ability to continue to expand through acquisitions is important to our business strategy and requires that we identify and consummate suitable acquisition or investment opportunities that meet our investment criteria and are compatible with our growth strategy. We compete for the acquisition of farmland and properties related to farming with many other entities engaged in agricultural and real estate investment activities, including individual and family operators of farming businesses, corporate agriculture companies, financial institutions, institutional pension funds, public REITS, other real estate companies, private equity funds and other private real estate investors. These competitors may prevent us from acquiring desirable properties or may cause an increase in the price we must pay for such properties. Our competitors may adopt transaction structures similar to ours, which would decrease our competitive advantage in offering flexible transaction terms. In addition, the number of entities and the amount of funds competing for suitable investment properties may increase, resulting in increased demand and increased prices paid for these properties. If we pay higher prices for properties, our profitability may decrease, and you may experience a lower return on your investment. Our failure to identify and consummate suitable acquisitions would significantly impede our growth, which would adversely affect our results of operations and cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Failure to succeed in new markets may have adverse consequences.

We intend to continue to acquire properties across the U.S. and may from time to time evaluate potential international acquisitions. When we acquire properties located in new geographic areas in the U.S. or internationally, or properties primarily devoted to a crop or industry with which we are less familiar (such as certain specialty crops, energy production, dairy farms or hog farms), we may face risks associated with a lack of market knowledge or understanding of the local market, including the availability and identity of quality tenants, forging new business relationships in the area, developing an understanding of a crop or industry unfamiliar to us, and unfamiliarity with local or crop-specific government requirements and procedures. Furthermore, the negotiation of a potential expansion into new markets or industries may divert management time and other resources. As a result, we may have difficulties executing our business strategy in these new markets, which could have a negative impact on our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We do not intend to continuously monitor and evaluate tenant credit quality and our financial performance may be subject to risks associated with our tenants' financial condition and liquidity position.

Certain of our leases do not require the full payment of rent in cash in advance of the planting season, which subjects us to credit risk exposure to our farm-operator tenants and the risks associated with farming operations, such as weather, commodity price fluctuations and other factors. We also are exposed to these risks with respect to leases for which the rent is based on a percentage of a tenant's farming revenues and leases with terms greater than one year.   Because we do not intend to monitor and evaluate the credit risk exposure related to farm-operator tenants on an ongoing basis, we are subject to the risk that our tenants, particularly those that may depend on debt and leverage to finance their operations, could be susceptible to bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their financial obligations, including meeting their obligations to us under their leases. As a result, we may not become aware of a tenant's financial distress until the tenant fails to make payments to us when due, which may significantly reduce the amount of time we have to evict the tenant and re-lease the farmland to a new tenant before the start of the spring planting season, and in the event of a tenant bankruptcy we may not be able to terminate the lease. If we are unable to re-lease the farmland on a timely basis, it could have a material adverse effect on our revenues.

Some state laws prohibit or restrict the ownership of agricultural land by business entities, which could impede the growth of our portfolio and our ability to diversify geographically.

Certain states, including Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Oklahoma, Wisconsin, Missouri and Kansas, in which a substantial amount of primary crop farmland is located, have laws that prohibit or restrict to varying degrees the ownership of agricultural land by corporations or business entities like us. As of December 31, 2016, we owned 1,804 acres of farmland in Kansas, and our ownership of those farms may be challenged under Kansas law, in which case we may be required to sell those farms at an unfavorable time and on unfavorable terms. Additional states may, in the future, pass similar or more restrictive laws, and we may not be legally permitted, or it may become overly burdensome or expensive, to acquire properties in these states, which could impede the growth of our portfolio and our ability to diversify geographically in states that might otherwise have attractive investment opportunities.

Our short-term leases, albeit an industry standard, make us more susceptible to any decreases in prevailing market rental rates than would be the case if we entered into longer-term leases, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Most of our leases with tenants engaged in farming operations have terms ranging from one to five years, which is customary in the farming industry. We expect that most of the leases we enter into in the future will have one to five-year terms. As a result, we will be required to frequently re-lease our properties upon the expiration of our leases, which will make us more susceptible to declines in market rental rates than we would be if we were to enter into longer term leases. As a result, any decreases in the prevailing market rental rates in the geographic areas in which we own properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We may be unable to collect balances due on our leases from any tenants in financial distress or bankruptcy, which could adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

We are subject to tenant credit risk.  Our tenants, particularly those that may depend on debt and leverage, could be susceptible to defaults under their leases or bankruptcy in the event that their cash flows are insufficient to satisfy their financial obligations.Certain of our tenants have defaulted on their lease payments, and we have been forced to pursue alternative arrangements with those tenants in order to be paid amounts due under the leases. In the future, we may be forced to enter into similar alternative arrangements or pursue litigation  in order to collect payments from tenants who are unable make their lease payments as they come due. We can provide no assurances that we will be able to collect the full amount due under a particular lease if we are forced pursue alternative payment arrangements or litigation with any of our tenants. 

If a bankrupt tenant rejects a lease with us, any claim we might have for breach of the lease, excluding a claim against collateral securing the lease, would be treated as a general unsecured claim. In the event of a tenant's default under its lease or its rejection of the lease in bankruptcy proceedings, we may be unable to locate a replacement tenant in a timely manner or on comparable or better terms. As a result, our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties and harm our financial condition.

The real estate investments made, and to be made, by us may be difficult to sell quickly. As a result, our ability to promptly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions may be limited. Return of capital and realization of gains, if any, from an investment generally will occur upon disposition or refinancing of the underlying property. We may be unable to realize our investment objectives by sale, other disposition or refinancing at attractive prices within any given period of time or may otherwise be unable to complete any exit strategy. In particular, weakness in or even the lack of an established market for a property, changes in the financial condition or prospects of prospective purchasers, changes in national or international economic conditions and changes in laws, regulations or fiscal policies of jurisdictions in which the property is located, in each case may limit our ability to dispose of a property. Moreover, our ability to dispose of certain of our properties within a specific time period is subject to certain limitations imposed by our tax protection agreement.

In addition, the Code imposes restrictions on a REIT's ability to dispose of properties that are not applicable to other types of real estate companies. In particular, the tax laws applicable to REITs effectively require that we hold our properties for investment, rather than primarily for sale in the ordinary course of business, which may cause us to forego or defer sales of properties that otherwise would be in our best interests. Moreover, if we acquire properties from C corporations ( i.e. , corporations generally subject to full corporate-level tax) in certain non-taxable transactions, as was the case with our acquisition of the Hudye Farm in 2014, built-in gain recognized on the non-taxable disposition of such properties within 10 years of our acquisition will be subject to tax at the highest applicable U.S. federal corporate income tax rate. Therefore, we may not be able to vary our portfolio in response to economic or other conditions promptly or on favorable terms.

The period during which a REIT is subject to tax in respect of built-in gains recognized on property acquired form a C corporation is currently uncertain. 

      On June 7, 2016, the U.S. Treasury Department issued temporary Regulations which temporarily extended the period during which a REIT is subject to tax in respect of built-in gains recognized on property acquired from a C corporation from five years to ten years.  This extension only applied to assets with built-in gains acquired on or after August 8, 2016 and was set to expire on June 7, 2019.  On January 18, 2017, the U.S. Treasury Department issued final Regulations to shorten the ten-year period back to a five-year period for assets with built-in gains acquired on or after February 17, 2017, and to permit taxpayers to apply the five-year period for assets with built-in gains acquired on or after August 8, 2016 and on or before February 17, 2017.  Pursuant to these final Regulations, if we acquire any asset from a C corporation, or a corporation that generally is subject to full corporate level tax, in a merger or other transaction in which we acquire a basis in the asset that is determined by reference either to the C corporation’s basis in the asset or

to another asset, we will pay tax at the highest U.S. federal corporate income tax rate applicable if we recognize gain on the sale or disposition of the asset during the five-year period after we acquire the asset.  However, on January 20, 2017, White House Chief of Staff Reince Preibus issued a Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (the “Regulatory Freeze Memorandum”), effective January 18, 2017, ordering agencies to temporarily postpone for 60 days the effective date of certain regulations; the effect of the Regulatory Freeze Memorandum, if any, on the final Regulations described above remains unclear.

Our farms are subject to adverse weather conditions, seasonal variability, crop disease and other contaminants, which may affect our tenants' ability to pay rent and thereby have an adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition, and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

Crops are vulnerable to adverse weather conditions, including windstorms, tornados, floods, drought and temperature extremes, which are common but difficult to predict. Unfavorable growing conditions can reduce both crop yield and quality. Seasonal factors, including supply and consumer demand, may also have an effect on the value of crops grown by our tenants. In extreme cases, entire harvests may be lost in some geographic areas.

In addition, crops are vulnerable to disease and pests. Damages to tenants' crops may vary in severity and effect, depending on the stage of production at the time of infection or infestation, the type of treatment applied and climatic conditions. The costs to control these infestations vary depending on the severity of the damage and the extent of the plantings affected. These infestations can increase the costs and decrease the revenues of our tenants. Tenants may also incur losses from product recalls, fines or litigation due to other contaminants that may cause food borne illness. It is difficult to predict the occurrence or severity of such product recalls, fines or litigation as well as their impact upon our tenants.

We are particularly susceptible to adverse weather conditions (such as windstorms, tornados, floods, drought, hail and temperature extremes), transportation conditions (including navigation of the Mississippi River), crop disease, pests and other adverse growing conditions in Illinois, Colorado, North Carolina, South Carolina Arkansas and Louisiana, where the majority of the acres in our portfolio are located.

While many of our leases are on a fixed-rent basis that does not change based on the success of the farming operations, we also utilize variable-rent leases pursuant to which the amount of the rent depends on crop yields and prices in regions where such arrangements are prevalent. Adverse weather conditions, seasonal variability, crop disease, pests and contaminants could adversely affect the value of production on properties. This could impact our variable rent proceeds and our tenants' ability to continue to meet their obligations to us. This could have a material adverse effect on the value of our properties, our results of operations, financial condition, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The market prices of the crops that our tenants may produce on our agricultural properties have exhibited periods of volatility, which may affect our tenants' ability to pay rent and thereby have an adverse effect on our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

The value of a crop is affected by many factors that can differ on a yearly basis. The unpredictability of weather and crop yields in the major crop production regions worldwide creates a significant risk of price volatility, which may either increase or decrease the value of the crops that our tenants produce each year. Other material factors adding to the volatility of crop prices are changes in government regulations and policy, fluctuations in global prosperity, fluctuations in foreign trade and export markets, and eruptions of military conflicts or civil unrest. Although rental payments under the majority of our leases typically are not based on the quality or profitability of our tenants' harvests, any of these factors could adversely affect our tenants' ability to meet their obligations to us and our ability to lease or re-lease properties on favorable terms, or at all, which could have a material adverse effect on the value of our properties, our results of operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Adverse changes in government policies related to farming could affect the prices of crops and the profitability of farming operations, which could materially and adversely affect the value of our properties and our results of operations.

There are a number of government programs that directly or indirectly affect the profitability of farm operators. These include marketing, export, renewable fuel and insurance policies and programs. Significant changes to or the elimination of programs and policies could adversely affect crop prices and the profitability of farming operations, which could materially and adversely impact the value of our farms and our ability to lease them on favorable terms, or at all, which would have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

If the U.S. Federal Reserve or other central banks embark on a substantial tightening of monetary policy in the future that causes real interest rates to rise substantially, it may cause land prices to decline if the rise in real interest rates is not accompanied by rises in the general levels of inflation.

A substantial tightening of monetary policy by the U.S. Federal Reserve or other central banks would increase credit costs (through the resulting increase in interest rates) and decrease credit availability. This could hurt farm operators because higher real interest rates (which is defined as nominal interest rates minus the inflation rate) make it more difficult for farm operators to qualify for loans and increase their borrowing costs. Higher interest rates also tend to decrease U.S. and world economic growth, thus decreasing the demand for agricultural commodities.

All of these consequences could reduce farm income. If increases in real interest rates are not accompanied by higher levels of farm income and rents, this could lead to declines in agricultural land values and a reduction in our profitability, either of which would have a material adverse effect on our business or results of operations, financial condition, and ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

The loss of key management personnel, particularly Paul A. Pittman and Luca Fabbri, could have a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy and to achieve our investment objectives.

Our future success depends to a significant extent on the continued service and coordination of our senior management team, which is comprised of Paul A. Pittman, our Executive Chairman and Chief Executive Officer and Luca Fabbri, our Chief Financial Officer. We can provide no assurances that any of our key personnel will continue their employment with us. The loss of services of Messrs. Pittman, Fabbri and Cowan could have a material adverse effect on our ability to implement our business strategy and to achieve our investment objectives.

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on co-venturers’ financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.  

In the future, we may co-invest with third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring noncontrolling interests in or sharing responsibility for developing properties and managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. With respect to any such arrangement or any similar arrangement that we may enter into in the future, we may not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present where a third party is not involved, including the possibility that partners or co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers may have economic or other business interests or goals which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives, and they may have competing interests in our markets that could create conflicts of interest. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale or financing, because neither we nor the partner(s) or co-venturer(s) would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. In addition, a sale or transfer by us to a third party of our interests in the joint venture may be subject to consent rights or rights of first refusal, in favor of our joint venture partners, which would in each case restrict our ability to dispose of our interest in the joint venture. Where we are a limited partner or non-managing member in any partnership or limited liability company, if such entity takes or expects to take actions that could jeopardize our status as a REIT or require us to pay tax, we may be forced to dispose of our interest in such entity. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and directors

from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by or disputes with partners or co-venturers might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may in certain circumstances be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or co-venturers. Our joint ventures may be subject to debt and, during periods of volatile credit markets, the refinancing of such debt may require equity capital calls.

We will continue to incur costs as a result of becoming a public company, and such costs may increase if and when we cease to be an “emerging growth company.”

As a public company, we expect to continue to incur significant legal, accounting, insurance and other expenses that we did not incur as a private company, including costs associated with public company reporting requirements. The expenses incurred by public companies generally for reporting and corporate governance purposes have been increasing. We expect compliance with these public reporting requirements and associated rules and regulations to increase expenses, particularly after we are no longer an emerging growth company, although we are currently unable to estimate these costs with any degree of certainty. We could be an emerging growth company for up to five years after our initial public offering, although circumstances could cause us to lose that status earlier such as if the Company breaches the $700 million market cap threshold prior to June 30, 2018, which could result in our incurring additional costs applicable to public companies that are not emerging growth companies. 

If we fail to maintain effective internal control over financial reporting, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results, which may adversely affect investor confidence in our company and, as a result, the value of our common stock.

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. After we are no longer an emerging growth company under the JOBS Act, Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires our auditors to deliver an attestation report on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting in conjunction with their opinion on our audited financial statements. Substantial work on our part is required to implement appropriate processes, document the system of internal control over key processes, assess their design, remediate any deficiencies identified and test their operation. This process is expected to be both costly and challenging. We cannot give any assurances that material weaknesses will not be identified in the future in connection with our compliance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. The existence of any material weakness would preclude a conclusion by management and our independent auditors that we maintained effective internal control over financial reporting. Our management may be required to devote significant time and expense to remediate any material weaknesses that may be discovered and may not be able to remediate any material weakness in a timely manner. The existence of any material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting could also result in errors in our financial statements that could require us to restate our financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, all of which could lead to a decline in the per-share trading price of our common stock

We depend on external sources of capital that are outside of our control and may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all, which could limit our ability to, among other things, acquire additional properties, meet our capital and operating needs or make the cash distributions to our stockholders necessary to maintain our qualification as a REIT.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, we are required under the Code to, among other things, distribute annually at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain. In addition, we will be subject to income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our REIT taxable income, including any net capital gains. Because of these distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs, including acquisition opportunities and principal and interest payments on any outstanding debt, from operating cash flow. Consequently, we rely on third-party sources to fund our capital needs. We may not be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms, in the time period we desire, or at all. Any debt we incur will increase our leverage, expose us to the risk of default and may impose operating restrictions on us, and any additional equity we raise (including the issuance of OP units) could be dilutive to existing stockholders. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends, in part, on:

If we cannot obtain capital from third-party sources, we may not be able to acquire properties when strategic opportunities exist, meet the capital and operating needs of our existing properties, satisfy our debt service obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders necessary to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT.

Under the FPI Loan Program, we provide loans to third-party farmers, which exposes us to risks associated with being a lender, including the risk that borrowers default on their obligations to us, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Under the FPI Loan Program, which was announced in August 2015, we make loans to third-party farmers (both tenant and non-tenant) to provide partial financing for working capital requirements and operational farming activities, farming infrastructure projects, and for other farming and agricultural real estate related purposes. The loans are collateralized by farm real estate. As of the date of this Annual Report, we have made two senior secured first-lien mortgage loans to farmers totaling $2,980,000, with $2,780,000 outstanding at December 31, 2016, under the FPI Loan Program, and we intend to make similar loans in the future. Payments on such loans depend on the profitable operation or management of the farmland or farmland-related property securing the loan. The success of the farmland or farm-related property may be affected by many factors outside the control of the borrower, including adverse weather conditions that prevent the planting of a crop or limit crop yields, declines in market prices for agricultural products (both domestically and internationally) and the impact of government regulations (including changes in price supports, subsidies and environmental regulations). In addition, many farms are dependent on a limited number of key individuals whose injury or death may significantly affect the successful operation of the farm. If the cash flow from a farming operation is diminished, the borrower's ability to repay the loan may be impaired. If a borrower defaults under a mortgage loan for which we are the lender, we may attempt to foreclose on the collateral securing the loan, including by acquiring title to the subject property, to protect our investment. In response, the defaulting borrower may contest our enforcement of foreclosure or other available remedies, seek bankruptcy protection against our exercise of enforcement or other available remedies, or bring claims against us for lender liability. If a defaulting borrower seeks bankruptcy protection, the automatic stay provisions of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code would preclude us from enforcing foreclosure or other available remedies against the borrower unless relief is first obtained from the court with jurisdiction over the bankruptcy case. In addition, we may be subject to intercreditor agreements that delay, impact, govern or limit our ability to foreclose on a lien securing a loan or otherwise delay or limit our pursuit of our rights and remedies. Any such delay or limit on our ability to pursue our rights or remedies could adversely affect our business, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders. In the event of a foreclosure, we may assume direct ownership of the underlying farm. Even if we successfully foreclose on the collateral securing our mortgage loans, foreclosure-related costs, high loan-to-value ratios or declines in property values could prevent us from realizing the full amount of our mortgage loans, and we could be required to record a valuation allowance for such losses.

We may be subject to litigation or threatened litigation, which may divert management time and attention, require us to pay damages and expenses or restrict the operation of our business.

We may be subject to litigation or threatened litigation, including claims relating to the actions of our tenants and otherwise in the ordinary course of business. In particular, we are subject to the risk of complaints by our tenants involving premises liability claims and alleged violations of landlord-tenant laws, which may give rise to litigation or governmental investigations, as well as claims and litigation relating to real estate rights or uses of our properties. Some of these claims may result in significant defense costs and potentially significant judgments against us, some of which are not, or cannot be, insured against. Additionally, whether or not any dispute actually proceeds to litigation, we may be required to devote significant management time and attention to its successful resolution (through litigation, settlement or otherwise), which would detract from our management's ability to focus on our business. Any such resolution could involve the payment of damages or expenses by us, which may be significant, or involve our agreement with terms that restrict the operation of

our business. We generally intend to vigorously defend ourselves; however, we cannot be certain of the ultimate outcomes of those claims that may arise in the future. Resolution of these types of matters against us may result in our having to pay significant fines, judgments, or settlements, which, if uninsured, or if the fines, judgments, and settlements exceed insured levels, could adversely impact our earnings and cash flows, thereby having an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flows and our ability to pay distributions on, and the per share trading price of, our common stock. Certain litigation or the resolution of certain litigation may affect the availability or cost of some of our insurance coverage and could expose us to increased risks that would be uninsured, and/or adversely impact our ability to attract officers and directors, which could adversely impact our results of operations, cash flows and our ability to pay distributions on, and the value of, our common stock.

In connection with the announcement of the entry into the AFCO Merger Agreement, a lawsuit was filed, alleging, among other things, that the AFCO directors breached their duties in connection with the evaluation of the AFCO Mergers and that the Company aided and abetted those breaches of duties.  

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against the directors of AFCO, AFCO, certain affiliates of AFCO and the Company under the caption Parshall v. American Farmland Company et. al . , Case No. 24C16005745. The complaint alleges that the AFCO directors breached their duties to AFCO in connection with the evaluation and approval of the proposed merger with the Company. In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted those breaches of duties. The initial complaint sought equitable relief, including a potential injunction against the AFCO Mergers, but the plaintiffs did not seek further proceedings and the merger has closed.  We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend against those allegations. By virtue of our acquisition of AFCO, we succeeded to any liabilities of AFCO.

We cannot assure you as to the outcome of this pending litigation, or any similar future lawsuits, including costs associated with defending these claims, any other liabilities that may be incurred in connection with the litigation or settlement of these claims, or any effect on our operations.

Liability for uninsured or underinsured losses could adversely affect our financial condition and cash flow.

Our properties may be damaged by adverse weather conditions and natural disasters, such as earthquakes, floods and tornados. Our insurance may not be adequate to cover all damages or losses from these events, or we may view it as not economically prudent to purchase insurance for certain types of losses. Should an uninsured loss occur, we could lose our capital investment or anticipated profits and cash flows from one or more properties. If any such loss is insured, we may be required to pay a significant deductible on any claim for recovery of such a loss prior to our insurer being obligated to reimburse us for the loss, or the amount of the loss may exceed our coverage for the loss, which could have an adverse effect on our cash flow.

Potential liability for environmental matters could adversely affect our financial condition.

We are subject to the risk of liabilities under federal, state and local environmental laws applicable to agricultural properties, including those related to wetlands, groundwater and water runoff. Some of these laws could subject us to:

Environmental site assessments were not conducted on all the farms in our portfolio and we do not expect to conduct environment site assessments on all farms we acquire in the future. Our costs of investigation, remediation or removal of hazardous substances may be substantial. In addition, the presence of hazardous substances on one of our properties, or

the failure to properly remediate a contaminated property, could adversely affect our ability to sell or lease the property or to borrow using the property as collateral. We may be subject to common law claims by third parties based on damages and costs resulting from environmental contamination emanating from the property. Additionally, we could become subject to new, stricter environmental regulations, which could diminish the utility of our properties and have a material adverse impact on our results of operations.

We may be required to permit the owners of the mineral rights on our properties to enter and occupy parts of the properties for the purposes of drilling and operating oil or gas wells, which could adversely impact the rental value of our properties.

Although we own the surface rights to our farms and expect to own the surface rights to properties that we acquire, other persons may own the rights to any minerals, such as oil and natural gas, that may be located under the surfaces of these properties. For example, in connection with our acquisition of the Hudye Farm, we granted the seller 50% of the mineral rights related to the farm. Currently there is no mineral development on the farms in our portfolio, but we can provide no assurances that third parties will not assert claims for mineral rights on the farms in our portfolio or that farmland that we acquire in the future will not be subject to third-party mineral rights. To the extent that third parties have mineral rights on farmland that we currently own or acquire in the future, we expect that we would be required to permit third parties to enter our properties for the purpose of drilling and operating oil or gas wells on the premises. We will also be required to set aside a reasonable portion of the surface area of our properties to accommodate these oil and gas operations. The devotion of a portion of our properties to these oil and gas operations would reduce the amount of the surface available for farming or farm-related uses. Such activities might also disrupt the productivity of the farmland or property related to farming or increase the risk of environmental liabilities, any of which could adversely impact the rents that we receive from leasing these properties.

Increases in mortgage rates or unavailability of mortgage debt may make it difficult for us to finance or refinance our debt, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, growth prospects and our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

If mortgage debt is unavailable to us at reasonable rates or at all, we may not be able to finance the purchase of additional properties or refinance existing debt when it becomes due. If interest rates are higher when we refinance our debt, our income and cash flow could be reduced, which would reduce cash available for distribution to our stockholders and may hinder our ability to raise more capital by issuing more stock or by borrowing more money. In addition, to the extent we are unable to refinance our debt when it becomes due, we will have fewer debt guarantee opportunities available to offer under our tax protection agreement, which could trigger an obligation to indemnify certain parties under the tax protection agreement.

Mortgage debt obligations expose us to the possibility of foreclosure, which could result in the loss of our investment in a property or group of properties subject to mortgage debt.

As of December 31, 2016 and February 23, 2017, we had approximately $309.9 million and $420.5 million, respectively, of outstanding mortgage indebtedness. We intend to finance future property acquisitions, in part, with mortgage indebtedness. Mortgage and other secured debt obligations increase our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property securing any loans for which we are in default. Any foreclosure on a mortgaged property or group of properties could adversely affect the overall value of our portfolio of properties. For tax purposes, a foreclosure on any of our properties that is subject to a nonrecourse mortgage loan would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds, which could hinder our ability to meet the REIT distribution requirements imposed by the Code. Foreclosures could also trigger our tax indemnification obligations under the terms of our tax protection agreement with respect to the sales of certain properties.

Our debt financing agreements restrict our ability to engage in certain business activities, including our ability to incur additional indebtedness, make capital expenditures and make certain investments.

Our existing debt financing agreements contain, and other debt financing agreements we may enter into in the future may contain, customary negative covenants and other financial and operating covenants that, among other things:

Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure

We may be subject to unknown or contingent liabilities related to acquired properties and properties that we may acquire in the future, which could have a material adverse effect on us.

     Properties that we have acquired, including the properties we acquired in the AFCO Mergers, and properties that we may acquire in the future, may be subject to unknown or contingent liabilities for which we may have no recourse, or only limited recourse, against the sellers. In general, the representations and warranties provided under the transaction agreements related to the purchase of properties that we acquire may not survive the completion of the transactions. Furthermore, indemnification under such agreements may be limited and subject to various materiality thresholds, a significant deductible or an aggregate cap on losses. As a result, there is no guarantee that we will recover any amounts with respect to losses due to breaches by the sellers of their representations and warranties. In addition, the total amount of costs and expenses that may be incurred with respect to liabilities associated with these properties may exceed our expectations, and we may experience other unanticipated adverse effects, all of which may materially and adversely affect us.

Conflicts of interest may exist or could arise in the future between the interests of our stockholders and the interests of holders of units in our operating partnership, which may impede business decisions that could benefit our stockholders.

Although holders of our OP units do not have voting rights or the power to direct the Company's affairs, there could be potential conflicts, conflicts of interest may exist or could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our operating partnership or any partner thereof.  As of the date of this Annual Report, Mr. Pittman owned 3.9% of the OP units in our operating partnership. 

Our directors and officers have duties to our company under Maryland law in connection with their management of our company. At the same time, our wholly owned subsidiary, Farmland Partners OP GP, LLC, as the general partner of our operating partnership, has fiduciary duties and obligations to our operating partnership and its limited partners under Delaware law and the partnership agreement in connection with the management of our operating partnership. The general partner's fiduciary duties and obligations as the general partner of our operating partnership may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers to our company. These conflicts of interest could lead to decisions that are not in the best interests of the Company and its stockholders.

Unless otherwise provided for in a partnership agreement, Delaware law generally requires a general partner of a Delaware limited partnership to adhere to fiduciary duty standards under which it owes its limited partners the highest duties of good faith, fairness and loyalty and which generally prohibit such general partner from taking any action or engaging in any transaction as to which it has a conflict of interest. The partnership agreement provides that, in the event of a conflict between the interests of the limited partners of our operating partnership, on the one hand, and the separate interests of our stockholders, on the other hand, the general partner, in its capacity as the general partner of our operating partnership, shall act in the interests of our stockholders and is under no obligation to consider the separate interests of the

limited partners of our operating partnership in deciding whether to cause our operating partnership to take or not to take any actions. The partnership agreement further provides that any decisions or actions not taken by the general partner in accordance with the partnership agreement will not violate any duties, including the duty of loyalty, that the general partner, in its capacity as the general partner of our operating partnership, owes to our operating partnership and its partners.

Additionally, the partnership agreement provides that the general partner will not be liable to our operating partnership or any partner for monetary damages for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived by our operating partnership or any limited partner unless the general partner acted in bad faith and the act or omission was material to the matter giving rise to the loss, liability or benefit not derived. Our operating partnership must indemnify the general partner, us, our directors and officers, officers of our operating partnership and others designated by the general partner from and against any and all claims that relate to the operations of our operating partnership, unless (1) an act or omission of the indemnified person was material to the matter giving rise to the action and either was committed in bad faith or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, (2) the indemnified person actually received an improper personal benefit in money, property or services or (3) in the case of a criminal proceeding, the indemnified person had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. Our operating partnership must also pay or reimburse the reasonable expenses of any such person upon its receipt of a written affirmation of the person's good faith belief that the standard of conduct necessary for indemnification has been met and a written undertaking to repay any amounts paid or advanced if it is ultimately determined that the person did not meet the standard of conduct for indemnification. Our operating partnership will not indemnify or advance funds to any person with respect to any action initiated by the person seeking indemnification without our approval (except for any proceeding brought to enforce such person's right to indemnification under the partnership agreement) or if the person is found to be liable to our operating partnership on any portion of any claim in the action. No reported decision of a Delaware appellate court has interpreted provisions similar to the provisions of the partnership agreement that modify and reduce our fiduciary duties or obligations as the sole member of the general partner or reduce or eliminate our liability for money damages to our operating partnership and its partners, and we have not obtained an opinion of counsel as to the enforceability of the provisions set forth in the partnership agreement that purport to modify or reduce the fiduciary duties that would be in effect were it not for the partnership agreement.

Our charter contains certain provisions restricting the ownership and transfer of our stock that may delay, defer or prevent a change of control transaction that might involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interests.

Our charter contains certain ownership limits with respect to our stock. Our charter, among other restrictions, prohibits the beneficial or constructive ownership by any person of more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our stock, excluding any shares that are not treated as outstanding for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Our Board of Directors, in its sole and absolute discretion, may exempt a person, prospectively or retroactively, from this ownership limit if certain conditions are satisfied.  This ownership limit as well as other restrictions on ownership and transfer of our stock in our charter may:

We could increase the number of authorized shares of stock, classify and reclassify unissued stock and issue stock without stockholder approval, which may delay, defer or prevent a transaction that our stockholders believe to be in their best interests.

Our Board of Directors, without stockholder approval, has the power under our charter to amend our charter to increase or decrease the aggregate number of shares of stock or the number of shares of stock of any class or series that we are authorized to issue. In addition, under our charter, our Board of Directors, without stockholder approval, has the power to authorize us to issue authorized but unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and to classify or reclassify

any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock into one or more classes or series of stock and set the preference, conversion or other rights, voting powers, restrictions, limitations as to dividends and other distributions, qualifications or terms or conditions of redemption for such newly classified or reclassified shares.  As a result, we may issue series or classes of common stock or preferred stock with preferences, dividends, powers and rights, voting or otherwise, that are senior to, or otherwise conflict with, the rights of holders of our common stock. Although our Board of Directors has no such intention at the present time, it could establish a class or series of preferred stock that could, depending on the terms of such series, delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interests.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control, which may discourage third parties from conducting a tender offer or seeking other change of control transactions that could involve a premium price for our common stock or that our stockholders otherwise believe to be in their best interests.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change of control under certain circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of such shares, including:

By resolution of our Board of Directors, we have opted out of the business combination provisions of the MGCL and provided that any business combination between us and any other person is exempt from the business combination provisions of the MGCL, provided that the business combination is first approved by our Board of Directors (including a majority of directors who are not affiliates or associates of such persons). In addition, pursuant to a provision in our bylaws, we have opted out of the control share provisions of the MGCL. However, our Board of Directors may by resolution elect to opt in to the business combination provisions of the MGCL and we may, by amendment to our bylaws, opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL in the future.

Additionally, certain provisions of the MGCL permit our Board of Directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or our bylaws, to implement takeover defenses, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not currently employ. These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for our company or of delaying, deferring, or preventing a change in control of our company under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-current market price. Our charter contains a provision whereby we elect to be subject to the provisions of Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL relating to the filling of vacancies on our Board of Directors.

Our charter, our bylaws and Maryland law also contain other provisions, including the provisions of our charter on removal of directors and the advance notice provisions of our bylaws, that may delay, defer, or prevent a transaction or a change of control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Certain provisions in the partnership agreement may delay or prevent unsolicited acquisitions of us.

Provisions in the partnership agreement may delay, or make more difficult, unsolicited acquisitions of us or changes of our control. These provisions could discourage third parties from making proposals involving an unsolicited acquisition of us or change of our control, although some of our stockholders might consider such proposals, if made, desirable. These provisions include, among others:

Our tax protection agreement could limit our ability to sell or otherwise dispose of certain properties.

In connection with the formation transactions related to our initial public offering, our operating partnership entered into a tax protection agreement that provides that if we dispose of any interest in the protected initial properties in a taxable transaction prior to the fifth (with respect to certain properties) or seventh (with respect to certain other properties) anniversary of the completion of the formation transactions, subject to certain exceptions and unless such obligation terminates sooner under the agreement, we will indemnify Pittman Hough Farms for its tax liabilities attributable to the built-in gain that exists with respect to such property interests as of the time of our initial public offering, and the tax liabilities incurred as a result of such tax protection payment. We also have agreed to use our best efforts to continue to comply with such obligations with respect to those properties subject to the seven-year protection period after the expiration of such period (unless such obligation otherwise was terminated under the agreement). In addition, we may enter into similar tax protection agreements in the future if we issue OP units in connection with the acquisition of properties. Therefore, although it may be in our stockholders' best interests that we sell one of these properties, it may be economically prohibitive for us to do so because of these obligations. Furthermore, for the protected initial properties that have an initial seven-year tax protection period, our best efforts obligation to Pittman Hough Farms significantly limits our ability to dispose of those properties after the initial seven-year tax protection period without payment of the tax indemnification amount to Pittman Hough Farms.

Our Board of Directors may change our strategies, policies and procedures without stockholder approval.

Our investment, financing, leverage and distribution policies, and our policies with respect to all other activities, including growth, capitalization and operations, are determined exclusively by our Board of Directors, and may be amended or revised at any time by our Board of Directors without notice to or a vote of our stockholders. This could result in us conducting operational matters, making investments or pursuing different business or growth strategies than those contemplated in this Annual Report. Further, our charter and bylaws do not limit the amount or percentage of indebtedness, funded or otherwise, that we may incur. Our Board of Directors may alter or eliminate our current policy on borrowing at any time without stockholder approval. If this policy changed, we could become more highly leveraged which could result in an increase in our debt service. Higher leverage also increases the risk of default on our obligations. In addition, a change in our investment policies, including the manner in which we allocate our resources across our portfolio or the types of assets in which we seek to invest, may increase our exposure to interest rate risk, real estate market fluctuations

and liquidity risk. Changes to our policies with regards to the foregoing could materially adversely affect our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited, which could limit your recourse in the event that we take certain actions which are not in our stockholders' best interests.

Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner that he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. Under the MGCL, directors are presumed to have acted with this standard of care. As permitted by Maryland law, our charter eliminates the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

Our charter and bylaws obligate us to indemnify each present and former director or officer, to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law, in the defense of any proceeding to which he or she is made, or threatened to be made, a party by reason of his or her service to us. In addition, we may be obligated to advance the defense costs incurred by our directors and officers. We also have entered into indemnification agreements with our officers and directors granting them express indemnification rights. As a result, we and our stockholders may have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might otherwise exist absent the current provisions in our charter, bylaws and indemnification agreements or that might exist for other public companies.

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our management.

Our charter contains provisions that make removal of our directors difficult, which could make it difficult for our stockholders to effect changes to our senior management and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders. Our charter provides that a director may only be removed for cause upon the affirmative vote of holders of two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast generally in the election of directors. Vacancies may be filled only by a majority of the remaining directors in office, even if less than a quorum. These requirements make it more difficult to change our senior management by removing and replacing directors and may prevent a change in control of our company that is in the best interests of our stockholders.

Our operating partnership may issue additional OP units or one or more classes of preferred units to third parties without the consent of our stockholders, which would reduce our ownership percentage in our operating partnership and could have a dilutive effect on the amount of distributions made to us by our operating partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders.

As of the date of this Annual Report, we owned approximately 83.8% of the outstanding OP units in our operating partnership (on a fully diluted basis). Since our initial public offering, we have issued a total of 7,161,572 OP units and a total of 117,000 preferred units as consideration in connection with our acquisition of properties, and we may issue additional OP units and preferred units of one or more classes in connection with our acquisition of properties, as compensation or otherwise. Such issuances would reduce our ownership percentage in our operating partnership and could affect the amount of distributions made to us by our operating partnership and, therefore, the amount of distributions we can make to our stockholders. Our common stockholders do not have any voting rights with respect to any such issuances or other partnership level activities of our operating partnership.

U.S. Federal Income Tax Risks

Failure to maintain qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes would subject us to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates, which would substantially reduce our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We elected to be taxed as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes beginning with our short taxable year ended December 31, 2014. To maintain qualification as a REIT, we must meet various requirements set forth in the Code concerning, among other things, the ownership of our outstanding stock, the nature of our assets, the sources of our income and the amount of our distributions. The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex, and interpretations of the U.S. federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. We believe that our current organization and method of operation will enable us to continue to qualify, as a REIT. However, at any time, new laws, interpretations or court decisions may change the U.S. federal tax laws relating to, or the U.S. federal income tax consequences of, qualification as a REIT. It is possible that future economic, market, legal, tax or other considerations may cause our Board of Directors to determine that it is not in our best interest to qualify as a REIT and to revoke our REIT election, which it may do without stockholder approval.

If we fail to qualify as a REIT for any taxable year, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates. In addition, we generally would be disqualified from treatment as a REIT for the four taxable years following the year in which we lost our REIT status. Losing our REIT status would reduce our net earnings available for investment or distribution because of the additional tax liability. In addition, distributions would no longer qualify for the dividends paid deduction, and we would no longer be required to make distributions. If this occurs, we might be required to borrow funds or liquidate some investments in order to pay the applicable tax.

As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and would substantially reduce our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

To qualify as a REIT and to avoid the payment of U.S. federal income and excise taxes, we may be forced to borrow funds, use proceeds from the issuance of securities, pay taxable dividends of our stock or debt securities or sell assets to make distributions, which may result in our distributing amounts that may otherwise be used for our operations.

To obtain the favorable tax treatment accorded to REITs, we normally are required each year to distribute to our stockholders at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and by excluding net capital gains. We will be subject to U.S. federal income tax on our undistributed taxable income and net capital gain and to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on any amount by which distributions we pay with respect to any calendar year are less than the sum of (1) 85% of our ordinary income, (2) 95% of our capital gain net income and (3) 100% of our undistributed income from prior years. These requirements could cause us to distribute amounts that otherwise would be spent on acquisitions of properties and it is possible that we might be required to borrow funds, use proceeds from the issuance of securities, pay taxable dividends of our stock or debt securities or sell assets in order to distribute enough of our taxable income to maintain our qualification as a REIT and to avoid the payment of U.S. federal income and excise taxes.

Future sales of properties may result in penalty taxes or may be made through TRSs, each of which would diminish the return to you.

It is possible that one or more sales of our properties may be "prohibited transactions" under provisions of the Code. If we are deemed to have engaged in a "prohibited transaction" ( i.e. , we sell a property held by us primarily for sale in the ordinary course of our trade or business), all income that we derive from such sale would be subject to a 100% tax. The Code sets forth a safe harbor for REITs that wish to sell property without risking the imposition of the 100% tax. A principal requirement of the safe harbor is that the REIT must hold the applicable property for not less than two years prior to its sale for the production of rental income. It is entirely possible that a future sale of one or more of our properties will not fall within the prohibited transaction safe harbor.

If we acquire a property that we anticipate will not fall within the safe harbor from the 100% penalty tax upon disposition, we may acquire such property through a TRS in order to avoid the possibility that the sale of such property will be a prohibited transaction and subject to the 100% penalty tax. If we already own such a property directly or indirectly through an entity other than a TRS, we may contribute the property to a TRS. Though a sale of such property by a TRS likely would mitigate the risk of incurring a 100% penalty tax, the TRS itself would be subject to regular corporate income tax at the U.S. federal level, and potentially at the state and local levels, on the gain recognized on the sale of the property as well as any income earned while the property is operated by the TRS. Such tax would diminish the amount of proceeds from the sale of such property ultimately distributable to our stockholders. Our ability to use TRSs in the foregoing manner is subject to limitation. Among other things, the value of our securities in TRSs may not exceed 25% (20% for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017) of the value of our assets and dividends from our TRSs, when aggregated with all other non-real estate income with respect to any one year, generally may not exceed 25% of our gross income with respect to such year. No assurances can be provided that we would be able to successfully avoid the 100% penalty tax through the use of TRSs.

In addition, if we acquire any asset from a C corporation ( i.e. , a corporation generally subject to full corporate-level tax) in a merger or other transaction in which we acquire a basis in the asset determined by reference either to the C corporation's basis in the asset or to another asset, we will pay tax, at the highest U.S. federal corporate income tax rate, on any built-in gain recognized on a taxable disposition of the asset during the 5-year period after its acquisition. As a result of the manner in which we acquired the Hudye Farm, a subsequent taxable disposition by us of any such assets generally would be subject to the foregoing built-in gain rules.

In certain circumstances, we may be subject to U.S. federal and state income taxes as a REIT, which would reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

Even if we qualify as a REIT, we may be subject to U.S. federal income taxes or state taxes. As discussed above, net income from a "prohibited transaction" will be subject to a 100% penalty tax and built-in gain recognized on the taxable disposition of assets acquired from C corporations in certain non-taxable transactions will be subject to tax at the highest applicable U.S. federal corporate income tax rate. To the extent we satisfy the distribution requirements applicable to REITs, but distribute less than 100% or our taxable income, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates on our undistributed income. We may not be able to make sufficient distributions to avoid excise taxes applicable to REITs. We may also decide to retain capital gains we earn from the sale or other disposition of our properties and pay income tax directly on such income. In that event, our stockholders would be treated as if they earned that income and paid the tax on it directly. However, our stockholders that are tax-exempt, such as charities or qualified pension plans, would have no benefit from their deemed payment of such tax liability. We may also be subject to state and local taxes on our income or property, either directly or at the level of the companies through which we indirectly own our assets. Any U.S. federal or state taxes we pay will reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

The ability of our Board of Directors to revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT qualification without stockholder approval may cause adverse consequences to our stockholders.

Our charter provides that our Board of Directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to qualify as a REIT, we would become subject to U.S. federal income tax on our taxable income at regular corporate rates and would no longer be required to distribute most of our taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to our stockholders.

If our operating partnership were classified as a "publicly traded partnership" taxable as a corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT and would suffer other adverse tax consequences.

We intend for our operating partnership to be treated as a "partnership" for U.S. federal income tax purposes. If the IRS were to successfully assert our operating partnership was “publicly traded,” our operating partnership could be taxable as a corporation if less than 90% of its gross income consisted of certain qualifying passive income. In such event, we likely would fail to qualify as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, and the resulting corporate income tax burden

would reduce the amount of distributions that our operating partnership could make to us. This would substantially reduce the cash available to pay distributions to our stockholders.

Complying with the REIT requirements may cause us to forego otherwise attractive opportunities or sell properties earlier than we wish.

To maintain our qualification as a REIT for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of shares of our stock. We may be required to make distributions to our stockholders at disadvantageous times or when we do not have funds readily available for distribution, or we may be required to forego or liquidate otherwise attractive investments in order to comply with the REIT tests. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of maximizing profits.

You may be restricted from acquiring or transferring certain amounts of our common stock .

Certain provisions of the Code and the stock ownership limits in our charter may inhibit market activity in our capital stock and restrict our business combination opportunities. In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, five or fewer individuals, as defined in the Code, may not own, beneficially or constructively, more than 50% in value of our issued and outstanding stock at any time during the last half of a taxable year. Attribution rules in the Code determine if any individual or entity beneficially or constructively owns our capital stock under this requirement. Additionally, at least 100 persons must beneficially own our capital stock during at least 335 days of a taxable year. To help insure that we meet these tests, our charter restricts the acquisition and ownership of shares of our stock.

Our charter, with certain exceptions, authorizes our Board of Directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT. Unless exempted by our Board of Directors, our charter prohibits any person from beneficially or constructively owning more than 9.8% in value or number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, of the outstanding shares of any class or series of our capital stock. Our Board of Directors may not grant an exemption from these restrictions to any proposed transferee whose ownership in excess of such ownership limit would result in our failing to qualify as a REIT.

Dividends paid by REITs generally do not qualify for the favorable tax rates available for some dividends.

The maximum U.S. federal income tax rate applicable to qualified dividend income paid to U.S. stockholders that are individuals, trusts and estates currently is 20%. Dividends paid by REITs generally are not eligible for such maximum tax rate. Although the favorable tax rates applicable to qualified dividend income do not adversely affect the taxation of REITs or dividends paid by REITs, such favorable tax rates could cause investors who are individuals, trusts and estates to perceive investments in REITs to be relatively less attractive than investments in the stocks of non-REIT corporations that pay dividends, which could adversely affect the value of the shares of REITs, including our common stock.

Changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws, including the enactment of certain proposed tax reform measures, could have an adverse impact on our business and financial results.

Numerous changes to the U.S. federal income tax laws are proposed regularly.  Moreover, legislative and regulatory changes may be more likely in the 115th Congress because the Presidency and such Congress will be controlled by the same political party and significant reform of the Code has been described publicly as a legislative priority.  Additionally, the REIT rules are constantly under review by persons involved in the legislative process and by the IRS and the U.S. Treasury Department, which may result in revisions to regulations and interpretations in addition to statutory changes.  If enacted, certain such changes could have an adverse impact on our business and financial results.  For example, certain proposals set forth in Trump administration and House Republican tax plans could reduce the relative competitive advantage of operating as a REIT unless accompanied by responsive changes to the REIT rules.  These proposals include: the lowering of income tax rates on individuals and corporations, which could ease the burden of double taxation on corporate dividends and make the single level of taxation on REIT distributions relatively less attractive; allowing the expensing of capital expenditures, which could have a similar impact and also could result in the bunching of taxable income and required distributions for REITs; and further limiting or eliminating the deductibility of interest expense, which could disrupt the real estate market and could increase the amount of REIT taxable income that must be distributed as dividends to shareholders. 

We cannot predict whether, when or to what extent new U.S. federal tax laws, regulations, interpretations or rulings will be issued, nor is the long-term impact of proposed tax reforms on the real estate investment industry or REITs clear.  Prospective investors are urged to consult their tax advisors regarding the effect of potential changes to the U.S. federal tax laws on an investment in our shares.

Legislative or regulatory action with respect to taxes could adversely affect the returns to our stockholders.

In recent years, numerous legislative, judicial and administrative changes have been made in the provisions of the U.S. federal income tax laws applicable to investments similar to an investment in our common stock. Additional changes to the tax laws are likely to continue to occur, and we cannot assure you that any such changes will not adversely affect the taxation of a stockholder. Any such changes could have an adverse effect on an investment in our stock or on the market value or the resale potential of our assets. You are urged to consult with your own tax advisor with respect to the impact of recent legislation on your investment in our stock and the status of legislative, regulatory or administrative developments and proposals and their potential effect on an investment in shares of our common stock.

Risks Related to the Market for Our Common Stock

We may be unable to make distributions at expected levels, which could result in a decrease in the market price of our common stock.

We intend to continue to pay regular quarterly distributions to our stockholders. All distributions will be made at the discretion of our Board of Directors and will be based upon, among other factors, our historical and projected results of operations, financial condition, cash flows and liquidity, maintenance of our REIT qualification and other tax considerations, capital expenditure and other expense obligations, debt covenants, contractual prohibitions or other limitations and applicable law and such other matters as our Board of Directors may deem relevant from time to time. If sufficient cash is not available for distribution from our operations, we may have to fund distributions from working capital, borrow to provide funds for such distributions, or reduce the amount of such distributions. To the extent we borrow to fund distributions, our future interest costs would increase, thereby reducing our earnings and cash available for distribution from what they otherwise would have been. If cash available for distribution generated by our assets is less than our current estimate, or if such cash available for distribution decreases in future periods from expected levels, our inability to make the expected distributions could result in a decrease in the market price of our common stock.

We are an "emerging growth company," and we cannot be certain if the reduced disclosure requirements applicable to emerging growth companies will make shares of our common stock less attractive to investors.

In April 2012, President Obama signed into law the JOBS Act. The JOBS Act contains provisions that, among other things, relax certain reporting requirements for "emerging growth companies," including certain requirements relating to accounting standards and compensation disclosure. We are classified as an emerging growth company. For as long as we are an emerging growth company, which may be until December 31, 2019, we may take advantage of exemptions from various reporting and other requirements that are applicable to other public companies that are not emerging growth companies, including the requirements to:

Although the JOBS Act allows us to take advantage of the exemption from complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards applicable to public companies until such standards are also applicable to private companies, we have irrevocably elected not to take advantage of the extension of time to comply with new or revised financial accounting standards under Section 102(b) of the JOBS Act.

We cannot predict if investors will find shares of our common stock less attractive because we will not be subject to the same reporting and other requirements as other public companies. If some investors find shares of our common stock less attractive as a result, there may be a less active trading market for our common stock, and the per share trading price of our common stock could decline and may be more volatile.

The market price and trading volume of our common stock may be highly volatile and low, respectively.

The stock markets, including the New York Stock Exchange (the “NYSE”), on which our common stock is listed, historically have experienced significant price and volume fluctuations. As a result, the market price of our common stock is likely to be similarly volatile, and investors in our common stock may experience a decrease in the value of their shares, including decreases unrelated to our operating performance or prospects. The price of our common stock could be subject to wide fluctuations in response to a number of factors, including those listed in this "Risk Factors" section of this Annual Report and others such as:

In the past, securities class action litigation has often been instituted against companies following periods of volatility in the price of their common stock. This type of litigation could result in substantial costs and divert our management's attention and resources, which could have a material adverse effect on us, including our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow and the per share trading price of our common stock.

The number of shares of our common stock available for future issuance or sale may have adverse effects on the market price of our common stock.

As of December 31, 2016, approximately 17.4 million shares of our common stock were outstanding. In addition, as of the date of this Annual Report, other than the OP units held by us, approximately 6.2 million OP units in our operating partnership were outstanding, 3,013,216 of which currently may be tendered for redemption by the holders, for cash, or at our option, for shares of our common stock, on a one-for-one basis. We have registered the issuance of 3,013,126 of the shares issuable upon redemption of OP units, and we intend to register the issuance of additional shares that may be issued upon redemption of OP units so that such shares will be freely tradable under the securities laws.

We cannot predict whether future issuances or sales of shares of our common stock or the availability of shares for resale in the open market will decrease the per share trading price per share of our common stock. The per share trading price of our common stock may decline significantly when we register the shares of our common stock issuable upon redemption of outstanding OP units.

Future offerings of debt, which would be senior to our common stock upon liquidation, preferred equity securities, which may be senior to our common stock for purposes of dividend distributions or upon liquidation, and OP units in connection with future acquisitions may materially adversely affect us, including the per share trading price of our common stock.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities (or causing our operating partnership to issue debt securities), including medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes and classes or series of preferred stock. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will be entitled to receive payments prior to distributions to the holders of our common stock. Additionally, any convertible or exchangeable securities that we issue in the future may have rights, preferences and privileges more favorable than those of our common stock and may result in dilution to owners of our common stock. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. Our preferred stock, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend payments that could limit our ability to pay dividends to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk that our future offerings could reduce the per share trading price of our common stock and dilute their interest in us. In addition, the issuance of OP units in connection with future acquisitions and the redemption of such OP units for common stock may be dilutive to our stockholders and could have an adverse effect on the per share trading price of our common stock.

An increase in market interest rates may have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

One of the factors that investors may consider in deciding whether to buy or sell our common stock is our distribution yield, which is our distribution rate as a percentage of our share price, relative to market interest rates. If market interest rates increase, prospective investors may desire a higher distribution yield on our common stock or may seek securities paying higher dividends or interest. The market price of our common stock likely will be based primarily on the earnings that we derive from rental income with respect to our properties and our related distributions to stockholders, and not from the underlying appraised value of the properties themselves. As a result, interest rate fluctuations and capital market conditions are likely to affect the market price of our common stock, and such effects could be significant. For instance, if interest rates rise without an increase in our distribution rate, the market price of our common stock could decrease because potential investors may require a higher distribution yield on our common stock as market rates on interest-bearing securities, such as bonds, rise.

On October 26, 2016, a purported class action lawsuit was filed in the Circuit Court for Baltimore County, Maryland against the directors of AFCO, AFCO, certain affiliates of AFCO and the Company under the caption Parshall v. American Farmland Company et. al . , Case No. 24C16005745. The complaint alleges that the AFCO directors breached their duties to AFCO in connection with the evaluation and approval of the proposed merger with the Company. In addition, the complaint alleges, among other things, that the Company aided and abetted those breaches of duties. The initial complaint sought equitable relief, including a potential injunction against the AFCO Mergers, but the plaintiffs did not seek further proceedings and the merger has closed.  We believe the allegations in the complaint are without merit and intend to defend against those allegations. By virtue of our acquisition of AFCO, we succeeded to any liabilities of AFCO.

Stock Performance Graph

     The following graph compares the total stockholder return of our common stock (assuming reinvestment of dividends) against the cumulative returns of the Standard & Poor’s Corporation Composite 500 Index and the SNL Financial REIT Index, or the SNLUS REITs for the period from April 16, 2014, the date of the initial listing of our common stock on the NYSE MKT to December 31, 2016. Our common stock began trading on the NYSE on September 8, 2015.

Distribution Information

Since our initial quarter as a publicly traded REIT, we have made regular quarterly distributions to our stockholders. We intend to continue to declare quarterly distributions. However, we cannot provide any assurance as to the amount or timing of future distributions.

Our ability to make distributions in the future will depend upon our actual results of operations and earnings, economic conditions and other factors that could differ materially from our current expectations. Our actual results of operations will be affected by a number of factors, including the revenue we receive from our properties, our operating expenses, interest expense, the ability of our tenants to meet their obligations and unanticipated expenditures. For more information regarding risk factors that could materially adversely affect our actual results of operations, see "Risk Factors." Any future distributions will be authorized by our Board of Directors in its sole discretion out of funds legally available therefor and will be dependent upon a number of factors, including restrictions under applicable law, the capital requirements of our company and the distribution requirements necessary to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT. We may be required to fund distributions from working capital or borrow to provide funds for such distributions, or we may choose to make a portion of the required distributions in the form of a taxable stock dividend to preserve our cash balance or reduce our distribution.

In order to maintain qualification as a REIT, we must distribute to our stockholders, on an annual basis, at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, determined without regard to the deduction for dividends paid and excluding net capital gains. In addition, we will be subject to U.S. federal income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income (including net capital gains) and will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax on the amount by which our distributions in any calendar year are less than a minimum amount specified under applicable U.S. federal income tax laws. We intend to distribute our net income to our stockholders in a manner intended to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid any U.S. federal income tax liability on our income and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. We anticipate that our estimated cash available for distribution will exceed the annual distribution requirements applicable to REITs. However, under some circumstances, we may be required to use cash reserves, incur debt or liquidate assets at rates or times that we regard as unfavorable or make a taxable distribution of our shares in order to satisfy the REIT 90% distribution requirement and to avoid U.S. federal income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax. 

We anticipate that, from time to time, our distributions will exceed our then current and accumulated earnings and profits for the relevant taxable year, as determined for U.S. federal income tax purposes, due to non-cash expenses such as certain stock-based compensation and depreciation and amortization. Therefore, a portion of our distributions may represent a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes. The extent to which our distributions exceed our current and accumulated earnings and profits may vary substantially from year to year. To the extent a distribution is treated as a return of capital for U.S. federal income tax purposes, it will reduce a stockholder's adjusted tax basis in the holder's shares and, to the extent it exceeds the holder's adjusted tax basis, will be treated as gain resulting from a sale or exchange of such shares. As a result, the gain (or loss) recognized on a sale of that common stock or upon our liquidation would be increased (or decreased) accordingly.

Stockholder Information

     As of February 23, 2017, there were approximately 61 holders of record of our common stock. However, because many shares of our common stock are held by brokers and other institutions on behalf of stockholders, we believe there are substantially more beneficial holders of our common stock than record holders. As of February 23, 2017, there were approximately 27 holders (other than our company and management) of our OP units. Our OP units are redeemable for cash or, at our election, for shares of our common stock, on a one-for-one basis.  As of February 23, 2017, there were six holders of our Preferred Units.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Share Repurchase Program

     On October 29, 2014, our Board of Directors approved a program to repurchase up to $10 million in shares of our common stock. Repurchases under this program may be made from time to time, in amounts and prices as the Company deems appropriate.  Repurchases may be made in open market or privately negotiated transactions in compliance with Rule 10b-18 under the Exchange Act, subject to market conditions, applicable legal requirements, trading restrictions under our insider trading policy, and other relevant factors. This share repurchase program does not obligate us to acquire any particular amount of common stock, and it may be modified or suspended at any time at the Company’s discretion. We expect to fund repurchases under the program using cash on its balance sheet. As of December 31, 2016, we had repurchased 2,130 shares at an average price per share of $9.81 for a total cost of $20,932, including fees.  The following table represents the activity from the fourth quarter of 2016 under the repurchase program: