ITEM 1A. RISK FACTORS

Risks associated with our industry

The proliferation of payment options other than cash, including credit cards, debit cards, stored-value debit cards, and mobile payments options could result in a reduced need for cash in the marketplace and a resulting decline in the usage of our ATMs.

The U.S., the U.K., and other developed markets have seen a shift in consumer payment trends since the late 1990’s, with more customers now opting for electronic forms of payment (e.g., credit cards and debit cards) for their in-store purchases over traditional paper-based forms of payment (e.g., cash and checks). Additionally, some merchants offer free cash back at the point-of-sale (“POS”) for customers that utilize debit cards for their purchases, thus providing an additional incentive for consumers to use these cards. According to the Nilson Report issued in December 2017, the percentage of cash transaction counts in the U.S. declined from approximately 32.9% of all payment transactions in 2011 to approximately 26.2% in 2016, with declines also seen in check usage as credit, debit, and stored-value debit card transactions increased. However, in terms of absolute dollar value, the volume of cash used in payment transactions remained relatively flat at $1.6 trillion from 2011 to 2016. On a same-store basis, we have generally seen a single-digit percentage rate of decline in the number of cash withdrawal transactions conducted on our U.S.-based and U.K.-based ATMs during the last 12-24 months. Additionally, with the January 6, 2017 completion of the acquisition of DCPayments, we now have substantial business operations in Canada and Australia. Our operations in both of these markets have experienced declining ATM transactions on a same-store basis over the last twelve months, with Australia experiencing a higher rate of transaction decline. The continued growth in electronic payment methods, such as mobile phone payments or contactless payments, could result in a reduced need for cash in the marketplace and ultimately, a decline in the usage of ATMs. New payment technology, such as Venmo, Zelle, and virtual currencies such as Bitcoin, or other new payment method preferences by consumers could reduce the general population’s need or demand for cash and negatively impact our transaction volumes in the future. The proliferation of payment options and changes in consumer preferences and usage behavior could reduce the need for cash and have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Interchange fees, which comprise a substantial portion of our transaction revenues, may be lowered in some cases at the discretion of the various EFT networks through which our transactions are routed, or through potential regulatory changes, thus reducing our future revenues and operating profits.

Interchange fees, which represented 33% of our total ATM operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017, are set by the various EFT networks and major interbank networks through which the transactions conducted on our ATMs are routed. These fees vary from one network to the next. As of December 31, 2017, approximately 4% of our total ATM operating revenues were subject to pricing changes by U.S. networks over which we currently have limited influence or where we have no ability to offset pricing changes through lower payments to merchants. During the year ended December 31, 2017,  19% of our consolidated ATM operating revenues were derived from interchange revenues in the U.K. In the U.K., the significant majority of the interchange revenues we earn are based on rates set by LINK, the major interbank network in that market. The remainder of reported interchange revenue reflects transaction-based revenues where we have contractually agreed to the rate with the associated network or financial institution. Accordingly, if some of the networks through which our ATM transactions are routed were to reduce the interchange rates paid to us or increase their transaction fees charged to us for routing transactions across their network, our future transaction revenues could decline.

In past years, certain networks have reduced the net interchange rates paid to ATM deployers for ATM transactions in the U.S. routed across their debit networks through a combination of reducing the transaction rates charged to financial institutions and higher per transaction fees charged by the networks to ATM operators. In addition to the impact of the net interchange rate decrease, we saw certain financial institutions migrate their volume away from some networks to take advantage of the lower pricing offered by other networks, resulting in lower net interchange rates per transaction to us.

Additionally, some consumer groups in the U.S. have expressed concern that consumers using an ATM may not be aware that, in addition to paying the surcharge fee that is disclosed to them at the ATM, their financial institution may also assess an additional fee with regard to that consumer’s transaction. These fees are sometimes referred to as “foreign bank

fees” or “out of network fees.” While there are currently no pending legislative actions calling for limits on the amount of interchange fees that can be charged by the EFT networks to financial institutions for ATM transactions or the amount of fees that financial institutions can charge to their customers to offset their interchange expense, there can be no assurance that such legislative actions will not occur in the future. Any potential future network or legislative actions that affect the amount of interchange fees that can be assessed on a transaction may adversely affect our revenues.

Our U.K.-based revenues are significantly impacted by interchange rates, with the majority of our interchange revenues in that market being earned through the LINK network. In previous years, LINK has set interchange rates for its participants using a cost-based methodology that incorporates ATM service costs, generally from two years back (i.e., operating costs from 2015 were considered for determining the 2017 interchange rate) and, as a result, the interchange rate can vary year-to-year based on the output of the cost-based study. We have seen the LINK interchange rate move both up and down based on the results of the cost study. In addition to LINK transactions, certain card issuers in the U.K. have issued cards that are not affiliated with the LINK network, and instead carry the Visa or MasterCard network brands. Transactions conducted on our ATMs from these cards, which currently represent approximately 2% of our annual withdrawal transactions in the U.K., receive interchange fees that are set by Visa or MasterCard, respectively. The interchange rates set by Visa and MasterCard have historically been less than the rates that have been established by LINK. Accordingly, if any major financial institution in the U.K. decided to leave the LINK network in favor of Visa, MasterCard, or another network, and we elected to continue to accept the transactions of their cardholders, such a move could reduce the interchange revenues that we currently receive from the related withdrawal transactions conducted on our ATMs in that market. Recently, some of the major financial institutions that participate in LINK expressed concern about the LINK interchange rate and commenced efforts to significantly lower the interchange rate. During 2017, a group of members of LINK (the “Working Group”) worked to develop a new interchange rate setting mechanism. After several months of analysis and discussion, the Working Group was unable to reach a recommended amended approach that was satisfactory to its participants, and as a result of this outcome, along with governance recommendations by the Bank of England, in October 2017, it was decided that an independent board of LINK (“LINK Board”) would recommend interchange rates going forward. On November 1, 2017, the LINK Board announced that it had reached some tentative recommendations, subject to further comment by the LINK members. On January 31, 2018 the LINK Board issued an update and determined that interchange rates would decrease by 5% from 2017 levels, effective July 1, 2018. From January 1, 2018 through June 30, 2018, the interchange rates will be slightly reduced as a result of adjustments made to the interchange rates based on the former cost-based methodology. Additionally, the LINK Board announced the intention to further reduce the interchange rate by three further annual 5% reductions, subject to further considerations including impact to consumers and operating costs, such as interest and regulatory compliance. There are certain carve-out provisions which allow for higher interchange rates, in special circumstances, which are intended to support the continued existence of free-to-use ATMs. Relative to 2017, we expect that this change in approach will adversely impact our operating income by approximately $7 million to $8 million in 2018 and likely a greater amount in future years.

Based on the updated interchange rates being implemented by the LINK Board, including the stated intent to further reduce the interchange rate, we expect further reductions in our profits in this market beyond 2018. Additionally, should there be a significant change in the LINK scheme or its membership, our U.K. interchange revenues and profits could be adversely impacted.

Future changes in interchange rates, some of which we have minimal or no control over, could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

We operate in a changing and unpredictable regulatory environment, which may harm our business. If we are subject to new regulations or legislation regarding the operation of our ATMs, we could be required to make substantial expenditures to comply with that regulation or legislation, which may reduce our net income and our profit margins.

With its initial roots in the banking industry, the U.S. ATM industry is regulated by the rules and regulations of the federal Electronic Funds Transfer Act, which establishes the rights, liabilities, and responsibilities of participants in EFT systems. The vast majority of states have few, if any, licensing requirements. However, legislation related to the U.S. ATM industry is periodically proposed at the state and local level. In past years, certain members of the U.S. Congress called for a re-examination of fees that are charged for an ATM transaction, although no legislation was passed relative to these matters. As a part of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (“Dodd-Frank Act”), the Consumer

Financial Protection Bureau was created, and it is possible that this governmental agency could enact new or modify existing regulations that could have a direct or indirect impact on our business. For additional information related to this topic, see the risk factor entitled The passage of legislation banning or limiting the fees we receive for transactions conducted on our ATMs would severely impact our revenues and our operations below.

The Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) requires that ATMs be accessible to and independently usable by individuals with disabilities, such as visually-impaired or wheel-chair bound persons. The U.S. Department of Justice issued accessibility regulations under the ADA that became effective in March 2012. While we maintain a compliance effort to ensure our ATMs meet these requirements, it is possible that in the future similar regulations may require us to make substantial expenditures and we may be forced to replace and or stop operating such ATMs until such time as compliance has been achieved.

Additionally, we have been subject to litigation in the past claiming discrimination against certain groups. For example, the National Federation of the Blind (the “NFB”) sought to require us to ensure that all of our ATMs are voice-guided. Effective May 2015, we entered into an amended and restated settlement agreement (the “New Agreement”) with the NFB and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to resolve outstanding issues arising out of an earlier settlement agreement that pre-dated the issuance of the 2012 ADA accessibility regulations. This New Agreement provides for a process utilizing a court-appointed special master to certify compliance with accessibility features, such as voice guidance and braille stickers, as set forth in either the 2012 ADA regulations or the New Agreement. The New Agreement also calls for monitoring our compliance in the deployment and maintenance of such features on our ATMs and imposes prescribed liquidated damages if we fail to meet any specific requirement. Should we fail to meet the terms of the New Agreement, we could incur significant liquidated damages.

In the U.K., the ATM industry has historically been largely self-regulating. Most ATMs in the U.K. are part of the LINK network and must operate under the network rules set forth by LINK, which operates under the oversight of the Bank of England and its regulatory capacity. In March 2013, the U.K. Treasury department issued a formal recommendation to further regulate the U.K. payments industry, including LINK, the nation’s primary ATM scheme. In October 2013, the U.K. government responded by establishing the new Payment Systems Regulator (“PSR”) to oversee any payment system operating in the U.K. and its participants. The new PSR became active in 2015. The PSR commissioned a review of LINK, which has resulted in several outcomes, including a separation of the processing component of LINK which required us to separately enter into new agreements for certain operational services. See the risk factor entitled Interchange fees, which comprise a substantial portion of our transaction revenues, may be lowered in some cases at the discretion of the various EFT networks through which our transactions are routed, or through potential regulatory changes, thus reducing our future revenues above.

We are also subject to various regulations in other jurisdictions that we operate in, including Germany, Poland, Spain, Ireland, Mexico, and Canada, and more recently, with the completion of the acquisitions in January 2017, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. Due to the numerous regulations in the jurisdictions in which we operate, there is substantial risk to ensuring consistent compliance with the existing regulatory requirements in those jurisdictions. To the extent we are not successful in complying with the new or existing regulations, non-compliance may have an impact on our ability to continue operating in such jurisdictions or adversely impact our profits. In addition, new legislation proposed in any of the jurisdictions in which we operate, or adverse changes in the laws that we are subject to, may materially affect our business through the requirement of additional expenditures to comply with that legislation or other direct or indirect impacts on our business. If regulatory legislation is passed in any of the jurisdictions in which we operate, we could be required to incur substantial expenditures or suffer adverse changes in our business which would reduce our net income.

The broad introduction of free-to-use ATMs in Australia may adversely impact our revenues and profits.

In September 2017, Australia’s four largest banks, the Commonwealth Bank of Australia (“CBA”), Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited (“ANZ”), Westpac Banking Corporation (“Westpac”), and National Australia Bank Limited (“NAB”), each independently announced decisions to remove all direct charges applied to domestic transactions completed at their respective ATM networks effectively creating a free-to-use network of ATM terminals that did not exist previously. This unexpected market shift appears to have been instigated by a decision and announcement by CBA to remove direct charges to all users of its ATMs, regardless of whether or not the users are customers of the bank. Shortly

thereafter, ANZ, Westpac, and NAB followed with announcements and actions removing direct charges on their ATM networks for all users of their ATMs.

Australia has historically been a direct charge market where cardholders pay a fee (the “direct charge”) to ATM operators for each transaction, unless the ATM where the transaction is completed is part of the cardholder’s issuing bank ATM network. There is currently no broad interchange arrangement in Australia between card issuers and ATM operators to compensate ATM operators for the cost of providing a service to cardholders in the absence of a direct charge levied on the cardholder directly. In 2017, 81.4% of our revenues in Australia were sourced from direct charge fees paid by cardholders. As a result, this introduction of free-to-use ATMs in Australia may adversely impact our revenues and profits.

We are continuing to evaluate the impact that this unexpected market shift will have on our Australian ATM transaction volumes and associated revenues in the near-term, as well as potential strategic implications for a broader market adoption of free-to-use ATMs in Australia similar to those in other markets in which we operate. In September 2017, we determined that these developments were to be an indicator of impairment of our Australia & New Zealand reporting unit and related long-lived assets. As further discussed in Part I. Financial Information, Item I. Financial Statements, Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting – (l) Intangibles Other and Goodwill, and (m) Goodwill , we recorded an impairment of certain assets in our Australia & New Zealand reporting unit as of September 30, 2017.

Security breaches, including the occurrence of a cyber-incident or a deficiency in our cybersecurity,   could harm our business by compromising merchant and cardholder information and disrupting our transaction processing services, thus damaging our relationships with our merchant customers, business partners, and generally exposing us to liability.

As part of our transaction processing services, we electronically process and transmit cardholder information. We and our vendors are subjected to cyber-attacks, including accidental or intentional computer or network issues (such as unauthorized parties gaining access to our information technology systems, phishing attacks, viruses, malware installation, server malfunction, software or hardware failures, impairment of data integrity, loss of data or other computer assets, adware, or other similar issues), none of which to date have resulted in any material disruption, interruption, or loss. Our vulnerability to attack and our vendors vulnerability to attack exists in relation to known threats, against which we work to implement and maintain what we consider to be adequate security controls, as well as threats which we can’t protect against as they are unknown. As a consequence, the security measures we deploy are not perfect or impenetrable, despite our investment in and maintenance of security controls, we may be unable to anticipate or prevent all unauthorized access attempts made on our systems.

A vulnerability in the cybersecurity of our systems or one or more of our vendors systems (which include among other things cloud based networks and services outside of the control of the Company) could impair or shut down one or more of our computing systems, transaction processing systems or our IT network and infrastructure, we may suffer harm from our customers, our business partners, the press, and the public at large. Furthermore, companies that process and transmit cardholder information have been specifically and increasingly targeted in recent years by sophisticated and persistent actors including hacktivists, organized criminal groups, and nation states in an effort to obtain information and utilize it for fraudulent transactions or other purposes. It is also possible that a cyber-attack or information security breach could occur and persist for an extended period of time without detection. We expect that any investigation of a cyber-attack would be inherently unpredictable and that it would take time before the completion of any investigation and before there is availability of full and reliable information. During such time we may not necessarily know the extent of the harm or how best to remediate it, and certain errors or actions could be repeated or compounded before they are discovered and remediated, all or any of which would further increase the costs and consequences of a cyber-attack.

The technical and procedural controls we and our partners use to provide security for storage, processing and transmission of confidential customer and other information may not be effective to protect against data security breaches or other cyber incidents. The risk of unauthorized circumvention of our security measures has been heightened by advances in computer capabilities and the increasing sophistication of hackers. Unauthorized access to our computer systems, or those of our third-party service providers, could result in the theft or publication of the information or the deletion or modification of sensitive records, and could cause interruptions in our operations. Any inability to prevent security

breaches could damage our relationships with our merchant and financial institution customers, cause a decrease in transactions by individual cardholders, expose us to liability including claims from merchants, financial institutions, and cardholders, and subject us to network fines.

Further, we could be forced to expend significant resources in response to a security breach, including repairing system damage and increasing cybersecurity protection costs by deploying additional personnel, each of which could divert the attention of our management and key personnel away from our business operations. These claims also could result in protracted and costly litigation. If unsuccessful in defending that litigation, we might be forced to pay damages and/or change our business practices.

While many of our agreements with partners and third party vendors contain indemnification provisions and we maintain insurance intended to cover some of these risks, such measures may not be sufficient to cover all of our losses from any future breaches of our systems.

We have a history of making acquisitions and investments which expose us to additional risk associated with the integration of the information systems. We may not adequately identify weaknesses in an acquired entity’s information systems either before or after an acquisition, which could affect the value we are able to derive from the acquisition, expose us to unexpected liabilities or make our own systems more vulnerable to a cyber-attack. We may also not be able to integrate the systems of the businesses we acquire in a timely manner which could further increase these risks until such integration takes place.

As a global company, the cross border movement of data increases our exposure to cybersecurity threats. This cross border data movement must be managed in accordance with an ever changing compliance landscape and the development of cybersecurity guidance and best practice and while we have and will continue to invest in the protection of our systems and the maintenance of what we believe to be adequate security controls over individually identifiable customer, employee and vendor data provided to us, there can be no assurance that we will not suffer material losses relating to cyber-attacks or other security breaches involving our information systems in the future. In addition, we could be impacted by existing and proposed laws and regulations, as well as government policies and practices related to cybersecurity, privacy, and data protection across the various jurisdictions in which we operate. An actual security breach or cyber-incident could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows and costs to remediate any damages to our information technology systems suffered as a result of a cyber-attack could be significantly over and above any obligations arising from any penalties imposed by any regulatory or supervisory authority including in connection with General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”).  

Computer viruses or unauthorized software (malware) could harm our business by disrupting or disabling our transaction processing services, causing noncompliance with network rules, damaging our relationships with our merchant and financial institution customers, and damaging our reputation causing a decrease in transactions by individual cardholders.

We routinely face cyber and data security threats through computer viruses, malware, attachments to emails, persons inside our organization or persons with access to systems inside our organization and other significant disruptions of our IT networks and related systems (“System Threats”). One of these System Threats could infiltrate our systems and disrupt our delivery of services, cause delays or loss of data or public releases of confidential data or make our applications unavailable, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and our operations and cash flows. Although we utilize several preventative and detective security controls in our network, we have from time to time experienced System Threats to our data and systems, including but not limited to computer viruses, unauthorized parties gaining access to our information technology systems and similar incidents, none of which to date have resulted in any material disruption, interruption or loss. The preventative and detective security controls have been and may in the future be ineffective in preventing System Threats and material consequences arising from any such event occurring could damage our relationships with our merchant and financial institution customers, cause a decrease in transactions by individual cardholders, cause our reputation to be damaged, require us to make significant expenditures to repair or replace equipment, or cause us to be in non-compliance with applicable network rules and regulations.

Regulatory, legislative or self-regulatory/standard developments regarding privacy and data security matters could adversely affect our ability to conduct our business.

We, along with our partners and customers in the financial services area, are subject to a number of laws and regulations. These laws, rules and regulations address a range of issues including data privacy and cyber security, and restrictions or technological requirements regarding the collection, use, storage, protection, retention or transfer of data.

In the U.S., the rules and regulations to which we (directly or contractually through our banking partners or our marketers) may be subject include those promulgated under the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, the Gramm Leach Bliley Act and state cybersecurity and breach notification laws, as well as regulator enforcement positions and expectations.

The European Union (“E.U.”) courts determined in late 2015 that the Safe Harbor mechanism which facilitated data sharing between the E.U. and the U.S. was not in fact compliant with the E.U. data protection regulations, requiring a new robust mechanism, the Privacy Shield. The E.U. authorities agreed to new General Data Protection Regulations (“GDPR”) in 2016. The GDPR provides heightened rights for individuals and increased sanctions for non-compliance with regulations. GDPR provides the supervisory authority with the power to impose administrative fines of the greater of (a) €10 million or 2% of global annual revenue from the prior year if it is determined that non-compliance was related to technical measures such as impact assessments, breach notifications and certifications; or (b) €20 million or 4% of global annual turnover in the case of non-compliance with key provisions of the GDPR including non-adherence to the core principles of processing personal data, infringement of the rights of data subjects and the transfer of personal data to third countries or international organizations that do not ensure an adequate level of data protection.

Additionally, the GDPR further introduces measures that will make data processing and sharing between our European-based businesses and our other businesses more difficult. As required by the GDPR, we have appointed a Data Protection Officer to oversee and supervise our compliance with European data protection regulations.

Such government regulation (together with applicable industry standards) may increase the costs of doing business. Federal, state, municipal and foreign governments and agencies have adopted and could in the future adopt, modify, apply or enforce laws, policies, regulations, and standards covering user privacy, data security, technologies such as cookies that are used to collect, store and/or process data, marketing online, the use of data to inform marketing, the taxation of products and services, unfair and deceptive practices, and the collection (including the collection of information), use, processing, transfer, storage and/or disclosure of data associated with unique individual internet users. New regulation or legislative actions regarding data privacy and security could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

The ATM industry is highly competitive and such competition may increase, which may adversely affect our profit margins.

The ATM business is and can be expected to remain highly competitive. Our principal direct competition comes from independent ATM companies and financial institutions in all of the countries in which we operate. Our competitors could prevent us from obtaining or maintaining desirable locations for our ATMs, cause us to reduce the revenue generated by transactions at our ATMs, or cause us to pay higher merchant fees, thereby reducing our profits. In addition to our current competitors, new and less traditional competitors may enter the market or we may face additional competition associated with alternative payment mechanisms and emerging payment technologies. Increased competition could result in transaction fee reductions, reduced gross margins, and loss of market share. As a result, the failure to effectively adapt our organization, products, and services to the market could significantly reduce our offerings to gain market acceptance, could significantly reduce our revenue, increase our operating costs, or otherwise adversely impact our operations and cash flows.

The passage of legislation banning or limiting the fees we receive for transactions conducted on our ATMs would severely impact our revenues and our operations.

Despite the nationwide acceptance of surcharge fees at ATMs in the U.S. since their introduction in 1996, consumer activists have from time to time attempted to impose local bans or limits on surcharge fees. Even in the few instances where these efforts have passed the local governing body (such as with an ordinance adopted by the city of Santa Monica,

California), U.S. federal courts have overturned these local laws on federal preemption grounds. Although Section 1044 of the Dodd-Frank Act contains a provision that will limit the application of federal preemption with respect to state laws that do not discriminate against national banks, federal preemption will not be affected by local municipal laws, where such proposed bans or limits often arise. Additionally, some U.S. federal officials have expressed concern in previous years that surcharge fees charged by banks and non-bank ATM operators are unfair to consumers. We rely on transaction-based revenues in each of our markets and any regulatory fee limits that could be imposed on our transactions may have an adverse impact on our revenues and profits. If legislation were to be enacted in the future in any of our markets, and the amount we were able to charge consumers to use our ATMs was reduced, our revenues and related profitability would be negatively impacted. Furthermore, if such limits were set at levels that are below our current or future costs to operate our ATMs, it would have a material adverse impact on our ability to continue to operate under our current business model and adversely impact our revenues and cash flows.

Potential new currency designs may require modifications to our ATMs that could impact our cash flows.  

In the action styled: American Council of the Blind, et. al., v. Timothy F. Geithner, Secretary of the Treasury (Case #1:02-cv-00864) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (the “Court”) an order was entered that found that U.S. currencies (as currently designed) violated the Rehabilitation Act, a law that prohibits discrimination in government programs on the basis of disability, as the paper currencies issued by the U.S. are identical in size and color, regardless of denomination. As a consequence of this ruling, the U.S. Treasury stated in its semi-annual status report filed with the Court in September 2012, that the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (“BEP”) was making progress towards implementing the Secretary’s decision to provide meaningful access to paper currency by: “(i) adding a raised tactile feature to each Federal Reserve note that the BEP may lawfully redesign, (ii) continuing the BEP’s program of adding large high-contrast numerals and different colors to each denomination that it may lawfully redesign, and (iii) implementing a supplemental currency reader distribution program for blind and other visually impaired U.S. citizens and legal residents.” Of these three steps only the first materially affects the ATM industry. The BEP continues to research the raised tactile feature and is engaged in testing samples in conjunction with the Banknote Equipment Manufactures program; however, previous comments from the U.S. Treasury suggest that raised tactile features on currency are not expected to be in circulation prior to 2020. Until a selection is made and disclosed by the BEP, the impact, if any, a raised tactile feature will have on the ATM industry, remains unknown. It is possible that such a change could require us to incur additional costs, which could be substantial, to modify our ATMs in order to store and dispense notes with raised or other tactile features.

Additionally, polymer notes were introduced by the Bank of England in 2016 and will be further circulated through 2020. The introduction of these new currency designs has required upgrades to software and physical ATM components on our ATMs in the U.K. Upgrades may result in incremental downtime and incremental capital investments for the affected ATMs. To date, we have not experienced any material adverse financial or operational impact as a result of the new requirements to handle these new notes but we have not yet completed the upgrade of our ATMs. The Reserve Bank of Australia (or “RBA”) has also begun issuing redesigned banknotes beginning with the $5 and $10 Australian dollar banknotes in September 2016 and 2017. The new $50 Australian dollar banknote is expected to enter circulation in October 2018. We expect that the RBA will continue issuing redesigned banknotes in additional denominations in subsequent years. The redesigned banknotes include a raised tactile feature to help the blind and visually impaired community distinguish between different denominations of banknotes and a top-to-bottom clear window in which the banknote is transparent. The new banknotes will require upgrades to the software and physical ATM components on our ATMs in Australia, and until all denominations of the banknotes have been released and are available for testing, we may not be able to determine the full upgrade requirements and related costs. Any required upgrades to our ATM machines could require us to incur additional cost, which could be substantial and have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Risks associated with our business

We depend on ATM and financial services transaction fees for substantially all of our revenues, and our revenues and profits would be reduced by a decline in the usage of our ATMs or a decline in the number of ATMs that we operate, whether as a result of global economic conditions or otherwise.  

Transaction fees charged to cardholders and their financial institutions for transactions processed on our ATMs and multi-function financial services kiosks, including surcharge and interchange transaction fees, have historically accounted for most of our revenues. We expect that transaction fees, including fees we receive through our bank-branding and surcharge-free network offerings, will continue to account for the substantial majority of our revenues for the foreseeable future. Consequently, our future operating results will depend on many factors, including: (i) the market acceptance of our services in our target markets, (ii) the level of transaction fees we receive, (iii) our ability to install, acquire, operate, and retain ATMs, (iv) usage of our ATMs by cardholders, and (v) our ability to continue to expand our surcharge-free and other automated consumer financial services offerings. If alternative technologies to our services are successfully developed and implemented, we may experience a decline in the usage of our ATMs. Surcharge rates, which are largely market-driven and are negotiated between us and our merchant partners, could be reduced over time. Further, growth in surcharge-free ATM networks and widespread consumer bias toward these networks could adversely affect our revenues, even though we maintain our own surcharge-free offerings. Many of our ATMs are utilized by consumers that frequent the retail establishments in which our ATMs are located, including convenience stores, gas stations, malls, grocery stores, drug stores, airports, train stations, and other large retailers. If there is a significant slowdown in consumer spending, and the number of consumers that frequent the retail establishments in which we operate our ATMs declines significantly, the number of transactions conducted on those ATMs, and the corresponding transaction fees we earn, may also decline. Additionally, should banks increase the fees they charge to their customers when using an ATM outside of their network (i.e. out of network or foreign bank fees), this would effectively make transactions at our ATM more expensive to consumers and could adversely impact our transaction volumes and revenues. Alternatively, should banks or other ATM operators decrease or eliminate the fees they charge to users of their ATMs in any of our markets, such action would make transactions at our ATM comparatively more expensive to consumers and could adversely impact our transaction volumes and revenues. A decline in usage of our ATMs by cardholders, in the levels of fees received by us in connection with this usage, or in the number of ATMs that we operate, would have a negative impact on our revenues and cash flows and would limit our future growth potential.

We derive a substantial portion of our revenue from ATMs placed with a small number of merchants. The expiration, termination or renegotiation of any of these contracts with our top merchants, or if one or more of our top merchants were to cease doing business with us, or substantially reduce its dealings with us, could cause our revenues to decline significantly and our business, financial condition and results of operations could be adversely impacted.

For the year ended   December 31, 2017,   our contracts with our top five merchant customers (7-Eleven, Walgreens, CVS, Co-op Food (in the U.K.), and Speedway ) accounted for approximately 30.9% of our total revenues inclusive of our 7-Eleven relationship in the U.S. which accounted for 12.5% of our total revenues. Excluding 7-Eleven, which we expect to account for less than 1% of our total revenues in 2018, the next top four customers together comprised approximately 18.4% of our total revenues in 2017. The 7-Eleven ATM placement agreement in the U.S. expired in July 2017, and, as of December 31, 2017, most of the associated ATM operations had been transitioned to the new service provider. We expect the transition to be complete during the first quarter of 2018. As a result, the termination of the 7-Eleven relationship in the U.S, has had and will continue to have, a significant negative impact on our income from operations and cash flows compared to previously reported periods.

Because a significant percentage of our future revenues and operating income depends upon the successful continuation of our relationship with our top merchant customers, the loss of any of our largest merchants, a decision by any one of them to reduce the number of our ATMs placed in their locations, or a decision to sell or close their locations could result in a decline in our revenues or otherwise adversely impact our business operations. To the extent there is consolidation or contraction within our primary retailer partners, and as a part of that consolidation or contraction, the retailers decide to reduce their store footprint, such an event could materially impact our revenues and profits. Furthermore, if their financial conditions were to deteriorate in the future, and as a result, one or more of these merchants was required to close a significant number of their store locations, our revenues would be significantly impacted. Additionally, these

merchants may elect not to renew their contracts when they expire. As of December 31, 2017, the contracts we have with our four largest merchant customers, excluding 7-Eleven in the U.S., had a weighted average remaining life of approximately 3.8 years.

Even if our major contracts are extended or renewed, the renewal terms may be less favorable to us than the current contracts. If any of our largest merchants enters bankruptcy proceedings and rejects its contract with us, fails to renew its contract upon expiration, or if the renewal terms with any of them are less favorable to us than under our current contracts, it could result in a decline in our revenues and profits and have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Deterioration in global credit markets, as well as changes in legislative and regulatory requirements, could have a negative impact on financial institutions that we conduct business with.

We have a significant number of customer and vendor relationships with financial institutions in all of our key markets, including relationships in which those financial institutions pay us for the right to place their brands on our ATMs. Additionally, we rely on a small number of financial institution partners to provide us with the cash that we maintain in our Company-owned ATMs and some of our merchant-owned ATMs. Volatility in the global credit markets, such as that experienced in 2008 to 2009, may have a negative impact on those financial institutions and our relationships with them. In particular, if the liquidity positions of the financial institutions with which we conduct business deteriorate significantly, these institutions may be unable to perform under their existing agreements with us. If these defaults were to occur, we may not be successful in our efforts to identify new bank-branding partners and vault cash providers, and the underlying economics of any new arrangements may not be consistent with our current arrangements. Furthermore, if our existing bank-branding partners or vault cash providers are acquired by other institutions with assistance from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), or placed into receivership by the FDIC, it is possible that our agreements may be rejected in part or in their entirety.

We rely on third-parties to provide us with the cash we require to operate many of our ATMs. If these third-parties were unable or unwilling to provide us with the necessary cash to operate our ATMs, we would need to locate alternative sources of cash to operate our ATMs or we would not be able to operate our business.

In North America, we rely primarily on Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Elan (a division of U.S. Bancorp), and Capital One to provide us with the vault cash that we use in approximately 44,000 of our ATMs where cash is not provided by the merchant. In Europe & Africa, we rely primarily on RBS, HSBC, Barclays, Absa Bank, and Capitec Bank to provide us with the vault cash that we use in approximately 21,000 of our ATMs. In Australia and New Zealand, we rely primarily on ANZ and NAB to provide us with the vault cash that we use in approximately 4,000 of our ATMs. For the quarter ended December 31, 2017, we had an average outstanding vault cash balance of approximately $2.3 billion held in our North America ATMs, approximately $1.4 billion in our ATMs in Europe and Africa and approximately  $250 million in our ATMs in Australia and New Zealand.

Our existing vault cash rental agreements expire at various times through March 2021. However, each provider has the right to demand the return of all or any portion of its cash at any time upon the occurrence of certain events, including certain bankruptcy events of us or our subsidiaries, or a breach of the terms of our vault cash provider agreements. Other key terms of our agreements include the requirement that the vault cash providers provide written notice of their intent not to renew. Such notice provisions typically require a minimum of 180 to 360 days’ notice prior to the actual termination date. If such notice is not received, then the contracts will typically automatically renew for an additional one-year period.

If our vault cash providers were to demand return of their cash or terminate their arrangements with us and remove their cash from our ATMs, or if they fail to provide us with cash as and when we need it for our operations, our ability to operate our ATMs would be jeopardized, and we would need to locate alternative sources of vault cash or potentially suffer significant downtime of our ATMs. In the event this was to happen, the terms and conditions of the new or renewed agreements could potentially be less favorable to us, which would negatively impact our results of operations. Furthermore, restrictions on access to cash to fill our ATMs could severely restrict our ability to keep our ATMs operating, and could subject us to performance penalties under our contracts with our customers. A significant reduction in access to the necessary cash to operate our ATMs could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

We rely on EFT network providers, transaction processors, bank sponsors, armored courier providers, and maintenance providers to provide services to our ATMs. If some of these providers that service a significant number of our ATMs fail or otherwise cease, consolidate, or no longer agree to provide their services, we could suffer a temporary loss of transaction revenues, incur significant costs or suffer the permanent loss of any contract with a merchant or financial institution affected by such disruption in service.

We rely on EFT network providers and have agreements with various transaction processors, armored courier providers, and maintenance providers. These service providers enable us to provide card authorization, data capture, settlement, cash management and delivery, and maintenance services to our ATMs. Typically, these agreements are for periods of two or three years each. If we are unable to secure the renewal or replacement of any expiring vendor contracts, or a key vendor fails or otherwise ceases to provide the services for which we have contracted and disruption of service to our ATMs occurs, our relationship with those merchants and financial institutions affected by the disrupted ATM service could suffer.

While we have more than one provider for each of the critical services that we rely on third-parties to perform, certain of these providers currently provide services to or for a significant number of our ATMs. Although we believe we would be able to transition these services to alternative service providers, this could be a time-consuming and costly process. In the event one or more of such service providers was unable to deliver services to us, we could suffer a significant disruption in our business, which could result in a material adverse impact to our financial results. Furthermore, any disruptions in service in any of our markets, whether caused by us or by third-party providers, may result in a loss of revenues under certain of our contractual arrangements that contain minimum service-level requirements and could result in a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

If we, our transaction processors, our EFT networks or other service providers experience system failures, the products and services we provide could be delayed or interrupted, which would harm our business.

Our ability to provide reliable service largely depends on the efficient and uninterrupted operations of our EFT transaction processing platforms, third-party transaction processors, telecommunications network systems, and other service providers. Accordingly, any significant interruptions could severely harm our business and reputation and result in a loss of revenues and profits. Additionally, if any interruption is caused by us, especially in those situations in which we serve as the primary transaction processor, such interruption could result in the loss of the affected merchants and financial institutions, or damage our relationships with them. Our systems and operations and those of our transaction processors and our EFT network and other service providers could be exposed to damage or interruption from fire, natural disaster, unlawful acts, terrorist attacks, power loss, telecommunications failure, unauthorized entry, and computer viruses, among other things. We cannot be certain that any measures we and our service providers have taken to prevent system failures will be successful or that we will not experience service interruptions. Should a significant system failure occur, it could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Our armored transport business exposes us to additional risks beyond those currently experienced by us in the ownership and operation of ATMs.

Our armored courier operation in the U.K. delivers cash to and collects residual cash from our ATMs in that market. As of December 31, 2017, we were providing armored courier services to approximately  14,900  of our ATMs in that market and we currently intend to further expand that operation to service additional ATMs. The armored transport business exposes us to significant risks, including the potential for cash-in-transit losses, employee theft, as well as claims for personal injury, wrongful death, worker’s compensation, punitive damages, and general liability. While we seek to prevent the occurrence of these risks and we maintain appropriate levels of insurance to adequately protect us from these risks, there can be no assurance that we will avoid significant future claims or adverse publicity related thereto. Furthermore, there can be no assurance that our insurance coverage will be adequate to cover potential liabilities or that insurance coverage will remain available at costs that are acceptable to us. The availability of quality and reliable insurance coverage is an important factor in our ability to successfully operate this aspect of our operations. A loss claim for which insurance coverage is denied or that is in excess of our insurance coverage could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations and cash flows.

Operational failures in our EFT transaction processing facilities could harm our business and our relationships with our merchant and financial institution customers.

An operational failure in our EFT transaction processing facilities could harm our business and damage our relationships with our merchant and financial institution customers. Damage, destruction, or third-party actions that interrupt our transaction processing services could also cause us to incur substantial additional expense to repair or replace damaged equipment and could damage our relationship with our customers. We have installed back-up systems and procedures to prevent or react to such disruptions. However, a prolonged interruption of our services or network that extends for more than several hours (i.e., where our backup systems are not able to recover) could result in data loss or a reduction in revenues as our ATMs would be unable to process transactions. In addition, a significant interruption of service could have a negative impact on our reputation and could cause our present and potential merchant and financial institution customers to choose alternative service providers, as well as subject us to fines or penalties related to contractual service agreements and ultimately cause a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

If we fail to adapt our products and services to changes in technology or in the marketplace, or if our ongoing efforts to upgrade our technology are not successful, we could lose customers or have difficulty attracting new customers, which would adversely impact our revenues and our operations.

The markets for our products and services are characterized by constant technological changes, frequent introductions of new products and services and evolving industry standards. Due to a variety of factors, including but not limited to security features, compatibility between systems and software and hardware components, consumer preferences, industry standards, and other factors, we regularly update the technology components, including software, on our ATMs. These technology upgrade efforts, in some cases, may result in downtime to our ATMs, and as a result, loss of transactions and revenues. Additionally, our ability to enhance our current products and services and to develop and introduce innovative products and services that address the increasingly sophisticated needs of our customers will significantly affect our future success. Our ability to take advantage of opportunities in the market may require us to invest considerable resources adapting our organization and capabilities to support development of products and systems that can support new services or be integrated with new technologies and incur other expenses in advance of our ability to generate revenue from these products and services. These developmental efforts may divert resources from other potential investments in our businesses, management time and attention from other matters, and these efforts may not lead to the development of new products or services on a timely basis. We may not be successful in developing, marketing or selling new products and services that meet these changing demands. In addition, we may experience difficulties that could delay or prevent the successful development, introduction or marketing of these products and services, or our new products and services and enhancements may not adequately meet the demands of the marketplace or achieve market acceptance.

Recently, Microsoft announced a plan to end technology support and patches for a series of Windows-based operating systems, including Windows 7, which is currently in use on a large number of our ATMs. Microsoft has stated that it will end support for Windows 7, starting in January 2020. As a large number of our ATMs currently operate on Windows 7, we expect to upgrade our fleet, starting primarily in 2019. While we are currently in the process of evaluating the cost to upgrade the ATMs that could be impacted, we expect that this cost could be significant to us and may elevate our capital expenditures, in particular during 2019. Additionally, we could experience downtime at some of our ATMs as we perform upgrades, which could adversely impact revenues and profits.

If we are unsuccessful in offering products or services that gain market acceptance, it could have an adverse impact on our ability to retain existing customers or attract new ones, which could have a material adverse effect on our revenues and our operations.

Errors or omissions in the settlement of merchant funds could damage our relationships with our merchant customers and expose us to liability.

We are responsible for maintaining accurate bank account information for certain of our merchant customers and accurate settlements of funds into these accounts based on the underlying transaction activity. This process relies on precise and authorized maintenance of electronic records. Although we have controls in place to help ensure the safety and accuracy of our records, errors or unauthorized changes to these records could result in the erroneous or fraudulent movement of funds, thus damaging our relationships with our merchant customers and exposing us to liability and potentially resulting in a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Changes in interest rates could increase our operating costs by increasing interest expense under our credit facilities and our vault cash rental costs.

Interest on amounts borrowed under our revolving credit facility is based on a floating interest rate, and our vault cash rental expense is based primarily on floating interest rates. As a result, our interest expense and cash management costs are sensitive to changes in interest rates. We pay a monthly fee on the average outstanding vault cash balances in our ATMs under floating rate formulas based on a spread above various LIBOR in the U.S., and the U.K. In Germany and Spain, the rate is based on the Euro Interbank Offered Rate (commonly referred to as “Euribor”). In Mexico, the rate is based on the Interbank Equilibrium Interest Rate (commonly referred to as the “TIIE”), in Canada, the rate is based on the Bank of Canada’s Bankers Acceptance Rate and the Canadian prime rate, and in Australia, the formula is based on the Bank Bill Swap Rates (“BBSY”). Although we currently hedge a portion of our vault cash interest rate risk related to our operations in the U.S. through December 31, 2022 by using interest rate swap contracts, we may not be able to enter into similar arrangements for similar amounts in the future. We have also entered into interest rate swap contracts in the U.K. through December 31, 2022 and in Australia through February 2019 to hedge a portion of our vault cash interest rate risk in those markets. Any significant future increases in interest rates could have a negative impact on our earnings and cash flow by increasing our operating costs and expenses. For additional information, see Part II. Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk - Interest Rate Risk.

We maintain a significant amount of vault cash within our Company-owned ATMs, which is subject to potential loss due to theft or other events, including natural disasters.

For the quarter ended December 31, 2017, our average outstanding vault cash balance was approximately $3.9 billion in our ATMs. Any loss of vault cash from our ATMs is generally our responsibility. We typically require that our service providers, who either transport the vault cash or otherwise have access to the ATM safe, maintain adequate insurance coverage in the event cash losses occur as a result of theft, misconduct, or negligence on the part of such providers. Cash losses at the ATM occur in a variety of ways, such as natural disaster (hurricanes, flooding, tornadoes, etc.), fires, vandalism, and physical removal of the entire ATM, defeating the interior safe or by compromising the ATM’s technology components. Because our ATMs are often installed at retail sites, they face exposure to attempts of theft and vandalism. Thefts of vault cash may be the result of an individual acting alone or as a part of a crime group. We have experienced theft of vault cash from our ATMs across the geographic regions in which we operate and have at times removed ATMs from service to enhance security features. While we maintain insurance policies to cover a significant portion of any losses that may occur that are not covered by the insurance policies maintained by our service providers, such insurance coverage is subject to deductibles, exclusions, and limitations that may leave us bearing some or all of those losses. Significant vault cash losses could result in a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Any increase in the frequency and/or amounts of theft and other losses could negatively impact our operating results by causing higher deductible payments and increased insurance premiums. Certain ATM types have recently been susceptible to coordinated ATM attacks, known as ‘jackpotting’, which generally involves a physical compromise of the ATM which causes the ATM to dispense cash without proper authorization and can be controlled remotely in certain types of these attacks. While we maintain a controls program across many fronts to prevent and quickly detect unauthorized ATM access and theft attempts, there can be no assurance that a significant jackpotting attack attempt could occur on our portfolio. Additionally, we have seen an increase in attacks and vault cash losses in our U.K. business, in particular. Should these losses continue at an elevated or increasing rate, it could adversely impact our results and impact our ability to obtain insurance for the vault cash used on our ATMs. Also, damage sustained to our merchant customers’ store locations in

connection with any ATM-related thefts, if extensive and frequent enough in nature, could negatively impact our relationships with those merchants and impair our ability to deploy additional ATMs in those existing or new locations of those merchants. Certain merchants have requested, and could request in the future, that we remove ATMs from store locations that have suffered damage as a result of ATM-related thefts, thus negatively impacting our financial results. Finally, we have in the past, and may in the future, voluntarily remove vault cash from certain ATMs on a temporary or permanent basis to mitigate further losses arising from theft or vandalism. Depending on the magnitude and duration of any cash removal, our revenues and profits could be materially and adversely affected.

The election of our merchant customers to not participate in our surcharge-free network offerings could impact the effectiveness of our offerings, which would negatively impact our financial results.

Financial institutions that are members of the Allpoint network pay a fee in exchange for allowing their cardholders to use selected Company-owned and/or managed ATMs on a surcharge-free basis. The success of the Allpoint network is dependent upon the participation by our merchant customers in that network. In the event a significant number of our merchants elect not to participate in that network, the benefits and effectiveness of the network would be diminished, thus potentially causing some of the participating financial institutions to not renew their agreements with us, and thereby negatively impacting our financial results.

We may be unable to effectively integrate our future acquisitions, which could increase our cost of operations, reduce our profitability, or reduce our shareholder value.

We have been an active business acquirer and expect to continue to be active in the future. The acquisition and integration of businesses involves a number of risks. The core risks are in the areas of valuation (negotiating a fair price for the business based on inherently limited due diligence) and integration (managing the complex process of integrating the acquired company’s personnel, products, processes, technology, and other assets so as to realize the projected value of the acquired company and the synergies projected to be realized in connection with the acquisition).

The process of integrating operations is time consuming and could cause an interruption of, or loss of momentum in, the activities of one or more of our combined businesses and the possible loss of key personnel. The diversion of management’s attention from day-to-day operations, any delays or difficulties encountered in connection with acquisitions, and the integration of the companies’ operations could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition or prospects. The difficulties of integration may be increased by the necessity of coordinating geographically dispersed organizations, integrating personnel with disparate business backgrounds, and combining different corporate cultures. Further, if we cannot successfully integrate an acquired company’s internal control over financial reporting, the reliability of our consolidated financial statements may be impaired and we may not be able to meet our reporting obligations under applicable law. Any such impairment or failure could cause investor confidence and, in turn, the market price of our common shares, to be materially adversely affected.

In addition, even if we are able to integrate acquired businesses successfully, we may not realize the full benefits of the cost efficiency or synergies, or other benefits that we anticipated when selecting our acquisition candidates or that these benefits will be achieved within a reasonable period of time. We may be required to invest significant capital and resources after an acquisition to maintain or grow the business that we acquire. Further, acquired businesses may not achieve anticipated revenues, earnings, or cash flows. Any shortfall in anticipated revenues, earnings, or cash flows could require us to write down the carrying value of the intangible assets associated with any acquired company, which would adversely affect our reported earnings.

Since we were incorporated as Cardtronics Group, Inc. in 2001, we have acquired numerous ATM businesses, a surcharge-free ATM network, a technology product offering that complements our surcharge-free offering, an ATM installation company in the U.K., a Scotland-based provider and developer of marketing and advertising software and services for ATM owners, a U.K.-based provider of secure cash logistics and ATM maintenance, and a transaction processor in the U.S. We have made acquisitions to obtain the assets of deployed ATM networks and the related businesses and their infrastructure, as well as for strategic reasons to enhance the capability of our ATMs and expand our service offerings. We currently anticipate that our future acquisitions, if any, will likely reflect a mix of asset acquisitions and acquisitions of businesses, with each acquisition having its own set of unique characteristics. In the future, we may acquire

businesses outside of our traditional areas, which could introduce new risks and uncertainties. To the extent that we elect to acquire an existing company or the operations, technology, and the personnel of the company, we may assume some or all of the liabilities associated with the acquired company and face new and added challenges integrating such acquisition into our operations.

On January 6, 2017, we completed the acquisition of DCPayments with significant operations in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and the U.K. As further discussed in Part I. Financial Information, Item I. Financial Statements, Note 1. Basis of Presentation and Summary of Significant Accounting – (l) Intangibles Other and Goodwill, and (m) Goodwill , we recorded a material impairment related to the Australia operation as a result of an unexpected change in the market.

The failure to successfully implement enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) and other associated information systems changes could adversely impact our business and results of operations.

The Company is in the process of implementing new enterprise resource planning and related information systems in order to better manage its business.  This implementation requires the commitment of significant personnel and financial resources, and entails risks to business operations. If we do not successfully implement our new ERP and related information systems changes, or if there are delays or difficulties in implementing these systems, we may not realize anticipated productivity improvements or cost efficiencies, and may experience interruptions in service and other operational difficulties that hinder our ability to effectively manage our business.  If we do not complete the implementation of the ERP timely and successfully, we may incur additional costs associated with completing this project, delaying its benefits and adversely impacting our financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in many sovereign jurisdictions across the globe and expect to continue to grow our business in new regions. Operating in different countries involves special risks and our geographic expansion may not be successful, which would result in a reduction of our gross and net profits.

Upon completion of the DCPayments acquisition on January 6, 2017 and the Spark acquisition on January 31, 2017, we have operations in the U.S., the U.K., Germany, Spain, Ireland, Mexico, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and South Africa. We expect to continue to expand in the countries in which we currently operate, and potentially into other countries as opportunities arise. We currently report our consolidated results in U.S. dollars and under generally accepted accounting principles in the U.S. (“U.S. GAAP” or “GAAP”) and expect to do so for the foreseeable future. Operating in various distinct jurisdictions presents a number of risks, including:

Any of these factors could have a material adverse impact on us and reduce the revenues and profitability derived from our international operations and thereby adversely impact our consolidated operations and cash flows.

The exit of the U.K. from the European Union could adversely affect us and our shareholders.

On March 29, 2017, the U.K. government officially triggered Article 50 of the Treaty on the European Union, which commenced the process for the U.K. to exit the European Union. As a significant portion of our operations are located in the U.K. and our parent company is incorporated in the U.K., we face potential risks associated with the exit process and effects and uncertainties around its implementation. The exit process is to be completed over a two-year time period during which the U.K. and the remaining E.U. member states will negotiate a withdrawal agreement. As it relates to our redomicile into the U.K., the exit process from the E.U. and implementation of the resulting changes could materially and adversely affect the tax, tax treaty, currency, operational, legal, and regulatory regime as well as the macro-economic environment in which we operate. In relation to our other European operations and businesses, we face similar risks. The effect of any of these risks, were they to materialize, is difficult to quantify, but could materially increase our operating and compliance costs and materially affect our tax position or business, results of operations, and financial position. Further, uncertainty around the form and timing of any withdrawal agreement could lead to adverse effects on the economy of the U.K., other parts of Europe, and the rest of the world, which could have an adverse economic impact on our operations.

We derive a significant portion of our revenues and profits from bank-branding relationships with financial institutions. A decline in these revenues as a result of changes in financial institution demand for this service may have a significant negative impact to our results.

Bank-branding drives a significant portion of our revenues, and if this product offering were to become less attractive to financial institutions whereby we lost a significant amount of existing contracts, it could have a material impact on our revenues and profits. In addition, consolidations within the banking industry may impact our bank-branding relationships as existing bank-branding customers are acquired by other financial institutions, some of which may not be existing bank-branding customers. Our bank-branding contracts could be adversely affected by such consolidations.

If we experience additional impairments of our goodwill or other intangible assets, we will be required to record a charge to earnings, which may be significant.

We have a large amount of goodwill and other intangible assets and are required to perform periodic assessments for any possible impairment for accounting purposes. We periodically evaluate the recoverability and the amortization period of our intangible assets under U.S. GAAP. Some of the factors that we consider to be important in assessing whether or not impairment exists include the performance of the related assets relative to the expected historical or projected future operating results, significant changes in the manner of our use of the assets or the strategy for our overall business, and significant negative industry or economic trends. These factors and assumptions, and any changes in them, could result in an impairment of our goodwill and other intangible assets.

During September 2017, we recognized impairments of our goodwill, other intangible assets and other long-lived assets of $140.0 million, $54.5 million, and $19.0 million, respectively, in our Australia & New Zealand reporting unit. We also recognized charges of $2.5 million related to inventory in our Australia and New Zealand reporting unit. See the risk factor entitled The introduction of free-to-use ATMs in Australia may adversely impact our revenues and profits above for additional information regarding the market changes that resulted in this impairment. As of December 31, 2017 we had goodwill and other intangible assets of $774.9 million and $209.9 million, respectively, of which $12.7 million of goodwill and $29.5 million of other intangible assets, respectively, were held by our Australia & New Zealand reporting unit.

In the event we determine our goodwill or amortizable intangible assets are further impaired in the future, we may be required to record a significant charge to earnings in our consolidated financial statements, which would negatively impact our results of operations and that impact could be material.

We may accumulate excess or obsolete inventory or assets that cannot be used or re-deployed, which could result in unanticipated write-downs and adversely affect our financial results.

As a result of the 2017 EMV upgrade and the loss of our largest customer 7-Eleven, which occurred mostly during the last five months of 2017, we now have a substantial number of ATMs, approximately 5,000, as of December 31, 2017, that are not currently in service, yet have remaining net carrying value. To the extent we are not able to re-deploy the assets, we may in future periods incur write-downs of these and other assets which could materially, adversely affect our business, results of operations, and stockholders’ equity.

We have a significant amount of indebtedness, which may adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to operate our business, remain in compliance with debt covenants, and make payments on our indebtedness.

As of December 31, 2017, our outstanding indebtedness was $917.7 million, which represents 70.2% of our total book capitalization of $1.3 billion. Our indebtedness could have important consequences. For example, it could:

Any of these factors could materially and adversely affect our business, results of operations, and cash flows. We cannot assure shareholders that our business will generate sufficient cash flow from operations or that future borrowings, including those under our credit facilities, will be available in an amount sufficient to pay our indebtedness. If we do not have sufficient earnings or capital resources to service our debt, we may be required to refinance all or part of our existing debt, sell assets, borrow more money, delay investment and capital expenditures, or sell equity or debt securities, none of which we can guarantee we will be able to do on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

The terms of our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes may restrict our current and future operations, particularly our ability to respond to changes in our business or to take certain actions.

Our credit agreement and the indentures governing our senior notes include a number of covenants that, among other items, restrict or limit our ability to:

In addition, we are required by our credit agreement to adhere to certain covenants and maintain specified financial ratios. While we currently have the ability to borrow the full amount available under our credit agreement, as a result of

these ratios, we may be limited in the manner in which we conduct our business in the future and may be unable to engage in favorable business activities or finance our future operations or capital needs. Accordingly, these restrictions may limit our ability to successfully operate our business and prevent us from fulfilling our debt obligations. A failure to comply with the covenants or financial ratios could result in an event of default. In the event of a default under our credit agreement, the lenders could exercise a number of remedies, some of which could result in an event of default under the indentures governing the senior notes. An acceleration of indebtedness under our credit agreement would also likely result in an event of default under the terms of any other financing arrangement we have outstanding at the time. If any or all of our debt were to be accelerated, we cannot assure shareholders that our assets would be sufficient to repay our indebtedness in full. If we are unable to repay any amounts outstanding under our bank credit facility when due, the lenders will have the right to proceed against the collateral securing our indebtedness. Such actions could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows. For additional information related to our credit agreement and indentures, see Part II. Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations - Liquidity and Capital Resources - Financing Facilities.

The fundamental change and make-whole fundamental change provisions associated with our $250.0 million of 1.00% Convertible Senior Notes due December 2020 (“Convertible Notes”) may delay or prevent an otherwise beneficial takeover attempt of us.

The fundamental change purchase rights, which will allow holders of our Convertible Notes to require us to purchase all or a portion of their notes upon the occurrence of a fundamental change, and the provisions requiring an increase to the conversion rate for conversions in connection with certain other circumstances may delay or prevent a takeover of us or the removal of current management that might otherwise be beneficial to investors.

We may not have the ability to raise the funds necessary to pay the amount of cash due upon conversion of the Convertible Notes, if relevant, or upon the occurrence of a fundamental change as described in our convertible indentures, and our debt may contain limitations on our ability to pay cash upon conversion or required purchase of the Convertible Notes.

Upon the occurrence of a fundamental change, holders of our Convertible Notes may require us to purchase, for cash, all or a portion of their Convertible Notes at a fundamental change purchase consideration specified within the convertible note indentures. There can be no assurance that we will have sufficient financial resources, or will be able to arrange financing, to pay the fundamental change purchase consideration if holders submit their Convertible Notes for purchase by us upon the occurrence of a fundamental change or to pay the amount of cash (if any) due if holders surrender their Convertible Notes for conversion. In addition, the occurrence of a fundamental change may cause an event of default under agreements governing us or our subsidiaries’ indebtedness. Agreements governing any future debt may also restrict our ability to make any of the required cash payments even if we have sufficient funds to make them. Furthermore, our ability to purchase the Convertible Notes or to pay cash (if any) due upon the conversion of the Convertible Notes may be limited by law or regulatory authority. In addition, if we fail to purchase the Convertible Notes or to pay the amount of cash (if any) due upon conversion of the Convertible Notes, we will be in default under the indenture. A default under the indenture or the fundamental change itself could also lead to a default under agreements governing our other indebtedness, which in turn may result in the acceleration of other indebtedness we may then have. If the repayment of the other indebtedness were to be accelerated, we may not have sufficient funds to repay that indebtedness and to purchase the Convertible Notes or to pay the amount of cash (if any) due upon conversion.

Noncompliance with established EFT network rules and regulations could expose us to fines and penalties and could negatively impact our results of operations. Additionally, new EFT network rules and regulations could require us to expend significant amounts of capital to remain in compliance with such rules and regulations.

Our transactions are routed over various EFT networks to obtain authorization for cash disbursements and to provide account balances. These networks include Star, Pulse, NYCE, Cirrus (MasterCard), and Plus (Visa) in the U.S., and LINK in the U.K., among other networks. We utilize various other EFT networks in our other geographic locations. EFT networks set the interchange fees that they charge to the financial institutions, as well as the amounts paid to us. Additionally, EFT networks, including MasterCard and Visa, establish rules and regulations that ATM providers, including ourselves, must comply with in order for member cardholders to use those ATMs. Failure to comply with such rules and regulations could

expose us to penalties and/or fines, which could negatively impact our financial results. Furthermore, compliance may in certain instances require capital expenditure. The p ayment networks rules and regulations are generally subject to change and they may modify their rules and regulations from time to time. Our inability to react to changes in the rules and regulations or the interruption or application thereof, may result in the substantial disruption of our business.

In October 2016, MasterCard commenced a liability shift for U.S. ATM transactions on EMV-issued cards used at non-EMV compliant ATMs in the U.S. Visa commenced a liability shift starting in October 2017 for all transaction types on all EMV-issued cards in the U.S. We have upgraded nearly all of our U.S. Company-owned ATMs to deploy additional software to enable additional functionality, enhance security features, and enable the EMV security standard. Due to the significant operational challenges of enabling EMV and other hardware and software enhancements across the majority of our U.S. ATMs, which comprises many types and models of ATMs, together with potential compatibility issues with various processing platforms, we experienced increased downtime at our U.S. ATMs during the first part of 2017. As a result of this downtime, we suffered lost revenues and incurred penalties with certain of our contracts during the first part of 2017. We have also incurred increased charges from networks associated with actual or potentially fraudulent transactions, as we were liable for fraudulent transactions on the MasterCard and Visa networks and other networks that have adopted the EMV security standard if our ATM was not EMV compliant at the time of the transaction, and any fraudulent transactions were processed. As of the date of this filing, all of our ATMs that we intend to upgrade and continue to operate were EMV compliant. Noncompliance with the EMV standard or other network rules could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

The majority of the electronic debit networks over which our transactions are conducted require sponsorship by a bank, and the loss of any of our sponsors and our inability to find a replacement may cause disruptions to our operations.

In each of the geographic segments in which we operate, bank sponsorship is required in order to process transactions over certain networks. In all of our markets, our ATMs are connected to financial transaction switching networks operated by organizations such as Visa and MasterCard. The rules governing these switching networks require any company sending transactions through these switches to be a bank or a technical service processor that is approved and monitored by a bank. As a result, the operation of our ATM network in all of our markets depends on our ability to secure these “sponsor” arrangements with financial institutions. In the U.S., our largest geographic segment by revenues, bank sponsorship is required on the significant majority of our transactions and we rely on our sponsor banks for access to the applicable networks. In the U.K., only international transactions require bank sponsorship. In Mexico, all ATM transactions require bank sponsorship, which is currently provided by our banking partners in the country. In Canada, Germany, and Spain, bank sponsorships are also required and are obtained through our relationships with third-party processors. If our current sponsor banks decide to no longer provide this service, or are no longer financially capable of providing this service as may be determined by certain networks, it may be difficult to find an adequate replacement at a cost similar to what we incur today, or potentially, we could incur a temporary service disruption for certain transactions in the event we lose or do not retain bank sponsorship, which may negatively impact our profitability and may prevent us from doing business in that market.

If we lose key personnel or are unable to attract additional qualified personnel as we grow, our business could be adversely affected.

We are dependent upon the ability and experience of a number of key personnel who have substantial experience with our operations, the rapidly changing automated consumer financial services industry, and the geographical segments in which we operate. It is possible that the loss of the services of one or a combination of several of our senior executives would have an adverse effect on our operations, if we are not able to find suitable replacements for such persons in a timely manner. Unexpected turnover in key leadership positions within the Company may adversely impact our ability to manage the Company efficiently and effectively, could be disruptive and distracting to management and may lead to additional departures of existing personnel, any of which could adversely impact our business. Any adverse change in our reputation, whether as a result of decreases in revenue or a decline in the market price of our common shares, could affect our ability to motivate and retain our existing employees and recruit new employees. Our success also depends on our ability to continue to attract, manage, motivate and retain other qualified management, as well as technical and operational personnel

as we grow. We may not be able to continue to attract and retain such personnel in the future, which could adversely impact our business.

We are subject to laws and regulations across many jurisdictions, changes to which could increase our costs and individually or in the aggregate adversely affect our business.

We conduct business in many countries. As a result, we are subject to laws and regulations which affect our operations in a number of areas. Laws and regulations affect our business in many ways including, but not limited to, areas of labor, advertising, consumer protection, real estate, billing, e-commerce, promotions, quality of services, intellectual property ownership and infringement, tax, import and export requirements, anti-corruption, foreign exchange controls and cash repatriation restrictions, data privacy requirements, anti-competition, small-business protection, environmental, health, and safety.

Compliance with these laws, regulations and similar requirements may be onerous and expensive, and they may be inconsistent from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, further increasing the cost of compliance and doing business. Any such costs, which may rise in the future as a result of changes in these laws and regulations or in their interpretation could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have implemented policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulations, but there can be no assurance that our employees, contractors, or agents will not violate such laws and regulations or our policies and procedures.

Changes in tax laws, regulations and interpretations or challenges to our tax positions could adversely effect our business.  

We are a large corporation with operations in the U.K., U.S. and numerous other jurisdictions around the world. As such, we are subject to tax laws and regulations of the U.S. federal, state and local governments as well as various other jurisdictions. We compute our income tax provision based on enacted tax rates in the jurisdictions in which we operate. As the tax rates vary among jurisdictions, a change in earnings attributable to the various jurisdictions in which we operate could result in an unfavorable change in our overall tax provision.

From time to time, changes in tax laws or regulations may be proposed or enacted that could adversely affect our overall tax liability. For example, the recent U.S. tax legislation enacted on December 22, 2017 represents a significant overhaul of the U.S. federal tax code. This tax legislation significantly reduced the U.S. statutory corporate tax rate and made other changes that could have a favorable impact on our overall U.S. federal tax liability in a given period. However, the tax legislation also included a number of provisions, including, but not limited to, the limitation or elimination of various deductions or credits (including for interest expense and for performance-based compensation under Section 162(m)), the imposition of taxes on certain cross-border payments or transfers, the changing of the timing of the recognition of certain income and deductions or their character, and the limitation of asset basis under certain circumstances, that could significant and adversely affect our U.S. federal income tax position. The legislation also made significant changes to the tax rules applicable to insurance companies and other entities with which we do business. We are continuing to evaluate the overall impact of this tax legislation on our operations and U.S. federal income tax position. There can be no assurance that changes in tax laws or regulations, both within the U.S. and the other jurisdictions in which we operate, will not materially and adversely affect our effective tax rate, tax payments, financial condition and results of operations. Similarly, changes in tax laws and regulations that impact our customers and counterparties or the economy generally may also impact our financial condition and results of operations.

In addition, tax laws and regulations are complex and subject to varying interpretations, and any significant failure to comply with applicable tax laws and regulations in all relevant jurisdictions could give rise to substantial penalties and liabilities. Any changes in enacted tax laws (such as the recent U.S. tax legislation), rules or regulatory or judicial interpretations; any adverse outcome in connection with tax audits in any jurisdiction; or any change in the pronouncements relating to accounting for income taxes could materially and adversely impact our effective tax rate, tax payments, financial condition and results of operations.

We operate in several jurisdictions and we could be adversely affected by violations of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other similar anti-corruption laws.

Our business operations in countries outside the U.S. are subject to anti-corruption laws and regulations, including restrictions imposed by the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”). The FCPA and similar anti-corruption laws in other jurisdictions, such as the U.K. Bribery Act, generally prohibit companies and their intermediaries from paying or promising to pay government officials, political parties, or political party officials for the purpose of obtaining, retaining, influencing, or directing business. We operate in parts of the world that have experienced governmental corruption to some degree and, in certain circumstances, compliance with anti-corruption laws may conflict with local customs and practices.

Our employees and agents may interact with government officials on our behalf, including interactions necessary to obtain licenses and other regulatory approvals necessary to operate our business, import or export equipment and resolve tax disputes. These interactions create a risk that actions may occur that could violate the FCPA or other similar laws.

Although we have implemented policies and procedures designed to ensure compliance with local laws and regulations as well as U.S. laws and regulations, including the FCPA, there can be no assurance that all of our employees, consultants, contractors and agents will abide by our policies. If we are found to be liable for violations of the FCPA or similar anti-corruption laws in international jurisdictions, either due to our own acts or out of inadvertence, or due to the acts or inadvertence of others, we could suffer from criminal or civil penalties which could have a material and adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, and cash flows.

If we are unable to adequately protect our intellectual property, we may lose a valuable competitive advantage or be forced to incur costly litigation to protect our rights. Additionally, if we face claims of infringement we may be forced to incur costly litigation.

Our success depends, in part, on developing and protecting our intellectual property. We rely on copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret laws to protect our intellectual property. We also rely on other confidentiality and contractual agreements and arrangements with our employees, affiliates, business partners and customers to establish and protect our intellectual property and similar proprietary rights. While we expect these agreements and arrangements to be honored, we cannot assure shareholders that they will be and, despite our efforts, our trade secrets and proprietary know-how could become known to, or independently developed by, competitors. Agreements entered into for that purpose may not be enforceable or provide us with an adequate remedy. Effective patent, trademark, service mark, copyright and trade secret protection may not be available in every country in which our applications and services are made available. Any litigation relating to the defense of our intellectual property, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in substantial costs to us and potentially cause a diversion of our resources.

In addition, we may face claims of infringement that could interfere with our ability to use technology or other intellectual property rights that are material to our business operations. We may expose ourselves to additional liability if we agree to indemnify our customers against third party infringement claims. If the owner of intellectual property establishes that we are, or a customer which we are obligated to indemnify is, infringing its intellectual property rights, we may be forced to change our products or services, and such changes may be expensive or impractical, or we may need to seek royalty or license agreements from the owner of such rights. In the event a claim of infringement against us is successful, we may be required to pay royalties to use technology or other intellectual property rights that we had been using, or we may be required to enter into a license agreement and pay license fees, or we may be required to stop using the technology or other intellectual property rights that we had been using. We may be unable to obtain necessary licenses from third parties at a reasonable cost or within a reasonable amount of time. Any litigation of this type, whether successful or unsuccessful, could result in substantial costs to us and potentially cause a diversion of our resources.

We are subject to business cycles, seasonality, and other outside factors that may negatively affect our business.

Our overall business is subject to seasonal variations. Transaction volumes at our ATMs located in regions affected by strong winter weather patterns typically experience declines in volume during those months as a result of decreases in the amount of consumer traffic through such locations. With the majority of our ATMs located in the northern hemisphere,

we expect to see slightly higher transactions in the warmer summer months from May through August, which are also aided by increased vacation and holiday travel. As a result of these seasonal variations, our quarterly operating results may fluctuate and could lead to volatility in the price of our shares. In addition, a recessionary economic environment could reduce the level of transactions taking place on our networks, which could have a material adverse impact on our operations and cash flows.

Cardtronics plc may be treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes and could be liable for substantial additional U.S. federal income taxes in the event our redomicile to the U.K. is successfully challenged by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”).

For U.S. federal income tax purposes, a corporation is generally considered a tax resident in the jurisdiction of its incorporation or organization. Because Cardtronics plc is incorporated under English law, it should be considered a U.K., and not a U.S., tax resident under these general rules. However, Section 7874 of the Code provides that a corporation organized outside the U.S. that acquires substantially all of the assets of a corporation organized in the U.S. (including through a merger) will be treated as a U.S. corporation (and, therefore, a U.S. tax resident) for U.S. federal income tax purposes if (i) the shareholders of the acquired U.S. corporation own at least 80% (of either the voting power or value) of the share of the acquiring foreign corporation after the acquisition and (ii) the acquiring foreign corporation’s “expanded affiliated group” does not have substantial business activities in the country in which the acquiring foreign corporation is organized relative to the expanded affiliated group’s worldwide activities (“substantial business activities” or the “SBA Test”). Pursuant to the Redomicile Transaction, Cardtronics plc indirectly acquired all of Cardtronics Delaware’s assets, and Cardtronics Delaware shareholders held 100% of the value of Cardtronics plc by virtue of their prior share ownership of Cardtronics Delaware immediately after the Redomicile Transaction. As a result, the Cardtronics plc expanded affiliated group (which includes Cardtronics Delaware and its subsidiaries) must have had substantial business activities in the U.K. for Cardtronics plc to avoid being treated as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes under Section 7874 of the Code. In order for the Cardtronics plc expanded affiliated group to have satisfied the SBA Test, at least 25% of the employees (by headcount and compensation), assets, and gross income of such group must have been based, located, and derived, respectively, in the U.K. as of the dates and for relevant periods under the Code sections.

Cardtronics plc believes it fully satisfied the SBA Test and performed rigorous analysis to support this conclusion. However, the application of Section 7874 of the Code is not entirely clear in all situations, and while we believe the SBA Test was fully satisfied, there is no assurance that the IRS or a court will agree. Furthermore, there have been legislative proposals to expand the scope of U.S. corporate tax residence and there could be changes to the Code (including Section 7874 of the Code) or the U.S. Treasury Regulations that could result in Cardtronics plc being treated as a U.S. corporation or otherwise have adverse consequences. Such statutory or regulatory provisions could have retroactive application.

If it were determined that Cardtronics plc should be taxed as a U.S. corporation for U.S. federal income tax purposes, Cardtronics plc could be liable for substantial additional U.S. federal income taxes. Additionally, the U.K. could continue to tax Cardtronics plc as a U.K. tax resident for U.K. tax purposes, and thus Cardtronics plc and its shareholders could be subject to taxation in both the U.S. and the U.K.

Our operating results have fluctuated historically and could continue to fluctuate in the future, which could affect our ability to maintain our current market position or expand.

Our operating results have fluctuated in the past and may continue to fluctuate in the future as a result of a variety of factors, many of which are beyond our control, including the following:

Any of the foregoing factors could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and financial condition. Although we have experienced revenue growth in recent years, this growth rate is not necessarily indicative of future operating results. A relatively large portion of our expenses are fixed in the short-term, particularly with respect to personnel expenses, depreciation and amortization expenses, and interest expense. Therefore, our results of operations are particularly sensitive to fluctuations in revenues. Additionally, beginning in July 2017, the loss of our largest customer, 7-Eleven in the U.S., has had and will most likely continue to have, a significant negative impact on our income from operations and cash flows. As such, comparisons to prior periods should not be relied upon as indications of our future performance.

Risks associated with our common shares

We may issue additional common shares or instruments convertible into common shares, which may materially and adversely affect the market price of our common shares and the trading price of our Convertible Notes.

We may conduct future offerings of our common shares or other securities convertible into our common shares to fund acquisitions, finance operations or for general corporate purposes. In addition, we may elect to settle the conversion of our outstanding Convertible Notes in common shares, and we may also issue common shares under our equity awards programs. The market price of our common shares or the trading price of the Convertible Notes could decrease significantly if we conduct such future offerings, if any of our existing shareholders sells a substantial amount of our common shares or if the market perceives that such offerings or sales may occur. Moreover, any issuance of additional common shares will dilute the ownership interest of our existing common shareholders, and may adversely affect the ability of holders of our Convertible Notes to participate in any appreciation of our common shares.

The accounting method for convertible debt securities that may be settled in cash could have a material effect on our reported financial results.

Under U.S. GAAP, an entity must separately account for the debt component and the embedded conversion option of convertible debt instruments that may be settled entirely or partially in cash upon conversion, such as our Convertible Notes, in a manner that reflects the issuer’s economic interest cost. The effect of the accounting treatment for such instruments is that the value of such embedded conversion option is treated as an original issue discount for purposes of accounting for the debt component of the Convertible Notes, and that original issue discount is amortized into interest expense over the term of the Convertible Notes using an effective yield method. As a result, we are required to record non-

cash interest expense as a result of the amortization of the effective original issue discount to the Convertible Notes’ face amount over the term of the notes. Accordingly, we report lower net income in our financial results because of the recognition of both the current period’s amortization of the debt discount and the Convertible Notes’ coupon interest.

Under certain circumstances, convertible debt instruments that may be settled entirely or partially in cash are evaluated for their impact on earnings per share utilizing the treasury stock method, the effect of which is that the shares issuable upon conversion of the notes are not included in the calculation of diluted earnings per share except to the extent that the conversion value of the notes exceeds their principal amount. Under the treasury stock method, for diluted earnings per share purposes, the notes are accounted for as if the number of common shares that would be necessary to settle such excess, if we elected to settle such excess in shares, are issued. We cannot be certain that the accounting standards in the future will continue to permit the use of the treasury stock method. If we are unable to use the treasury stock method in accounting for the shares issuable upon conversion of the notes, then our diluted earnings per share could be adversely affected.

In addition, if the conditional conversion feature of the notes is triggered, even if holders do not elect to convert their notes, we could be required under applicable accounting rules to reclassify all or a portion of the outstanding principal of the notes as a current rather than long-term liability, which would result in a material reduction of our net working capital.

Our articles of association include mandatory offer provisions that may be viewed as less favorable to shareholders, including with respect to takeover matters.

Although we are not currently subject to the U.K. Takeover Code, certain provisions similar to the mandatory offer provisions and certain other aspects of the U.K. Takeover Code were specifically approved and included in our articles of association that were adopted at the special meeting of shareholders of Cardtronics Delaware held in June 2016 in connection with the Redomicile Transaction. As a result, except as permitted by our articles of association, (including acquisitions with the consent of our Board of Directors or with prior approval by the independent shareholders at a general meeting) a shareholder, together with persons acting in concert, would be at risk of certain Board of Directors sanctions if they acquired 30% or more of our issued shares without making a voluntary offer for all of the issued and outstanding shares (not already held by the acquirer) that is in cash (or accompanied by a full cash alternative) and otherwise in accordance with the provisions of the U.K. Takeover Code (as if the U.K. Takeover Code applied to us). The ability of shareholders to retain their shares upon completion of an offer for our entire issued share capital may depend on whether the Board of Directors subsequently agrees to propose a court-approved scheme of arrangement that would, if approved by our shareholders, compel minority shareholders to transfer or surrender their shares in favor of the offeror or, if the offeror acquires at least 90% of the shares. In that case, the offeror can require minority shareholders to accept the offer under the ‘squeeze-out’ provisions in our articles of association. The mandatory offer provisions in our articles of association could have the effect of discouraging the acquisition and holding of interests of 30% or more of our issued shares and encouraging those shareholders who may be acting in concert with respect to the acquisition of shares to seek to obtain the recommendation of our Board of Directors before effecting any additional purchases. In addition, these provisions may adversely affect the market price of our shares or inhibit fluctuations in the market price of our shares that could otherwise result from actual or rumored takeover attempts.

English law generally provides for increased shareholder approval requirements with respect to certain aspects of capital management.

English law provides that a board of directors may generally only allot shares with the prior authorization of shareholders and such authorization must specify the maximum nominal value of the shares that can be allotted and can be granted for a maximum period of five years, each as specified in the articles of association or the relevant shareholder resolution. English law also generally provides shareholders with preemptive rights when new shares are issued for cash. It is possible, however, for the articles of association, or shareholders in a general meeting, to exclude preemptive rights, if coupled with a general authorization to allot shares. Such an exclusion of preemptive rights may be for a maximum period of up to five years from the date of adoption of the articles of association, or from the date of the shareholder resolution, as applicable.

English law also generally prohibits a company from repurchasing its own shares by way of “off market purchases” without the prior approval of shareholders by ordinary resolution (i.e., majority of votes cast). Such authority can be granted for a maximum period of up to five years. English law prohibits us from conducting “on market purchases” as our shares will not be traded on a recognized investment exchange in the U.K.

Prior to the Redomicile Transaction, resolutions were adopted to authorize the allotment of a certain amount of shares, exclude certain preemptive rights and permit off market purchases of up to 15% of our shares in issue immediately after the effective time of the Redomicile Transaction, but these authorizations will expire in 2021 unless renewed by our shareholders prior to the expiration date.

We cannot assure shareholders that situations will not arise where such shareholder approval requirements for any of these actions would deprive our shareholders of substantial capital management benefits.

English law requires that we meet certain additional financial requirements before we declare dividends and repurchase shares.

We do not currently have the ability to declare dividends in any material amount. Under English law, with limited exceptions, we will only be able to declare dividends or repurchase shares out of “distributable reserves” on Cardtronics plc’s stand-alone balance sheet, without regard to its consolidated financial statements. While we have no current plans for future dividend payments or share repurchases, in order to create distributable reserves we may at a future annual meeting of shareholders offer a resolution to approve a proposed reduction of capital and, upon approval, undertake a customary court-approved capital reduction procedure in the U.K. that would enable the payment of dividends or share repurchases if and when determined by our Board of Directors.

Houston expires at the end of 2018. We are in the process of evaluating several potential locations for our corporate offices in the Houston area and do not anticipate difficulty in finding suitable space at a cost that is comparable to our current rate.