The selected financial data presented below under the heading “Statement of Income Data” for the years ended December 31, 2018, 2017 and 2016 and under the heading “Balance Sheet Data” as of December 31, 2018 and 2017 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements included in Item 18, “ Financial Statements ” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. The selected financial data presented below under the heading “Statement of Income Data” for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014 and under the heading “Balance Sheet Data” as of December 31, 2016, 2015 and 2014 are audited and have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements not included in this Annual Report on Form 20-F. The data presented below under the heading “Other Financial and Operating Data” have not been audited. Historical results are not necessarily indicative of the results of operations to be expected in future periods. You should read the selected consolidated financial data and operating data presented below in conjunction with Item 5, “ Operating and Financial Review and Prospects ” and with Item 18, “ Financial Statements ” in this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

2

3

Not applicable.

Not applicable.

An investment in our common shares involves a high degree of risk. You should carefully consider the following risk factors, together with the other information contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, including our financial statements and the related notes thereto, before you decide to buy, hold or sell our common shares. Any of the risk factors we describe below could adversely affect our business, cash flows, results of operations and financial condition. The market price of our common shares could decline and you may lose some or all of your investment if one or more of these risks and uncertainties develop into actual events. 

Risks Related to Our Business and Industry

The demand and pricing for leased containers depends on many factors beyond our control.

Substantially all of our revenue derives from activities related to the leasing, managing and selling of containers. Our ability to continue successfully leasing containers to container shipping lines, earning management fees on leased containers, selling used containers and sourcing capital required to purchase new and used containers depends, in part, upon the continued demand to lease new and used and purchase used containers.

4

Demand for leased containers depends largely on the rate of growth of world trade and economic growth, with worldwide consumer demand being the most critical factor affecting this growth. Demand for leased containers is also driven by our customers’ “lease vs. buy” decisions. In the past, economic downturns in the U.S., Europe, Asia and countries with consumer-oriented economies have resulted in a reduction in the rate of growth of world trade and demand by container shipping lines for leased containers and it is likely that any future downturns would have similar results. Thus, a decrease in world trade can and has adversely affected our utilization and per diem rates and led to reduced revenue and increased operating expenses (such as storage and repositioning costs) and can have an adverse effect on our financial performance. We cannot predict whether, or when, such downturns will occur. Other material factors affecting demand for leased containers, utilization and per diem rates include the following:

Many of these and other factors affecting the container industry are inherently unpredictable and beyond our control. These factors will vary over time, often quickly and unpredictably, and any change in one or more of these factors may have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations. In addition, many of these factors also influence the decision by container shipping lines to lease or buy containers. Should one or more of these factors influence container shipping lines to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate and/or per diems could decrease, resulting in decreased revenue and increased storage and repositioning costs, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

5

Global economic weakness has in the past and may in the future materially and negatively impact our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and future prospects.

While domestic and global economic growth resumed and has continued following the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, the continued sustainability of the U.S. and international economic growth is uncertain. Any slowdown or reversal of the U.S. and global trade growth could heighten a number of material risks to our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition, as well as our future prospects, including the following:

Lease and/or utilization rates may decrease, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We compete mostly on the pricing and the availability of containers. Lease rates for our containers depend on a large number of factors, including the following:

Most of these factors are beyond our control. In particular the price of steel declined materially in 2015 and continued to decline in the beginning of 2016 and this was a significant factor in the decline in new container prices and lease rates at that time. New container prices and lease rates reached historically low levels in the beginning of 2016, but starting in the second half of 2016 and until late 2018 steel prices, container prices and lease rates all increased materially. In addition, lease rates can be negatively impacted by, among other things, the entrance of new leasing companies or container factories, overproduction of new containers by factories and the over-buying by shipping lines, leasing companies and tax-driven container investors. In 2012 and continuing in 2013 and 2014, container leasing companies, including us, raised substantial amounts of new funds in the debt and equity markets and were able to repeatedly refinance existing debt on ever more favorable terms. This increased availability and reduced cost of debt, which given a limited demand for containers, contributed to downward pressure on lease rates.

6

The impact on us of the market downturn that ended in the second half of 2016 was more severe than in the past due to the substantial growth in our owned fleet in the past few years and the relatively high prices paid for new containers in the period from 2010 to 2012 that were initially leased at historically high rates on leases that matured during this period of low lease rates. If future market lease rates again decrease or return to historically low levels, revenues generated by our fleet will be adversely affected, which will harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition . Container utilization rates for us and our competitors are currently at very high levels by historical standards.   If future container utilization rates decrease, revenues generated by our fleet will be adversely affected, which will harm our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition .

We face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long-term lease.

We estimate the useful lives of our standard dry freight containers to be 13 to 14 years, open-top and flat-rack containers to be 14 to 16 years, refrigerated containers to be 12 years and tank containers to be 20 years. When we purchase newly produced containers, we typically lease them out under long-term leases with terms of 5 or more years at a lease rate that is correlated to the price paid for the container and prevailing interest rates. As containers leased under term leases are not leased out for their full economic life, we face risks associated with re-leasing containers after their initial long-term lease. If prevailing container lease rates decline significantly between the time a container is initially leased out and when its initial long-term lease expires, or if overall demand for containers declines, we may be unable to earn a similar lease rate from the re-leasing of containers when their initial term leases expire which could materially adversely impact our results and financial performance. Additionally, for containers purchased new in 2015 and 2016, many of these containers are on long-term leases with low per diems that are below current lease rates. Our ability to improve our financial performance depends in part on the ability to renew or re-lease these containers at the time of the expiration of their initial leases at higher rates than the per diems these containers were originally leased out. If container lease rates decline and we are unable to renew these leases at higher rates our financial results may not improve.

The bankruptcy of Hanjin Shipping Co. in August 2016 substantially impacted us.

On August 31, 2016 Hanjin filed for bankruptcy protection in South Korea. In the following months its services ceased operation. The insolvency of Hanjin severely disrupted container trade and the container shipping industry. At the time of the insolvency, containers leased to Hanjin with ownership interests attributable to Textainer represented approximately 4.8% of the total owned and managed fleet in TEU. We incurred substantial costs from the Hanjin insolvency, arising from container recovery expenses, unpaid current and future rental income from Hanjin, container repair expenses, container repositioning expenses, re-leasing expenses and the loss of unreturned containers. Additionally, many containers formerly leased to Hanjin were re-leased at substantially lower lease rates than the rates in the leases with Hanjin and other containers were disposed, often at prices below the book value for the containers. We recovered 94% of the containers formerly leased to Hanjin, with the balance of the containers uneconomic or impossible to recover. We maintain insurance that covers certain costs and losses from customer defaults. At the time of the Hanjin default our policy provided for $80 million of coverage after a $5 million deductible was met. We collected substantially all of our insurance claim related to the Hanjin insolvency, however this was insufficient to cover all of our losses and disruptions related to Hanjin. At the time of its insolvency Hanjin was the 7 ^th largest container shipping line in the world and the bankruptcy of Hanjin substantially impacted us, including as follows:

7

Reductions in the prices of new containers would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.  

Lease rates for new containers are positively but not exclusively correlated to the price of new containers, which is positively correlated with the price of steel, a major component used in the manufacture of new containers. In the past five years, prices for new standard 20’ dry freight containers have moved in a wide range, with prices ranging between $1,185 and $2,363 during this time. Our average new container cost per CEU remained flat during 2018 compared to 2017. Container prices have substantially increased since late 2016, but if new container prices return to very low levels, the lease rates achievable when older, off-lease containers are leased out will also decrease and the prices obtained for containers sold at the end of their useful lives will also decrease. Since the beginning of 2013 until the second half of 2016 we saw new container pricing and the sale prices of our containers sold at the end of their useful lives decline.  A decline in new container prices cause low market lease rates and low resale values for containers, which have and may in the future adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, even if low new container prices allow us to purchase new containers at a lower cost. Our future financial performance and profitability depends in part on the lease rates increasing for current leases that expire during the next two to three years as many of these leases were concluded with low initial lease rates. A reversal in the current recovery of new container prices and lease rates would increase the difficulty of raising lease rates on long-term container leases that expire in the future.

Gains and losses associated with the disposition or trading of used equipment may fluctuate and adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We regularly sell used containers at the end of their useful lives in marine service or when we believe it maximizes the projected financial return, considering the location, sale price, cost of repair, possible repositioning expenses, earnings prospects and remaining useful life. The realized residual value of these containers affects our profitability. The volatility of the residual values of used containers may be significant. These values depend upon, among other factors, demand for used containers for secondary purposes, comparable new container costs, used container availability, condition and location of the containers, and market conditions. Most of these factors are outside of our control. Additionally, if shipping lines or our leasing company competitors determine to sell their used containers at a younger age than we believe to be the useful life of our equipment, our containers may be more difficult to sell or may sell for less than containers that were more recently manufactured.

Gains or losses on the disposition of used container equipment and the sales fees earned on the disposition of managed containers fluctuate and may be significant if we sell large quantities of used containers. In 2018, 2017 and 2016, we incurred approximately $14 million, $4 million and $66 million, respectively, of container impairments due to the fact that when we determined to dispose of containers their book value exceeded the fair market value. Low disposal prices and the high volume of containers being disposed of can cause an elevated level of container impairments to occur. Continued low disposal prices and/or disposal volumes could harm our business, results of

8

operations and financial condition. See Item 5, “ Operating and Financial Review and Prospects ” for a discussion of our gains or losses on the disposition of used container equipment.

In addition to disposing of our fleet’s used containers at the end of their useful life, we opportunistically purchase used containers for resale from our shipping line customers and other sellers. Shipping lines either enter into trading deals with us at the time they are ready to dispose of older containers or enter into purchase leaseback transactions with us where they sell us older containers and then lease them back until the shipping line is ready to dispose of the containers. We face resale price risk with both transactions since by the time the container is provided to us from the shipping line the prevailing prices for older containers may have declined from the value we assumed at the time of purchase.

If the supply of trading equipment becomes limited because these sellers develop other means for disposing of their equipment or develop their own sales network, our equipment trading revenues and our profitability could be negatively impacted. If selling prices rapidly deteriorate and we are holding a large inventory that was purchased when prices for trading equipment were higher or if prices decline over the life of our purchase leaseback transactions, then our gross margins from trading and the sale of containers acquired through purchase leaseback transactions will decline or become negative. Low resale prices coupled with the higher prices paid for purchase leaseback transactions completed several years ago have caused some purchase leaseback transactions to be unprofitable.

The impact of new low sulphur emission rules is uncertain and may adversely affect us and the container shipping industry.

Effective January 1, 2020, under the rules of the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) the permitted level of sulphur oxide emissions from ships, including container ships, will be reduced from 3.5% of emission mass to 0.5% of emissions mass. In order to comply with these regulations our shipping line customers will need to either switch to low sulphur diesel fuels, install emissions scrubbers on vessels to remove sulphur oxide from emissions gases or switch to alternative fuels like natural gas for their ships. Shipping lines are still determining and implementing their compliance strategies which may include a mix of the compliance approaches. It is expected that the cost for low sulphur diesel fuel will be substantially more than what shipping lines currently pay for bunker fuel.  Installing gas scrubbers is an expensive capital expenditure to a ship and requires extensive retrofitting.  If the higher fuel and environmental compliance costs from these rules are not successfully passed on via higher freight rates to shippers, or if freight demand declines due to higher shipping costs, our shipping line customers’ financial performance may weaken and the risk of default by our customers could increase.  If higher freight rates cause lower cargo demand, the demand for our containers may decline and/or container lease rates and used container prices may decline, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Lessee defaults have and may continue to harm our business, results of operations and financial condition by decreasing revenue and increasing storage, repositioning, collection, insurance and recovery expenses.

Our containers are leased to numerous container lessees. Lessees are required to pay rent and to indemnify us for damage to or loss of containers. Lessees may default in paying rent and performing other obligations under their leases. A delay or diminution in amounts received under the leases (including leases on our managed containers), or a default in the performance of maintenance or other lessee obligations under the leases could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to make payments on our debt.

We experienced several lessee defaults in 2016, including the default of Hanjin discussed above, which severely negatively impacted our financial performance and we believe that there is the continued risk of lessee defaults in the future. During the last several years shipping lines have made a number of efforts to raise freight rates on the major trade lanes, however rate increases have generally not been sustainable for long periods of time.  Excess vessel capacity due to new ship production, including the production of very large ships, and the re-activation of previously laid up vessels will continue to be a factor in the future, especially if older vessels are not scrapped. Major shipping lines are expected to be profitable overall for 2018, however reliable information about the financial position and resources of many shipping lines can be difficult to obtain. While containerized trade grew in 2018, it was not sufficient to fully utilize vessel capacity and major shipping lines both took delivery of, and

9

resumed ordering, large vessels. Existing excess vessel capacity and continued new vessel deliveries, especially the delivery of very large vessels, are expected to continue to pressure freight rates for some time. Additionally, the commencement of various tariff and trade restriction actions between major trading nations in 2018 has increased uncertainty about container trade growth and demand and may increase default risk if tariff actions continue and/or increase. The implementation of low sulphur oxide emissions rules noted above may weaken the financial performance of our customers and increase their risk of default. As a result, we continue to face heightened risk that our financial performance and cash flow could be severely affected by defaults by our customers.

When lessees default, we may fail to recover all of our containers, and the containers that we do recover may be recovered in locations where we will not be able to quickly re-lease or sell them on commercially acceptable terms. In recovery actions we must locate the containers and often need to pay accrued storage and handling charges to depots and terminals, which may include debts incurred by the defaulting shipping line. We also may have to reposition these containers to other places where we can re-lease or sell them, which could be expensive, depending on the locations and distances involved. Following repositioning, we may need to repair the containers and pay container depots for storage until the containers are re-leased. These recovery, repair and repositioning costs generally are reflected in our financial statements under direct container expense. Accordingly, the amount of our bad debt expense may not capture the total adverse financial impact on us from a shipping line’s default. For our owned containers, these costs directly reduce our income and for our managed containers, lessee defaults decrease rental revenue and increase direct container expense, and thus reduce our management fee revenue. While we maintain insurance to cover some defaults, it is subject to large deductible amounts and significant exclusions and, therefore, may not be sufficient to prevent us from suffering material losses. In 2015 and 2016 we filed significant insurance claims for lessee defaults we experienced. As a result of these insurance claims, potential future insurance claims or changes in the perceived risk of providing default insurance, such insurance might not be available to us in the future on commercially reasonable terms or at all. In the renewals of our default insurance following the Hanjin bankruptcy, the policy premium was significantly increased and coverage was reduced. In any insurance claim our insurers may not agree with our determination that we have suffered an insured loss or our calculation of the amount of the insured loss. Any such future defaults could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Historically we have recovered a very high percentage of the containers from defaulted lessees. However, in the last six years we encountered defaults from several smaller lessees and lessees in locations where recoveries did not track to our historical experience and significant losses were incurred. These losses were due to a number of containers being unrecoverable as the containers were not in the control of the lessee or the containers were detained by depots or terminals that demanded storage charges in excess of the value of the detained containers after accounting for repair and repositioning costs. Additionally, in certain recent insolvencies, even when we have recovered the containers, they have generally been in very poor condition which limits their ability to be re-leased and reduces their disposal value, both of which add to the ultimate cost of the default. If a material amount of future recoveries from defaulted lessees continue to deviate from our historical recovery experience, our financial performance and cash flow could be severely adversely affected.

Certain liens may arise on our containers.

Depot operators, manufacturers, repairmen, terminals, ship owners and transporters do come into possession of our containers from time to time and have amounts due to them from the lessees or sublessees of the containers. In the event of nonpayment of those charges by the lessees or sublessees, we may be delayed in, or entirely barred from, repossessing the containers, or be required to make payments or incur expenses to discharge such liens on our containers.

We derive a substantial portion of our lease billings from a limited number of container lessees, and the loss of, or reduction in business, by any of these container lessees could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We have derived, and believe that we will continue to derive, a significant portion of lease billings and cash flow from a limited number of container lessees. Lease billings from our 20 largest container lessees represented $493.9 million or 82.8% of the total fleet billings during 2018. Our two largest customers in 2018 were Mediterranean Shipping Company S.A., which accounted for $84.2 million or 13.7% and CMA-CGM S.A., which

10

accounted for $82.4 million or 13.4% of our total fleet ’s container lease rental income . Due to the ongoing consolidation in the shipping line industry, our 20 largest container lessees are becoming an increasing percentage of our total revenue, with correspondingly increased concentration of credit risk. Given the high concentration of our customer base, a default by any of our largest customers would result in a major reduction in leasing revenue, large repossession expenses, potentially large lost equipment charges and a material adverse impact on our performance and financial condition. Our experience with the Hanjin bankruptcy that commenced on August 31, 2016 is an example of the occurrence of these materially adverse events.  

The introduction and use of very large container ships (18,000 TEU+) on the major trade lanes may lead to further industry consolidation and shipping line alliance participation, and even greater reliance by us on our largest customers, and negatively impact the performance of smaller and mid-size shipping lines. Several of the largest shipping lines have invested heavily in these very large ships and reportedly have achieved meaningful unit cost advantages and increased market shares on the major trade lanes. In response, some smaller shipping lines have started to exit the major trade lanes, while others are seeking to form closer operating partnerships.

Consolidation, shipping line alliances, and concentration in the container shipping industry could decrease the demand for leased containers.

We primarily lease containers to container shipping lines. The container shipping lines have historically relied on a large number of leased containers to satisfy their needs. The shipping industry has been consolidating for a number of years, and further consolidation is expected. In recent years two major German shipping lines have each acquired different South American shipping lines, a French shipping line acquired a Singaporean shipping line, two large Chinese shipping lines merged, a German shipping line merged with a Middle Eastern shipping line and a Danish shipping line acquired a German shipping line. Three major Japanese shipping lines also completed their merger in April 2018. Additionally, Hanjin declared bankruptcy in August 2016, further reducing the number of large shipping lines. Historically, shipping lines have also formed a number of alliances to share vessel space and the creation of new alliances and changes in the membership of each alliance is ongoing. Consolidation of major container shipping lines and growth of alliances could create efficiencies and decrease the demand that container shipping lines have for leased containers because they may be able to fulfill a larger portion of their needs through their owned container fleets. Consolidation could also create concentration of credit risk if the number of our container lessees decreases. If shipping line alliances are effective at making shipping lines more efficient, this could reduce the demand for containers. The growth of alliances may add pressure to those shipping lines that do not join an alliance as they may find it more difficult to cost effectively serve shippers needs and/or shippers may choose to only ship cargo with alliances due to solvency concerns or otherwise. Additionally, large container shipping lines with significant resources could choose to manufacture or purchase their own containers, which would decrease their demand for leased containers and could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our indebtedness reduces our financial flexibility and could impede our ability to operate.  

We have historically operated with, and anticipate continuing to operate with, a significant amount of debt.  As of December 31, 2018, we had outstanding indebtedness of $3,437.8 million under our debt facilities. All of our outstanding indebtedness is secured debt collateralized primarily by our container assets and finance leases. There is no assurance that we will be able to refinance our outstanding indebtedness on terms that we can afford or at all. If we are unable to refinance our outstanding indebtedness, or if we are unable to increase the amount of our borrowing capacity, it could limit our ability to grow our business.

The amount of our indebtedness, and the terms of the related indebtedness (including interest rates and covenants), could have important consequences for us, including the following:

11

We may not generate sufficient cash flow from operations to service and repay our debt and related obligations and have sufficient funds left over to achieve or sustain profitability in our operations, meet our working capital and capital expenditure needs and/or compete successfully in our industry. An uncured event of default in some or all of our debt facilities could cause some or all of our entities to be declared bankrupt or liquidated.

We will require a significant amount of cash to service and repay our outstanding indebtedness, fund future capital expenditures, and our ability to generate cash depends on many factors beyond our control.

Our ability to make payments on and repay our indebtedness and to fund planned capital expenditures will depend on our ability to generate cash in the future. Our business primarily generates cash from our container assets. Our lenders, rating agencies and the investors in our asset-backed debt securities look to the historical and anticipated performance of our container assets when deciding whether to lend to us and the terms for such lending.   It is possible that:

The terms of our debt facilities impose, and the terms of any future indebtedness may impose, significant operating, financial and other restrictions on us and our subsidiaries.

Restrictions imposed by our secured debt facilities, revolving credit facilities, term loan and bonds may limit or prohibit, among other things, our ability to:

We are also required to comply with certain financial covenants. These restrictions could adversely affect our ability to finance our future operations or capital needs and pursue available business opportunities. A breach of any of these financial covenants and restrictions, due to weaker financial performance, reduced asset values or otherwise could result in a default in respect of the related indebtedness. If a default occurs, the relevant lenders could elect to

12

declare the indebtedness, together with accrued interest and fees, to be immediately due and payable and proceed against any collateral securing that indebtedness, which will constitute substantially all of our container assets and finance leases. As a result of the Hanjin bankruptcy, coupled with the lower container returns provided in recent years due to increased competition and lower realized used container prices, in 2016 and 2017 we experienced difficulty in meeting certain of the financial covenants on our lending facilities. We obtained various covenant amendments and waivers to address this situation and subsequently refinanced the majority of our debt with revised covenants. If needed in the future we may be unable to obtain covenant amendments and waivers from our lenders and some or all of our indebtedness could be in default. Additionally, covenant amendments and waivers may limit our ability to access additional funds for container investment and the cost and expense of covenant amendments, waivers and/or refinancing may limit our available funds for container investment.  

If we are unable to enter into interest rate swaps, collars and caps on reasonable commercial terms or if a counterparty under our interest rate swap, collar and cap agreements defaults, our exposure associated with our variable rate debt could increase.

We have typically funded a significant portion of the purchase price of new containers through borrowings under our revolving credit facilities and our secured debt facilities and intend to use borrowings under our revolving credit facilities and our secured debt facilities for such funding in the future. All of our outstanding debt, other than the $1,327.2 million in aggregate principal amount under our TMCL VI Term Loan, Series 2017-1, Series 2017-2 and Series 2018-1 Fixed Rate Asset Backed Notes are subject to variable interest rates. We have entered into various interest rate swap, collar and cap agreements to mitigate our exposure associated with variable rate debt. The swap agreements involve payments by us to counterparties at fixed rates in return for receipts based upon variable rates indexed to the London Inter Bank Offered Rate. There can be no assurance that interest rate swaps, collars and caps will be available in the future, or if available, will be on terms satisfactory to us. Moreover, our interest rate swap agreements are subject to counterparty credit exposure, which is defined as the ability of a counterparty to perform its financial obligations under a derivative contract. While we monitor our counterparties’ credit ratings on an on-going basis, we cannot be certain that they will stay in compliance with the related derivative agreements and not default in the future. If we are unable to obtain interest rate swaps, collars and caps or if a counterparty under our interest rate swap, collar and cap agreements defaults, our exposure associated with our variable rate debt could increase.

Even with hedged variable rate debt and fixed rate debt, we face interest rate risk.

We generally hedge and fix our overall debt exposure to have a maturity similar to the average remaining lease term of our long-term lease contracts.  However if during the duration of our hedging, interest rates increase but lease rate per diems do not also increase, as our hedges expire our financial performance may decline due to higher interest rates not being offset by higher per diems.  If this occurs we may not be able to generate sufficient cash flows to service our debt obligations and/or we may breach our debt covenants, all of which would materially and adversely impact us.

We may incur significant costs to reposition our containers, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

When lessees return containers to locations where supply exceeds demand and when lessees default and we recover containers, we sometimes reposition containers to higher demand areas. Repositioning expenses vary depending on geographic location, distance, freight rates and other factors, and may not be fully covered by drop-off charges collected from the previous lessee of the containers or pick-up charges paid by the new lessee. We seek to limit the number of and impose surcharges on containers returned to low demand locations. Market conditions, however, may not enable us to continue such practices. In addition, we may not be able to accurately anticipate which locations will be characterized by higher or lower demand in the future, and our current contracts will not protect us from repositioning costs if locations that we expect to be higher demand locations turn out to be lower demand locations at the time the containers are returned. For example, the vast majority of our long-term leases require that a high percentage of the containers are returned in Asia, primarily in China. If long-term trade patterns change, it may not be economically desirable to have the bulk of our containers returned in China at the end of long-term leases. Additionally, our customer default insurance that covers lessee insolvencies does not sufficiently insure

13

us for container repositioning expense. Any such increases in costs to reposition our containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The demand for leased containers is partially tied to international trade. If this demand were to decrease due to increased barriers to trade, or for any other reason, it could reduce demand for intermodal container leasing, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

A substantial portion of our containers are used in trade involving goods being shipped from the People’s Republic of China (the “PRC” or “China”) and other Asian countries to the United States, Europe, Latin America or other regions and within Asia. The willingness and ability of international consumers to purchase foreign goods is dependent on political support, in the United States, Europe Latin America and other countries, for an absence of government-imposed barriers to international trade in goods and services. For example, international consumer demand for foreign goods is related to price; if the price differential between foreign goods and domestically-produced goods were to decrease due to increased tariffs on foreign goods, strengthening in the applicable foreign currencies relative to domestic currencies, rising wages, increasing input or energy costs or other factors, demand for foreign goods could decrease, which could result in reduced demand for intermodal container leasing. A similar reduction in demand for intermodal container leasing could result from an increased use of quotas or other technical barriers to restrict trade. In 2018 a number of major trading economies implemented and increased tariffs and other trade restrictions and significant renegotiations of existing trade agreements commenced and continue.  If these trade restrictions and tariffs continue or increase it may materially impact container demand and change trade patterns. The current regime of relatively free trade may not continue.

A contraction or slowdown in containerized cargo growth or negative containerized cargo growth would lead to a surplus of containers and a lack of storage space, which could negatively impact us.

We depend on third party depot operators to repair and store our equipment in port areas throughout the world. Growth in the world’s container fleet has significantly outpaced growth in depot capacity and even in the current period of historically high utilization, we continue to experience limited depot capacity in certain major port cities.  Additionally, the land occupied by depots is increasingly being considered prime real estate, as it is coastal land in or near major cities, and this land may be developed into other uses or there may be increasing restrictions on depot operations by local communities. This trend has already caused depot storage costs to increase and could further increase depots’ costs and in some cases force depots to relocate to sites further from the port areas. If these changes affect a large number of our depots, or if we experience a period of lower container utilization, it could significantly increase the cost of maintaining and storing our off-hire containers. Additionally, if depot space is unavailable, we may be unable to accept returned containers from lessees, which may cause us to breach our lease agreements.

We own a large number of containers in our fleet and are subject to significant ownership risk and increasing our owned fleet entails increasing our debt, which could result in financial instability.

Ownership of containers entails greater risk than management of containers for container investors. In 2018, the percentage of containers in our fleet that we own increased from 74.6% at the beginning of the year to 78.9% at the end of the year. In the years prior to 2017 we have consistently increased the number of owned containers in our fleet as a percentage of the total fleet, however in 2017 we assumed management of a large fleet from an insolvent leasing company which caused the owned percentage of our fleet to decline a few percentage points. In October 2018 we purchased the 75% of TW Container Leasing Limited that we did not own from an affiliate of Wells Fargo and this caused the owned percentage of our fleet to increase 2 percentage points. The increased number of containers in our owned fleet increases our exposure to financing costs, financing risks, changes in per diem rates, re-leasing risk, changes in utilization rates, lessee defaults, repositioning costs, storage expenses, impairment charges and changes in sales prices upon the disposition of containers. The number of containers in our owned fleet fluctuates over time as we purchase new containers, sell containers into the secondary resale market, and acquire other fleets.

If we increase the number of containers in our owned fleet, we will likely have more capital at risk and may need to maintain higher debt balances. Additional borrowings may not be available under our revolving credit facilities or our secured debt facilities, and we may not be able to refinance these facilities, if necessary, on commercially reasonable terms or at all. We may need to raise additional debt or equity capital in order to fund our

14

business, expand our sales activities and/or respond to competitive pressures. We may not have access to the capital resources we desire or need to fund our business or may not have access on attractive terms. These factors, among others, may reduce our profitability and adversely affect our plans to maintain the container ownership portion of our business.

If we are unable to lease our new containers shortly after we purchase them, our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition may be harmed.

Lease rates for new containers are positively correlated to the fluctuations in the price of new containers, which is positively correlated with the price of steel, a major component used in the manufacture of new containers. If we are unable to lease the new containers that we purchase within a short period of time of such purchase, the market price of new containers and the corresponding market lease rates for new containers may decrease, regardless of the higher cost of the previously purchased containers. Additionally, if we believe new container prices are attractive, we may purchase more containers than we have immediate demand for if we expect container prices or lease rates may rise. If prices do not rise or new container demand weakens, we may be unable to lease this speculative inventory on attractive terms or at all. Declines in new container prices, lease rates, or the inability to lease new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Consolidation of container manufacturers or the disruption of manufacturing for the major manufacturers could result in higher new container prices and/or decreased supply of new containers. Any material increase in the cost or reduction in the supply of new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We currently purchase almost all of our containers from manufacturers based in the PRC. If it were to become more expensive for us to procure containers in the PRC or to transport these containers at a low cost from the manufacturer to the locations where they are needed by our container lessees because of changes in exchange rates between the U.S. Dollar and Chinese Yuan, consolidation among container suppliers, increased tariffs imposed by the U.S. or other governments, changing trade patterns, increased fuel costs, increased labor costs, or for any other reason, we may have to seek alternative sources of supply and we may not be able to make alternative arrangements quickly enough to meet our container needs, and the alternative arrangements may increase our costs.

The availability and price of containers depend significantly on the capacity and bargaining position of the major container manufacturers. Three major manufacturers have approximately 80% of that industry’s market share. This market structure and the commodity inputs used in manufacturing have led to significant variability in container prices. In particular, the increased focus on environmental matters in China may reduce the supply (and increase the cost) of steel and other raw materials used in our containers and the mandatory use of water borne paint by all container factories in China has already increased the cost of containers and created container production constraints. If an increased cost of purchasing containers is not matched by a corresponding increase in lease rates, or if we have difficulty in sourcing containers, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be harmed.

Sustained reduction in the production of new containers could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The lack of new production of standard dry freight containers from the fourth quarter of 2008 through the end of 2009, combined with continued retirement of older containers in the ordinary course, led to a decline in the world container fleet of approximately 4% in 2009, creating a shortage of containers as worldwide cargo volumes increased by 12.0% in 2010 and 8.6% in 2011. During the period of decline in the world container fleet, container manufacturers lost up to 60% of their skilled work force due to long shutdowns, and had limited production capacity in 2010 as they had to hire and train a new skilled work force. Although manufacturers resumed production in 2011 and continued steady production from 2012 through 2018, if there is a sustained reduction in the production of new containers, it could impact our ability to expand our fleet, which could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

15

Terrorist attacks, the threat of such attacks or the outbreak of war and hostilities could negatively impact our operations and profitability and may expose us to liability.

Terrorist attacks and the threat of such attacks have contributed to economic instability in the U.S. and elsewhere, and further acts or threats of terrorism, violence, war or hostilities could similarly affect world trade and the industries in which we and our container lessees operate. For example, worldwide containerized trade dramatically decreased in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in the U.S., which affected demand for leased containers. In addition, terrorist attacks, threats of terrorism, violence, war or hostilities may directly impact ports, depots, our facilities or those of our suppliers or container lessees and could impact our sales and our supply chain. A severe disruption to the worldwide ports system and flow of goods could result in a reduction in the level of international trade and lower demand for our containers.

Our lease agreements require our lessees to indemnify us for all costs, liabilities and expenses arising out of the use of our containers, including property damage to the containers, damage to third-party property and personal injury. However, our lessees may not have adequate resources to honor their indemnity obligations after a terrorist attack. Our insurance coverage is limited and is subject to large deductibles and significant exclusions and we have very limited insurance for liability arising from a terrorist attack. Accordingly, we may not be protected from liability (and expenses in defending against claims of liability) arising from a terrorist attack.

We face extensive competition in the container leasing industry.

We may be unable to compete favorably in the highly competitive container leasing and container management businesses. We compete with a relatively small number of major leasing companies, many smaller lessors, companies and financial institutions offering finance leases, and promoters of container ownership and leasing as a tax-efficient investment. Some of these competitors may have greater financial resources and access to capital than we do. Additionally, some of these competitors may have large, underutilized inventories of containers, which could, if leased, lead to significant downward pressure on per diem rates, margins and prices of containers. Competition among container leasing companies depends upon many factors, including, among others: per diem rates; supply reliability; lease terms, including lease duration, drop-off restrictions and repair provisions; customer service; and the location, availability, quality and individual characteristics of containers. In recent years several container leasing companies have acquired other container lessors and we may face increased competition from these merged firms. Following the completion of each consolidation, the new entity may face further pressure for fleet growth and may compete even more aggressively, causing further declines in rental rates available from container leases. New entrants into the leasing business may be attracted by the historically high rate of containerized trade growth, access to the capital markets and low pricing for containers. New entrants may be willing to offer pricing or other terms that we are unwilling or unable to match. Additionally, the management agreements under which we manage containers for other parties do not restrict these container owners from having other container fleets managed by competing leasing companies or from directly competing with us.

Our lessees may decide to buy, rather than lease their containers.

We, like other suppliers of leased containers, are dependent upon decisions by shipping lines to lease rather than to buy their container equipment. Shipping lines own a significant amount of the world’s intermodal containers and effectively compete with us. In part due to constraints on their financing and need to allocate capital to new ship purchases and port terminals, in recent years, shipping lines have generally reduced their purchases of new containers. In 2018 we believe that about 60% of all shipping containers were purchased by leasing companies. Although we believe that this percentage should somewhat rebalance itself we still expect leasing companies to be a majority purchaser of the new containers to be produced. Should shipping lines decide to buy a larger percentage of the containers they operate, our utilization rate would decrease, resulting in decreased leasing revenues, increased storage costs and increased positioning costs. A decrease in the portion of leased containers would also reduce our investment opportunities and significantly constrain our growth.

For reporting periods beginning in 2019, the new accounting guidance under both generally accepted accounting principles in the United States of America (“U.S. GAAP”) and International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) requires recognition of right-of-use asset and corresponding lease liability of operating leases on the lessees’ balance sheet. Because the new leasing guidance virtually eliminates the financial statement benefit of entering into operating leases for the lessees, it could change our customers’ “lease vs. buy” decision and/or decision on lease structures and terms.

16

Our results of operations are subject to changes resulting from the political and economic policies of the PRC and economic activity in the PRC.

A substantial portion of our containers are leased out from locations in the PRC. The main manufacturers of containers are also located in the PRC. The political and economic policies of the PRC and the level of economic activity in the PRC may have a significant impact on our company and our financial performance.

Changes in the political leadership of the PRC may have a significant effect on laws and policies that impact economic growth and trade and the corresponding need for containers to ship goods from the PRC, including the introduction of measures to control inflation, changes in the rate or method of taxation, and the imposition of additional restrictions on currency conversion, remittances abroad, and foreign investment. Moreover, economic reforms and growth in the PRC have been more successful in certain provinces than in others, and the continuation of or increases in such disparities could affect the political or social stability of the PRC. Furthermore, the current high level of debt by some companies in China may lead to defaults which may not be supported by the Chinese government. In recent years the rate of economic growth in the PRC has declined. Additionally, government policies that reduce the emphasis on manufacturing and increase priorities for domestic consumption and services may alter trade patterns and reduce demand for containers. Chinese government environmental policies and practices may reduce steel production which would impact container costs and may limit factory production, which could impact trade growth and container demand.

A large number of our shipping line customers are domiciled either in the PRC (including Hong Kong) or in Taiwan. In 2018, approximately 29.6% of our revenue was attributable to shipping line customers that were either domiciled in the PRC (including Hong Kong) or in Taiwan. Almost all container manufacturing facilities from which we purchased our containers in 2018 are located in the PRC. A reduced rate of economic growth, changes to economic or trade policy or political instability in either the PRC or Taiwan could have a negative effect on our major customers, our ability to obtain containers and correspondingly, our results of operations and financial condition.

The legal systems in the PRC and other jurisdictions have inherent uncertainties that could limit the legal protections available to us and even if legal judgments are obtained, collection may be difficult.

We currently purchase almost all of our containers from manufacturers based in the PRC. In addition, a substantial portion of our containers are leased out from locations in the PRC. California law governs almost all of these agreements. However, disputes or settlements arising out of these agreements may need to be enforced in the PRC. The PRC legal system is based on written statutes. Prior court decisions may be cited for reference but have limited precedential value. Since 1979, PRC legislation and regulations have significantly enhanced the protections afforded to various forms of foreign investments in the PRC. However, since these laws and regulations are relatively new and the PRC legal system continues to evolve, the interpretations of many laws, regulations and rules are not always uniform and may be subject to considerable discretion, variation, or influence by external forces unrelated to the legal merits of a particular matter. The enforcement of these laws, regulations, and rules involves uncertainties that may limit remedies available to us. Any litigation or arbitration in the PRC may be protracted and may result in substantial costs and diversion of resources and management attention. In addition, the PRC may enact new laws or amend current laws that may be detrimental to us, which may have a material adverse effect on our business operations. If we are unable to enforce any legal rights that we may have under our contracts or otherwise in the PRC, our ability to compete and our results of operations could be harmed.

In addition, as our containers are used in trade involving goods being shipped to locations throughout the world, it is not possible to predict, with any degree of certainty, the jurisdictions in which enforcement proceedings may be commenced. Litigation and enforcement proceedings have inherent uncertainties in any jurisdiction and are expensive. These uncertainties are enhanced in countries that have less developed legal systems where the interpretation of laws and regulations is not consistent, may be influenced by factors other than legal merits and may be cumbersome, time-consuming and even more expensive. For example, repossession from defaulting lessees may be difficult and more expensive in jurisdictions whose laws do not confer the same security interests and rights to creditors and lessors as those in the United States and where the legal system is not as well developed. Additionally, even if we are successful in obtaining judgments against defaulting lessees, these lessees may have limited owned assets and/or heavily encumbered assets and the collection and enforcement of a monetary judgment may be unsuccessful. As a result, the remedies available and the relative success and expedience of collection and enforcement proceedings with respect to the containers in various jurisdictions cannot be predicted.

17

Because substantially all of our revenues are generated in U.S. dollars, but a significant portion of our expenses are incurred in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could have an adverse impact on our results of operations.

The U.S. dollar is our primary operating currency. Almost all of our revenues are denominated in U.S. dollars, and approximately 81% of our direct container expenses were denominated in U.S. dollars for the year ended December 31, 2018. Accordingly, a significant amount of our expenses are incurred in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. This difference could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the other currencies. During 2018, 2017 and 2016, 19%, 25%, and 36%, respectively, of our direct container expenses were paid in up to 20 different foreign currencies. A decrease in the value of the U.S. dollar against non-U.S. currencies in which our expenses are incurred translates into an increase in those expenses in U.S. dollar terms, which would decrease our net income. While the prices of the used containers we trade or dispose are primarily quoted and billed in U.S. Dollars, declines in the currencies where these containers are sold relative to the U.S. Dollar can serve to reduce the market prices for used containers, which will decrease our net income. We do not engage in foreign currency hedging activities which might reduce the volatility associated with exchange rates.

Sustained Asian economic instability could reduce demand for leasing, which would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Many of our customers are substantially dependent upon shipments of goods exported from Asia. From time to time, there have been health scares, such as Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome and avian flu, financial turmoil, natural disasters and political instability in Asia. If these events were to occur in the future, they could adversely affect our container lessees and the general demand for shipping and lead to reduced demand for leased containers or otherwise adversely affect us. Any reduction in demand for leased containers would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

The international nature of the container shipping industry exposes us to numerous risks.

We are subject to risks inherent in conducting business across national boundaries, any one of which could adversely impact our business. These risks include:

18

One or more of these factors or other related factors may impair our current or future international operations and, as a result, harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We rely on our proprietary information technology systems to conduct our business. If these systems fail to perform their functions adequately, or if we experience an interruption in their operation, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be harmed.

The efficient operation of our business is highly dependent on our proprietary information technology systems. We rely on our systems to record transactions, such as repair and depot charges, purchases and disposals of containers and movements associated with each of our owned or managed containers. We use the information provided by these systems in our day-to-day business decisions in order to effectively manage our lease portfolio, reduce costs and improve customer service. We also rely on these systems for the accurate tracking of the performance of our managed fleet for each container investor. The failure of our systems to perform as we expect could disrupt our business, adversely affect our results of operations and cause our relationships with lessees and container investors to suffer. Our information technology systems are vulnerable to damage or interruption from circumstances beyond our control, including fire, natural disasters, power loss and computer systems failures and viruses or cyber-attacks. Even though we have developed redundancies and other contingencies to mitigate any disruptions to our information technology systems, these redundancies and contingencies may not completely prevent interruptions to our information technology systems. In recent years we have moved various information technology systems and data to cloud-based storage providers and software vendors. We face additional risks from relying on third parties to store, process and manage our data and software. Any such interruptions could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Cyber attacks and/or information technology security breaches on us or our customers could materially and adversely affect us.  

If we, our customers or other third parties with which we do business were to fall victim to successful cyber-attacks or experience other cybersecurity incidents that cause the system failure, downtime, or the loss of sensitive data, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences.  Our ability to handle the delivery and return of containers, lease billing, and the sale of older containers is dependent on the stable operation of our information technology systems.   Our customers’ ability to generate revenue and make timely payments to us is similarly dependent on the stable operation of their information technology systems.  Successful breaches, employee malfeasance, or human or technological error could result in, for example, unauthorized access to, disclosure, modification, misuse, loss, or destruction of company, customer, or other third party data or systems; theft of sensitive, regulated, or confidential data; the loss of access to critical data or systems through ransomware, destructive attacks or other means; and business delays, service or system disruptions or denials of service.

Cybersecurity incidents have increased in number and severity and it is expected that these trends will continue. Should the Company be affected by such an incident, we may incur substantial costs and suffer other negative consequences, which may include substantial remediation costs, such as liability for stolen assets or information, repairs of system damage, and incentives to customers or business partners in an effort to maintain relationships after an attack, as well as litigation and legal risks.

Use of counterfeit and improper refrigerant in refrigeration machines for refrigerated containers could cause irreparable damage to the refrigeration machines, death or personal injury, and materially impair the value of our refrigerated container fleet.

In past years, there were a limited number of reports of counterfeit and improper refrigerant gas being used to service refrigeration machines in depots primarily in Asia. The use of this counterfeit gas has led to the explosion of several refrigeration machines. Several of these incidents resulted in personal injury or death, and in all cases, the counterfeit gas led to irreparable damage to the refrigeration machines.

19

Safer testing procedures were developed and implemented by refrigeration manufacturers and industry participants in order to determine whether counterfeit or improper gas was used to service a refrigeration machine.  However, there can be no assurance that these procedures will prove to continue to be reliable and cost effective. If industry procedures and tests are not proven safe and effective or if the use of such counterfeit and improper refrigerant recurs and is widespread or other counterfeit refrigerant issues emerge in the future, the value of our refrigerated container fleet and our ability to lease refrigerated containers could be materially impaired and could therefore have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.  Additionally, we might be subject to claims for damages by parties injured by contaminated refrigeration machinery operated by our lessees which may materially adversely affect us.

We face risks from our tank container management agreement with Trifleet Leasing (The Netherlands) B.V.

In June 2013 we announced that we had entered into a tank container management agreement with Trifleet Leasing (The Netherlands) B.V. (“Trifleet”). Under this agreement, we invest funds with Trifleet for the purchase and leasing of tank containers. Trifleet is our exclusive manager for investments in tank containers. Intermodal tank containers are used for the transport and storage of liquid foodstuffs, chemicals and gases. This is a specialized market subject to a number of regulations and strict operating procedures. As Trifleet is investing funds on our behalf in tank containers, our return on any investments under this management agreement are highly reliant on their skill and performance, as well as, the overall investment climate for tank containers. While we approve of the amounts committed under the management agreement, Trifleet selects the lessees, negotiates lease terms, determines equipment specifications, negotiates equipment orders and supervises production, and is responsible for all other management activities including customer billing, equipment return, re-leasing, maintenance and repairs. If Trifleet or the tank container market does not perform as we anticipate, we may not receive adequate returns on our investment and our results could be materially impacted. Additionally, given the nature of tank containers and their cargos, our ownership of tank containers could expose us to different and additional risks than we generally face as the owner and lessor of dry freight and refrigerated containers. While lessees, Trifleet and ourselves all maintain insurance, and lessees agree to accept liability for claims caused by the operation of tank containers, this may still be inadequate to shield us from costs and liability from any claims arising from tank containers that we own pursuant to the Trifleet management agreement.

If our insurance is inadequate or if we are unable to obtain insurance, we may experience losses.

Under all of our leases, our lessees are generally responsible for loss of or damage to a container beyond ordinary wear and tear, and they are required to purchase insurance to cover any other liabilities. Our depots are also required to maintain insurance and indemnify us against losses. We also maintain our own insurance to cover our containers when they are not on-hire to lessees or when the lessee fails to have adequate primary coverage, and third-party liability insurance for both on-hire and off-hire containers. In addition, we maintain insurance that, after satisfying our deductibles, would cover loss of revenue as a result of default under most of our leases, as well as, the recovery cost or replacement value of most of our containers. Lessees’ and depots’ insurance policies and indemnity rights may not protect us against losses. Our own insurance may prove to be inadequate to prevent against losses or in the future coverage may be unavailable or uneconomic, and losses could arise from a lack of insurance coverage.

20

U.S. investors in our company could suffer adverse tax consequences if we are characterized as a passive foreign investment company for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

Based upon the nature of our business activities, we could be classified in the future as a passive foreign investment company (“PFIC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. Such characterization could result in adverse U.S. tax consequences to direct or indirect U.S. investors in our common shares. For example, if we are a PFIC, our U.S. investors could become subject to increased tax liabilities under U.S. tax laws and regulations and could become subject to burdensome reporting requirements. The determination of whether or not we are a PFIC is made on an annual basis and depends on the composition of our income and assets from time to time. Specifically, for any taxable year we will be classified as a PFIC for U.S. tax purposes if either:

In applying these tests, we are treated as owning or generating directly our pro rata share of the assets and income of any corporation in which we own at least 25% by value. In addition, the composition of our income and assets will be affected by how, and how quickly, we spend the cash we have raised.

Under the PFIC rules, unless a U.S. investor is permitted to and does elect otherwise under the Internal Revenue Code, such U.S. investor would be liable to pay U.S. federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our common shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the investor’s holding period for our common shares. Based on the composition of our income, valuation of our assets (including goodwill), and our election to treat certain of our subsidiaries as disregarded entities for U.S. federal income tax purposes, we do not believe we were a PFIC for any period after our initial public offering (“IPO”) date and we do not expect that we should be treated as a PFIC for our current taxable year. However, there can be no assurance at all in this regard. Because the PFIC determination is highly fact intensive and made at the end of each taxable year, it is possible that we may be a PFIC for the current or any future taxable year or that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) may challenge our determination concerning our PFIC status.

We may become subject to unanticipated tax liabilities that may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Textainer Group Holdings Limited is a Bermuda company, and we believe that a significant portion of the income derived from our operations will not be subject to tax in Bermuda, which currently has no corporate income tax, or in many other countries in which we conduct activities or in which our customers or containers are located. However, this belief is based on the anticipated nature and conduct of our business, which may change. It is also based on our understanding of our position under the tax laws of the countries in which we have assets or conduct activities. This position is subject to review and possible challenge by taxing authorities and to possible changes in law that may have retroactive effect.

A portion of our income is treated as effectively connected with our conduct of a trade or business within the U.S., and is accordingly subject to U.S. federal income tax. It is possible that the IRS will conclude that a greater portion of our income is effectively connected income that should be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

Our results of operations could be materially and adversely affected if we become subject to a significant amount of unanticipated tax liabilities.

Our U.S. subsidiaries may be treated as personal holding companies for U.S. federal tax purposes now or in the future.

Any of our direct or indirect U.S. subsidiaries could be subject to additional U.S. tax on a portion of its income if it is considered to be a personal holding company (“PHC”) for U.S. federal income tax purposes. This status depends on whether more than 50% of the subsidiary’s shares by value could be deemed to be owned (taking into account constructive ownership rules) by five or fewer individuals and whether 60% or more of the subsidiary’s

21

adjusted ordinary gross income consists of “personal holding company income,” which includes certain forms of passive and investment income. The PHC rules do not apply to non-U.S. corporations. We believe that none of our U.S. subsidiaries should be considered PHCs. In addition, we intend to cause our U.S. subsidiaries to manage their affairs in a manner that reduces the possibility that they will meet the 60% income threshold. However, because of the lack of complete information regarding our ultimate share ownership ( i.e. , particularly as determined by constructive ownership rules), our U.S. subsidiaries may become PHCs in the future and, in that event, the amount of U.S. federal income tax that would be imposed could be material.

Changes in tax laws or their application could adversely affect the results of our operations.

Our worldwide operations are taxed under the laws of the jurisdictions in which we operate. However, the integrated nature of our worldwide operations can produce conflicting claims from revenue authorities in different countries as to the profits to be taxed in the individual countries, including disputes relating to transfer pricing. Some of the jurisdictions in which we operate have double tax treaties with other foreign jurisdictions, which provide a framework for mitigating the impact of double taxation on our revenues and capital gains. However, mechanisms developed to resolve such conflicting claims are largely uncertain, and can be expected to be very lengthy in coming to a final determination in the applicable jurisdictions.

In recent years, tax authorities around the world have increased their scrutiny of company tax filings, and have become more rigid in exercising any discretion they may have. As part of this, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) has proposed a number of tax law changes under its Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (“BEPS”) Action Plans to address issues of transparency, coherence and substance.

These OECD tax reform initiatives also need local country implementation, including in the Bermuda and U.S., which may result in significant changes to established tax principles. In response to EU efforts to investigate the tax policies of non-EU jurisdictions, effective December 31, 2018 Bermuda adopted the Economic Substance Act of 2018, which requires that Bermuda registered entities engaged in certain relevant activities (which include finance, leasing and shipping) maintain sufficient economic substance and activities in Bermuda.   The failure to comply with the Economic Substance Act may result in fines and penalties and ultimately the striking off of an entity from the Bermuda corporate register. The Economic Substance Act takes effect on July 1, 2019 and additional guidance is expected from the Bermuda government about the implementation of, and compliance with, the Act.   Bermuda was blacklisted by the EU on March 12, 2019 as they claim that Bermuda failed to enact the required Economic Substance legislation on time. Bermuda has stated that this was the result of a typographical error in the legislation that had been corrected and they expect to be removed from this list at the next meeting of the EU Council in May 2019. However, there can be no assurance that Bermuda will be removed from this list and this could have implications for the Company. We may be unable to comply with the Economic Substance Act or compliance with the act may materially adversely impact our operations and results.  Penalties for noncompliance could adversely affect our operations and results.

In addition, in the U.S., the U.S. Tax Cuts and Job Act of 2017 was signed into law on December 22, 2017 (the “New Tax Act”), which includes substantial changes to the U.S. taxation of individuals and businesses. The New Tax Act also establishes new tax laws that will affect our operations, including, but not limited to, (1) reduction of the U.S. federal corporate tax rate; (2) elimination of the corporate alternative minimum tax; (3) the creation of the base erosion anti-abuse tax (“BEAT”), a new minimum tax on taxable income adjusted for certain base erosion payments; (4) a general elimination of U.S. federal income taxes on dividends from foreign subsidiaries; (5) a new provision designed to currently tax certain global intangible low-taxed income (“GILTI”) of controlled foreign corporations, which allows for the possibility of using foreign tax credits (“FTCs”) and a deduction of up to 50% to reduce this income tax liability (subject to some limitations); (6) a new limitation on deductible interest expense; (7) limitations on the deductibility of certain executive compensation; (8) limitations on the use of FTCs to reduce the U.S. income tax liability; and (9) limitations on net operating losses generated in the taxable years beginning after December 31, 2017, to 80% of taxable income. Our financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2018 reflect the effects of the New Tax Act based on current guidance. However, there are uncertainties and ambiguities in the application of certain provisions of the New Tax Act, and as a result we made certain judgments and assumptions in the interpretation thereof. The U.S. Treasury Department and the Internal Revenue Service may issue further guidance on how the provisions of the New Tax Act will be applied or otherwise administered that differs from our current interpretation. In addition, the New Tax Act could be subject to potential amendments and

22

technical corrections, any of which could materially lessen or increase certain adverse impacts of the legislation on us. As we further analyze the impact of the New Tax Act and collect relevant information, we may make adjustments to the provisional amounts.

In general, such tax reform efforts, including with respect to tax base or rate, transfer pricing, intercompany dividends, cross border transactions, controlled corporations, and limitations on tax relief allowed on the interest on intercompany debt, will require us to continually assess our organizational structure against tax policy trends, and could lead to an increased risk of international tax disputes and an increase in our effective tax rate, and could adversely affect our financial results.

Our ability to use our net operating losses to offset future taxable income may be subject to certain limitations.

We have significant net operating loss carry-forwards in the United States. As of December 31, 2018, we had net operating loss carry-forwards of $123,079 relating to U.S. federal income taxes, which will begin to expire from December 31, 2019 through December 31, 2038 if not utilized.  

In the United States, utilization of these net operating loss carry-forwards for federal income tax purposes may be subject to an annual limitation if there is an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 382”). In general, an ownership change within the meaning of Section 382 occurs if a transaction or series of transactions over a three-year period result in a cumulative change of more than 50% in the beneficial ownership of a company’s stock. We do not believe we have a limitation on the ability to utilize our net operating loss carry-forwards under Section 382 as of December 31, 2018. However, issuances, sales and/or exchanges of our stock (including, potentially, relatively small transactions and transactions beyond our control) occurring after December 31, 2018, taken together with prior transactions with respect to our stock over a three-year period, could trigger an ownership change under Section 382 in the future and therefore a limitation on our ability to utilize our net operating loss carryforwards. Any such limitation could cause some loss carryforwards to expire before we would be able to utilize them to reduce taxable income in future periods, possibly resulting in a substantial income tax expense or write down of our tax assets or both.  Furthermore, net operating losses generated subsequent to December 31, 2017 are subject to the New Tax Act, which removes net operating loss expirations, but limits utilization against 80% of taxable income.  

The U.S. government has special contracting requirements that create additional risks.

In January 2019, we were informed that the U.S. Transportation Command Directorate of Acquisition (“USTranscom”) had issued a multi-vendor contract that included us as one of the vendors selected to supply leased marine containers and intermodal equipment to the U.S. Military. As a multi-vendor contract, there is no guarantee that the U.S. Military will accept our bids to supply containers and related services.  Thus, expected revenues from the USTranscom contract are difficult to predict and may not materialize or prove profitable. If we do not perform in accordance with the terms of the USTranscom contract, we may receive a poor performance report that would be considered by the U.S. military in making any future awards.

In contracting with the U.S. Military, we are subject to U.S. government contract laws, regulations and other requirements that impose risks not generally found in commercial contracts. For example, U.S. government contracts require contractors to comply with a number of socio-economic requirements and to submit periodic reports regarding compliance, are subject to audit and modification by the U.S. government in its sole discretion, and impose certain requirements relating to software and/or technical data that, if not followed, could result in the inadvertent grant to the U.S. government of broader licenses to use and disclose such software or data than intended.

These laws, regulations and contract provisions also permit, under certain circumstances, the U.S. government unilaterally to:

23

In addition, the U.S. Military may terminate the USTranscom contract either for its convenience at any time or if we default by failing to perform in accordance with the contract schedule and terms. Termination for convenience provisions generally enable the contractor to recover only those costs incurred or committed, and settlement expenses and profit on the work completed prior to termination. Termination for default provisions do not permit these recoveries and make the contractor liable for excess costs incurred by the U.S. Military in procuring undelivered items from another source.

In addition, the U.S. government could bring criminal and civil charges against us based on intentional or unintentional violations of the representations and certifications that we have made in the USTranscom contract. Although adjustments arising from U.S. government audits and reviews have not seriously harmed our business in the past, future audits and reviews could cause adverse effects. We could also suffer serious harm to our reputation if allegations of impropriety were to be made against us.

We may choose to pursue acquisitions or joint ventures that could present unforeseen integration obstacles or costs and we face risks from our joint venture.

We may pursue acquisitions and joint ventures. Acquisitions involve a number of risks and present financial, managerial and operational challenges, including:

In addition, we may encounter unforeseen obstacles or costs in the integration of acquired businesses. Also, the presence of one or more material liabilities of an acquired company that are unknown to us at the time of acquisition may have a material adverse effect on our business. Acquisitions or joint ventures may not be successful, and we may not realize any anticipated benefits from acquisitions or joint ventures.

On December 20, 2012, Textainer Limited (“TL”), our wholly-owned subsidiary, purchased 50.1% of the outstanding common shares of TAP Funding Ltd. (“TAP Funding”). TAP Funding owns a fleet of containers under our management. TAP Funding is governed by members and management agreements. TL has two voting rights and TAP Ltd. (“TAP”), the 49.9% shareholder, has one voting right in TAP Funding, with the exception of certain matters such as bankruptcy proceedings, the incurrence of debt and mergers and consolidations, which require unanimity. TL also has two seats and TAP has one seat on TAP Funding’s board of directors. While we own the majority of TAP Funding, we face risks associated with TAP Funding’s structure that requires both shareholders to agree on certain significant matters such as debt financing, mergers and liquidation. It is possible that the interests of the other shareholder could be different from our interests.  Conflicts between us and the other shareholder of TAP Funding could result in litigation, an inability to finance and operate TAP Funding, and other problems that might have a material adverse impact on us as a whole.

Our senior executives are critical to the success of our business and any inability to retain them or recruit and successfully integrate new personnel could harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our senior management has a solid history in the container leasing industry. We rely on this knowledge and experience in our strategic planning and in our day-to-day business operations. Our success depends in large part upon our ability to retain our senior management, the loss of one or more of whom could have a material adverse effect on our business.

24

In August 2018, our current President and CEO, Olivier Ghesquiere, assumed this position upon the retirement of Philip Brewer, our former President and CEO.   In October 2018, our Executive Vice President and CFO, Michael Chan, assumed this position upon the departure of our former Executive Vice President and CFO, Hilliard Terry.  We face risks from the recent changes in senior management and our performance will depend on the success of our management transition and the integration of these personnel into their new roles with the Company.

Our success also depends on our ability to retain our experienced sales force and technical personnel as well as recruit new skilled sales, marketing and technical personnel. Competition for these individuals in our industry is intense and we may not be able to successfully recruit, train or retain qualified personnel. If we fail to retain and recruit the necessary personnel, our business and our ability to obtain new container lessees and provide acceptable levels of customer service could suffer. We have “at will” employment agreements with all of our executive officers.

The lack of an international title registry for containers increases the risk of ownership disputes.

Although the Bureau International des Containers registers and allocates a four letter prefix to every container in accordance with ISO standard 6346 (Freight container coding, identification and marking) to identify the owner/operator and each container has a unique prefix and serial number, there is no internationally recognized system of recordation or filing to evidence our title to containers nor is there an internationally recognized system for filing security interests in containers. Although this has not occurred to date, the lack of a title recordation system with respect to containers could result in disputes with lessees, end-users, or third parties who may improperly claim ownership of containers.

We may incur costs associated with cargo security regulations, which may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We may be subject to regulations promulgated in various countries, including the U.S., seeking to protect the integrity of international commerce and prevent the use of containers for international terrorism or other illicit activities. For example, the Container Security Initiative, the Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism and Operation Safe Commerce are among the programs administered by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security that are designed to enhance security for cargo moving throughout the international transportation system by identifying existing vulnerabilities in the supply chain and developing improved methods for ensuring the security of containerized cargo entering and leaving the U.S. Moreover, the International Convention for Safe Containers, 1972, as amended, adopted by the International Maritime Organization, applies to containers and seeks to maintain a high level of safety of human life in the transport and handling of containers by providing uniform international safety regulations. As these regulations develop and change, we may incur compliance costs due to the acquisition of new, compliant containers and/or the adaptation of existing containers to meet new requirements imposed by such regulations. Additionally, certain companies are currently developing or may in the future develop products designed to enhance the security of containers transported in international commerce. Regardless of the existence of current or future government regulations mandating the safety standards of intermodal shipping containers, our competitors may adopt such products or our container lessees may require that we adopt such products. In responding to such market pressures, we may incur increased costs, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Environmental liability and regulations may adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

We are subject to federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations relating to the protection of the environment, including those governing the discharge of pollutants to air, ground and water, the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes and the cleanup of contaminated sites. We could incur substantial costs, including cleanup costs, fines and costs arising out of third-party claims for property or natural resource damage and personal injury, as a result of violations of or liabilities under or compliance with environmental laws and regulations in connection with our or our lessees’ current or historical operations. Under some environmental laws in the U.S. and certain other countries, the owner or operator of a container may be liable for environmental damage, cleanup or other costs in the event of a spill or discharge of material from the container without regard to the fault of the owner or operator. While we typically maintain certain limited liability insurance and typically require lessees to

25

provide us with indemnity against certain losses, the insurance coverage may not be sufficient to protect against any or all liabilities and such indemnities may not be sufficient, or available, to protect us against losses arising from environmental damage. Moreover, our lessees may not have adequate resources, or may refuse to honor their indemnity obligations and our insurance coverage is subject to large deductibles, coverage limits and significant exclusions.

Environmental regulations also impact container production and operation, including regulations on the use of chemical refrigerants due to their ozone depleting and global warming effects. Our refrigerated containers currently use R134A refrigerant. While R134A does not contain chlorofluorocarbons (“CFCs”), the European Union (“EU”) instituted regulations to phase out the use of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems which began in 2011 due to concern that the release of R134A into the atmosphere may contribute to global warming. While the European Union regulations do not currently restrict the use of R134A in refrigerated containers or trailers, it is possible that the phase out of R134A in automobile air conditioning systems will be extended to containers in the future and our operations could be impacted. It has been proposed that R134A usage in containers be banned beginning in 2025, although the final decision has not been made as of yet.

Container production also raises environmental concerns. The floors of dry freight containers are plywood typically made from tropical hardwoods. Due to concerns regarding de-forestation and climate change, many countries have implemented severe restrictions on the cutting and export of this wood. Accordingly, container manufacturers have switched a significant portion of production to alternatives such as birch, bamboo, and other farm grown wood and users are also evaluating alternative designs that would limit the amount of plywood required and are also considering possible synthetic materials. New woods or other alternatives have not proven their durability over the typical life of a dry freight container, and if they cannot perform as well as the hardwoods have historically, the future repair and operating costs for these containers may be impacted. Also, the insulation foam in the walls of certain refrigerated containers requires the use of a blowing agent that contains CFCs. Manufacturers are phasing out the use of this blowing agent in manufacturing, however, if future regulations prohibit the use or servicing of containers with insulation manufactured with this blowing agent we could be forced to incur large retrofitting expenses and these containers might bring lower rental rates and disposal prices. EU regulations currently restrict the sale or use of refrigerated containers manufactured with the CFC containing blowing agent and strict enforcement of these regulations could impact our ability to lease or sell these refrigerated containers in EU countries. The container industry in China has always used solvent-based paint systems. New regulations in China for the container industry require stopping the use of solvent-based paint systems, due to the restrictions on volatile organic compounds used in solvent-based paints. To comply with the new regulations, new water borne paint systems have been developed and are being used by container manufacturers. This change was already implemented in all factories in Southern China as of July 2016. The remaining container factories in China have been required to use water borne paint systems since April 1, 2017. The use of water borne paint systems has required significant factory investment and it is problematic to apply water borne paint during the winter in colder parts of China. The conversion to water borne paint may impact factory capacity, increase the cost of containers and require greater investment by us in container inspection and factory supervision.  

We are subject to certain U.S. laws that may impact our international operations and any investigation or determination that we violated these laws may affect our business and operations adversely.

As a Bermuda corporation that has an indirect wholly-owned U.S. subsidiary with operations in the U.S., our U.S. operations are subject to certain U.S. laws that may also impact our international operations. We are subject to the regulations imposed by the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which generally prohibits U.S. companies and their intermediaries from making improper payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or keeping business. We are also subject to U.S. Executive Orders and U.S. Treasury sanctions regulations restricting or prohibiting business dealings in or with certain nations and with certain specially designated nationals (individuals and legal entities). Any determination or investigation into violations of these laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

We could face litigation involving our management of containers for container investors.

We manage containers for container investors under management agreements that are negotiated with each container investor. We make no assurances to container investors that they will make any amount of profit on their

26

investment or that our management activities will result in any particular level of income or return of their initial capital. Although our management agreements contain contractual protections and indemnities that are designed to limit our exposure to such litigation, such provisions may not be effective, and we may be subject to a significant loss in a successful litigation by a container investor.

We may not be able to resume paying a dividend and any dividends paid in the future could be reduced or eliminated.

We eliminated our dividend payment in fourth quarter of 2016. We may not be able, or may choose not to reinstate our dividend program and pay future dividends, and if reinstated any future dividend could again be eliminated or reduced. The declaration, amount and payment of future dividends are at the discretion of our board of directors and will be dependent on our future operating results and the cash requirements of our business. There are a number of factors that can affect our ability to pay dividends and there is no guarantee that we will pay dividends in any given year, in each quarter of a year, or pay any specific amount of dividends. In addition, we will not pay dividends in the event we are not allowed to do so under Bermuda law, are in default under (or such payment would cause a default under) TL’s revolving credit facilities or term loan, or if such payment would cause us to breach any of our covenants. These covenants include certain financial covenants, which would be directly affected by the payment of dividends, such as a maximum ratio of consolidated funded debt to consolidated tangible net worth (which amount would decrease by the amount of any dividend paid). The reduction, suspension or elimination of dividends may negatively affect the market price of our common shares. Furthermore, since we are a holding company, substantially all of the assets shown on our consolidated balance sheet are held by our subsidiaries. Accordingly, our earnings and cash flow and our ability to pay dividends are largely dependent upon the earnings and cash flows of our subsidiaries and the distribution or other payment of such earnings to us in the form of dividends as permitted under our lending agreements.

The calculation of our income tax expense requires judgment and the use of estimates.

We periodically assess tax positions based on current tax developments, including enacted statutory, judicial and regulatory guidance. In analyzing our overall tax position, consideration is given to the amount and timing of recognizing income tax liabilities and benefits. In applying the tax and accounting guidance to the facts and circumstances, income tax balances are adjusted appropriately through the income tax provision. We account for income tax positions on uncertainties by recognizing the effect of income tax positions only if those positions are more likely than not of being sustained and maintain reserves for income tax positions we believe are not more likely than not of being sustained. Recognized income tax positions are measured at the largest amount that is greater than 50% likely of being realized. However, due to the judgment required in estimating those reserves, actual amounts paid, if any, could differ from these estimates.

Future changes in accounting rules could significantly impact how we, our managed fleet owners and our customers account for our leases.

Our consolidated financial statements are prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued Accounting Standards Update No. 2016-02, Leases (Topic 842) (“ASU 2016-02”). Under this new guidance, lessor accounting is largely unchanged. Certain targeted improvements were made to align, where necessary, lessor accounting with the lessee accounting model and Topic 606, Revenue from Contracts with Customers . Lessees will be required to recognize the following for all leases (with the exception of short-term leases) at the commencement date: (1) a lease liability, which is a lessee’s obligation to make lease payments arising from a lease, measured on a discounted basis; and (2) a right-of-use asset, which is an asset that represents the lessee’s right to use, or control the use of, a specified asset for the lease term. The new lease guidance also simplified the accounting for sale and leaseback transactions primarily because lessees must recognize lease assets and lease liabilities. Lessees will no longer be provided with a source of off-balance sheet financing. The guidance is effective for interim and annual periods beginning after December 15, 2018 and early application is permitted. Additional, IFRS has issued similar changes to lease accounting under IFRS 16 Leases. Because the new leasing guidance virtually eliminates for lessees the financial statement benefit of entering into operating leases, it could change the way we and our customers conduct our businesses. Future changes in accounting rules will also impact container owners whose containers are managed by us.  These changes could make

27

it more difficult for such owners to raise funding and may also make managed container programs less attractive to owners.

Risks Related to Our Common Shares

The market price and trading volume of our common shares, which may be affected by market conditions beyond our control, have been volatile and could continue to remain volatile.

The market price of our common shares has been, and may continue to be highly volatile and subject to wide fluctuations. In addition, the trading volume in our common shares has fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate, causing significant price variations to occur. Since our initial public offering, our common shares have fluctuated from an intra-day low of $4.23 per share to an intra-day high of $43.96 per share. If the market price of the shares declines significantly, the value of an investment in our common shares would decline. The market price of our common shares may fluctuate or decline significantly in the future. Some of the factors that could negatively affect the price of our common shares or result in fluctuations in the price or trading volume of our common shares include:

Recently and in the past, the stock market has experienced extreme price and volume fluctuations. These market fluctuations could result in extreme volatility in the trading price of our common shares, which could cause a decline in the value of your investment in our common shares. In addition, the trading price of our common shares could decline for reasons unrelated to our business or financial results, including in reaction to events that affect other companies in our industry even if those events do not directly affect us. You should also be aware that price volatility may be greater if the public float and trading volume of our common shares are low.

28

One of our major shareholders , Trenco r Limited, could act in a manner with which other shareholders may disagree or that is not necessarily in the interests of other shareholders.

Trencor Limited, a company traded on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (the “JSE”) in South Africa, currently owns approximately 47.5% of our issued and outstanding common shares. Trencor has entered into a voting limitation deed with the Company, pursuant to which Trencor agreed to limit its shareholder voting rights in the Company, solely in respect of the appointment and/or removal of directors. Otherwise, Trencor has the ability to influence the outcome of matters submitted to our shareholders for approval, including any amalgamation, merger, consolidation or sale of all or substantially all of our assets. Two of our eight directors are also directors of Trencor. Trencor may have interests that are different from other shareholders. For example, it may support proposals and actions with which you may disagree or which are not in your interests as a shareholder of our company. The concentration of ownership could delay or prevent a change in control of us or otherwise discourage a potential acquirer from attempting to obtain control of us, which in turn could reduce the price of our common shares. Additionally, we have no agreements with Trencor that limit or restrict its ability to sell or transfer shares in us. Any sale or transfer of some or all of the common shares owned by Trencor could adversely affect our share price.

Affiliates of Trencor may compete with us and compete with some of our customers.

Trencor, through its affiliates, is free to compete with us, and has engaged in the past and may continue to engage in businesses that are similar to ours. In particular, Leased Assets Pool Company Limited (“LAPCO”), an indirect subsidiary of Trencor, owns containers, has competed against us and our customers through its investment in containers and has used our competitors to manage some of its containers in the past. Thus, although we have a management agreement with LAPCO to manage a substantial majority of its containers, we may continue to compete with LAPCO in the future, which may result in various conflicts of interest.

Our current management and share ownership structure may create conflicts of interest.

Two of our eight directors are also directors of Trencor . These directors owe fiduciary duties to each company and may have conflicts of interest in matters involving or affecting us as well as Trencor, including matters arising under our agreements with LAPCO. In addition, to the extent that some of these directors may own shares in Trencor, they may have conflicts of interest when faced with decisions that could have different implications for Trencor than they do for us. Furthermore, Trencor, as a South African company, endorses the Code of Corporate Practices and Conduct in the King IV Report on Corporate Governance. The King IV Report on Corporate Governance is a document accepted by the JSE on which Trencor is listed and promulgated by the South African Institute of Directors which, among other things, suggests that corporations in their corporate decision-making consider the following stakeholders in addition to the owners of shares: parties who contract with the enterprise; parties who have a non-contractual nexus with the enterprise (including civic society and the environment); and the state. Trencor may seek to impose these corporate governance practices on us, which may result in constraints on management and may involve significant costs. Your interests as a holder of our common shares may not align with the interests of Trencor and its affiliates and shareholders.

We are a holding company with no material direct operations and rely on our operating subsidiaries to provide us with funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and to pay dividends.

We are a holding company with no material direct operations. Our principal assets are the equity interests we directly or indirectly hold in our operating subsidiaries, which own our operating assets. As a result, we are dependent on loans, dividends and other payments from our subsidiaries to generate the funds necessary to meet our financial obligations and to pay dividends on our common shares. Our subsidiaries are legally distinct from us and may be prohibited or restricted from paying dividends or otherwise making funds available to us under certain conditions or lending covenants. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, we may be unable to, or our board may exercise its discretion not to, pay dividends on our common shares.

29

Our ability to issue securities in the future may be materially constrained by Trencor’s South African currency restrictions and JSE Listings Requirements and Trencor’s results may differ from our results due to their use of different accounting standards.

Trencor, a South African company listed on the JSE, currently holds 47.5% of our issued and outstanding shares. Two of our eight directors are also directors of Trencor. Both South African exchange control authorities and the JSE impose certain restrictions on Trencor.

South Africa’s exchange control regulations provide for restrictions on exporting capital from South Africa. These restrictions require Trencor to obtain approval from South African exchange control authorities before Trencor engages in transactions that would result in dilution of Trencor’s share interest in us below certain thresholds, whether through Trencor’s sale of its own shareholdings or through its approval of our issuance of new shares. The exchange control authorities may decide not to grant such approval if a proposed transaction were to dilute Trencor’s interest in us below certain levels. While the South African government has, to some extent, relaxed exchange controls in recent years, it is difficult to predict whether or how it will further relax or abolish exchange control measures in the future. The above requirements could restrict or limit our ability to issue new shares. In addition, Trencor is required to comply with JSE Listings Requirements in connection with its holding or sale of our common shares.

The above requirements could limit our financial flexibility by, among other things, impacting our future ability to raise funds through the issuance of securities, preventing or limiting the use of our common shares as consideration in acquisitions, and limiting our use of option grants and restricted share grants to our directors, officers and other employees as incentives to improve the financial performance of our company. Additionally, while we report under U.S. GAAP, Trencor reports its results under a different accounting standard. This may cause Trencor’s reporting of our results to differ from what we report and may result in an inability to reconcile the results of both companies, market confusion and an inconsistent market reaction when both companies report results.

It may not be possible for investors to enforce U.S. judgments against us.

We and all of our direct and indirect subsidiaries, except Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) Limited and Textainer Equipment Management (U.S.) II LLC, are incorporated in jurisdictions outside the U.S. A substantial portion of our assets and those of our subsidiaries are located outside of the U.S. In addition, half of our directors are non-residents of the U.S., and all or a substantial portion of the assets of these non-residents are located outside the U.S. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. investors to serve process within the U.S. upon us, our non-U.S. subsidiaries, or our directors, or to enforce a judgment against us for civil liabilities in U.S. courts. In addition, you should not assume that courts in the countries in which we or our subsidiaries are incorporated or where our assets or the assets of our subsidiaries are located would enforce judgments of U.S. courts obtained in actions against us or our subsidiaries based upon the civil liability provisions of applicable U.S. federal and state securities laws, or would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us or our subsidiaries based on those laws.

We are a foreign private issuer and, as a result, under New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) rules, we are not required to comply with certain corporate governance requirements.

As a foreign private issuer, we are permitted by the NYSE to comply with Bermuda corporate governance practice in lieu of complying with certain NYSE corporate governance requirements. This means that we are not required to comply with NYSE requirements that:

30

Our board of directors has adopted an audit committee charter, a compensation committee charter and a nominating and governance committee charter. Additionally, we have a company code of conduct, corporate governance guidelines, conduct performance evaluations of our board and committees, and have obtained shareholder approval for our equity compensation plan. However, we use some of the exemptions available to a foreign private issuer. As a result, our board of directors may not consist of a majority of independent directors and our compensation committee may not consist of any or a majority of independent directors. Accordingly, our shareholders may not have the same protections afforded to shareholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

Required public company corporate governance and financial reporting practices and policies have increased our costs, and we may be unable to provide the required financial information in a timely and reliable manner.

Our management may not be able to continue to meet the regulatory compliance and reporting requirements that are applicable to us as a public company. This result may subject us to adverse regulatory consequences, and could lead to a negative reaction in the financial markets due to a loss of confidence in the reliability of our financial statements. If we do not maintain compliance with the requirements of Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or if we or our independent registered public accounting firm identify deficiencies in our internal controls over financial reporting that are deemed to be material weaknesses, we could suffer a loss of investor confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could cause the market price of our common shares to decline.

In addition, if we fail to maintain effective controls and procedures, we may be unable to provide the required financial information in a timely and reliable manner or otherwise comply with the standards applicable to us as a public company. Any failure by us to timely provide the required financial information could materially and adversely impact our financial condition and the market value of our common shares. Furthermore, testing and maintaining internal controls can divert our management’s attention from other matters that are important to our business. These regulations have increased our legal and financial compliance costs, we expect the regulations to make it more difficult to attract and retain qualified officers and directors, particularly to serve on our audit committee, and make some activities more difficult, time consuming and costly.

Future sales of a large number of our securities into the public market, or the expectation of such sales, could cause the market price of our common shares to decline significantly.

Sales of substantial amounts of common securities into the public market, or the perception that such sales will occur, may cause the market price of our common shares to decline significantly. In September 2012, we completed a sale of 8,625,000 common shares, including 2,500,000 common shares offered by a selling shareholder, Halco. The price of our shares could be negatively impacted if we undertake additional offerings to sell securities. In addition, at our 2010 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders held on May 19, 2010, our shareholders approved an amendment to our 2007 Share Incentive Plan to increase the maximum number of our common shares issuable pursuant to such plan by 1,468,500 shares from 3,808,371 shares to 5,276,871 shares. On May 21, 2015, our shareholders approved an amendment and restatement of the 2007 Share Incentive Plan as the 2015 Share Incentive Plan and to increase the maximum number of our common shares issuable pursuant to such plan by 2,000,000 shares and to extend the term of such plan for ten years from the date of the annual meeting of shareholders. The common shares to be issued pursuant to awards under our 2015 Share Incentive Plan have been registered on registration statements on Form S-8 filed with the Securities Exchange Commission and, when issued, will be freely tradable under the Securities Act of 1933.

31

We have provisions in our bye-laws that may discourage a change of control.

Bermuda law and our bye-laws contain provisions that could make it more difficult for a third party to acquire us without the consent of our board of directors. These include provisions:

These provisions may make it difficult and expensive for a third party to pursue a tender offer, change in control or takeover attempt that is opposed by our management and/or our board of directors. Public shareholders who might desire to participate in these types of transactions may not have an opportunity to do so. These provisions could substantially impede the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control or change our management and board of directors and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common shares and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

As a shareholder of our company, you may have greater difficulties in protecting your interests than as a shareholder of a U.S. corporation.

The Companies Act 1981 of Bermuda, as amended (the “Companies Act”), applies to our company and differs in material respects from laws generally applicable to U.S. corporations and their shareholders. Taken together with the provisions of our bye-laws, some of these differences may result in your having greater difficulties in protecting your interests as a shareholder of our company than you would have as a shareholder of a U.S. corporation. This affects, among other things, the circumstances under which transactions involving an interested director are voidable, whether an interested director can be held accountable for any benefit realized in a transaction with our company, what approvals are required for business combinations by our company with a large shareholder or a wholly-owned subsidiary, what rights you may have as a shareholder to enforce specified provisions of the Companies Act or our bye-laws, and the circumstances under which we may indemnify our directors and officers.

Our bye-laws restrict shareholders from bringing legal action against our officers and directors.

Our bye-laws contain a broad waiver by our shareholders of any claims or right of action, both individually and on our behalf, against any of our officers or directors. The waiver applies to any action taken by an officer or director, or the failure of an officer or director to take any action, in the performance of his or her duties, except with respect to any matter involving any fraud or dishonesty on the part of the officer or director. This waiver limits the right of shareholders to assert claims against our officers and directors unless the act or failure to act involves fraud.

32