Company Quick10K Filing
Costamare
20-F 2019-12-31 Filed 2020-02-26
20-F 2018-12-31 Filed 2019-03-07
20-F 2017-12-31 Filed 2018-02-27
20-F 2016-12-31 Filed 2017-03-14
20-F 2015-12-31 Filed 2016-04-27
20-F 2014-12-31 Filed 2015-03-05
20-F 2013-12-31 Filed 2014-02-21
20-F 2012-12-31 Filed 2013-03-01
20-F 2011-12-31 Filed 2012-02-29
20-F 2010-12-31 Filed 2011-03-22

CMRE 20F Annual Report

Part I
Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers
Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable
Item 3. Key Information
Item 4. Information on The Company
Item 4.A. Unresolved Staff Comments
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects
Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees
Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions
Item 8. Financial Information
Item 9. The Offer and Listing
Item 10. Additional Information
Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk
Item 12. Description of Securities Other Than Equity Securities
Part II
Item 13. Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies
Item 14. Material Modifications To The Rights of Security Holders and Use of Proceeds
Item 15. Controls and Procedures
Item 16.A. Audit Committee Financial Expert
Item 16.B. Code of Ethics
Item 16.C. Principal Accountant Fees and Services
Item 16.D. Exemptions From The Listing Standards for Audit Committees
Item 17.E. Purchases of Equity Securities By The Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers
Item 18.F. Change in Registrant's Certifying Accountant
Item 19.G. Corporate Governance
Part III
Item 20. Financial Statements
Item 21. Financial Statements
Item 22. Exhibits
EX-4.15 c64544_ex4-15.htm
EX-8.1 c64544_ex8-1.htm
EX-12.1 c64544_ex12-1.htm
EX-12.2 c64544_ex12-2.htm
EX-13.1 c64544_ex13-1.htm
EX-13.2 c64544_ex13-2.htm

Costamare Earnings 2010-12-31

Balance SheetIncome StatementCash Flow

20-F 1 c64544_20f.htm 3B2 EDGAR HTML -- c64544_20f.htm



UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549


FORM 20-F

 

 

 

(Mark One)

£

 

REGISTRATION STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OR (g) OF THE
SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

S

 

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2010

£

 

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

£

 

SHELL COMPANY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

COMMISSION FILE NUMBER []


COSTAMARE INC.
(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

NOT APPLICABLE
(Translation of Registrant’s name into English)

Republic of The Marshall Islands
(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

60 Zephyrou Street &
Syngrou Avenue
17564 Athens Greece

(Address of principal executive offices)

Konstantinos Zacharatos Secretary
60 Zephyrou Street &
Syngrou Avenue
17564 Athens

Greece Telephone : +30-210-949-0050 Facsimile : +30-210-949-6454
(Name, Address, Telephone Number and Facsimile Number of Company contact person)


SECURITIES REGISTERED OR TO BE REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(b) OF THE ACT:

 

 

 

Title of Each Class

 

Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

Common Stock, $0.0001 par value per share

 

New York Stock Exchange

Preferred stock purchase rights

 

New York Stock Exchange

SECURITIES REGISTERED PURSUANT TO SECTION 12(g) OF THE ACT: None

SECURITIES FOR WHICH THERE IS A REPORTING OBLIGATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 15(d) OF THE ACT: None

Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer’s classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report. As of December 31, 2010, there were 60,300,000 shares of the registrant’s common stock outstanding.

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act.  Yes £  No S

If this report is an annual or transition report, indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.  Yes £  No S

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes S  No £

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of “accelerated filer and large accelerated filer” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

 

 

 

 

 

Large accelerated filer £

 

Accelerated filer £

 

Non-accelerated filer S

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing.

U.S. GAAP S International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board £  Other £  

If “Other” has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow. Item 17 £  Item 18 £

If this is an annual report, indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes £  No S




TABLE OF CONTENTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Page

ABOUT THIS REPORT

 

ii

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

 

ii

PART I

 

1

ITEM 1.

 

IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

 

1

ITEM 2.

 

OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

 

1

ITEM 3.

 

KEY INFORMATION

 

1

ITEM 4.

 

INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

 

27

ITEM 4.A.

 

UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

 

43

ITEM 5.

 

OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

 

44

ITEM 6.

 

DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES

 

73

ITEM 7.

 

MAJOR SHAREHOLDERS AND RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS

 

77

ITEM 8.

 

FINANCIAL INFORMATION

 

82

ITEM 9.

 

THE OFFER AND LISTING

 

83

ITEM 10.

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

 

84

ITEM 11.

 

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DISCLOSURES ABOUT MARKET RISK

 

99

ITEM 12.

 

DESCRIPTION OF SECURITIES OTHER THAN EQUITY SECURITIES

 

101

PART II

 

102

ITEM 13.

 

DEFAULTS, DIVIDEND ARREARAGES AND DELINQUENCIES

 

102

ITEM 14.

 

MATERIAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE RIGHTS OF SECURITY HOLDERS AND USE OF PROCEEDS

 

102

ITEM 15.

 

CONTROLS AND PROCEDURES

 

102

ITEM 16.A.

 

AUDIT COMMITTEE FINANCIAL EXPERT

 

102

ITEM 16.B.

 

CODE OF ETHICS

 

102

ITEM 16.C.

 

PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTANT FEES AND SERVICES

 

103

ITEM 16.D.

 

EXEMPTIONS FROM THE LISTING STANDARDS FOR AUDIT COMMITTEES

 

103

ITEM 17.E.

 

PURCHASES OF EQUITY SECURITIES BY THE ISSUER AND AFFILIATED PURCHASERS

 

103

ITEM 18.F.

 

CHANGE IN REGISTRANT’S CERTIFYING ACCOUNTANT

 

104

ITEM 19.G.

 

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

 

104

PART III

 

105

ITEM 20.

 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

105

ITEM 21.

 

FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

105

ITEM 22.

 

EXHIBITS

 

105

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

 

F-1

i


ABOUT THIS REPORT

In this annual report, unless otherwise indicated, references to “Costamare”, the “Company”, “we”, “our”, “us” or similar terms when used in a historical context refer to Costamare Inc., or any one or more of its subsidiaries or their predecessors, or to such entities collectively.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

All statements in this annual report that are not statements of historical fact are “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. The disclosure and analysis set forth in this annual report includes assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events in a number of places, particularly in relation to our operations, cash flows, financial position, plans, strategies, business prospects, changes and trends in our business and the markets in which we operate. These statements are intended as forward- looking statements. In some cases, predictive, future-tense or forward-looking words such as “believe”, “intend”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, “project”, “forecast”, “plan”, “potential”, “may”, “should”, and “expect” and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements, but are not the exclusive means of identifying such statements. In addition, we and our representatives may from time to time make other oral or written statements which are forward-looking statements, including in our periodic reports that we file with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), other information sent to our security holders, and other written materials.

Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, such matters as:

 

 

 

 

future operating or financial results and future revenues and expenses;

 

 

 

 

future, pending or recent acquisitions, business strategy, areas of possible expansion and expected capital spending or operating expenses;

 

 

 

 

availability of key employees, crew, length and number of off-hire days, dry-docking requirements and fuel and insurance costs;

 

 

 

 

general market conditions and shipping industry trends, including charter rates, vessel values and factors affecting supply and demand;

 

 

 

 

our financial condition and liquidity, including our ability to make required payments under our credit facilities, comply with our loan covenants and obtain additional financing in the future to fund capital expenditures, acquisitions and other corporate activities;

 

 

 

 

the overall health and condition of the U.S. and global financial markets, including the value of the U.S. dollar relative to other currencies;

 

 

 

 

our expectations about availability of vessels to purchase, the time that it may take to construct and deliver new vessels or the useful lives of our vessels;

 

 

 

 

our continued ability to enter into period time charters with our customers and secure profitable employment for our vessels in the spot market;

 

 

 

 

our expectations relating to dividend payments and ability to make such payments;

 

 

 

 

our ability to leverage to our advantage our Managers, relationships and reputation within the container shipping industry;

 

 

 

 

our anticipated general and administrative expenses;

 

 

 

 

environmental and regulatory conditions, including changes in laws and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities;

 

 

 

 

risks inherent in vessel operation, including terrorism, piracy and discharge of pollutants;

 

 

 

 

potential liability from future litigation; and

 

 

 

 

other factors discussed in “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors” of this annual report.

We caution that the forward-looking statements included in this annual report represent our estimates and assumptions only as of the date of this annual report and are not intended to give any

ii


assurance as to future results. Assumptions, expectations, projections, intentions and beliefs about future events may, and often do, vary from actual results and these differences can be material. The reasons for this include the risks, uncertainties and factors described under “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors”. As a result, the forward-looking events discussed in this annual report might not occur and our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in the forward-looking statements. Accordingly, you should not unduly rely on any forward-looking statements.

We undertake no obligation to update or revise any forward-looking statements contained in this annual report, whether as a result of new information, future events, a change in our views or expectations or otherwise. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of these factors. Further, we cannot assess the impact of each such factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to be materially different from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

iii


PART I

ITEM 1. IDENTITY OF DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND ADVISERS

Not applicable.

ITEM 2. OFFER STATISTICS AND EXPECTED TIMETABLE

Not applicable.

ITEM 3. KEY INFORMATION

A. Selected Financial Data

The following table presents selected consolidated financial and other data of Costamare Inc. for each of the five years in the five-year period ended December 31, 2010. The table should be read together with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects”. The selected consolidated financial data of Costamare Inc. is a summary of, is derived from, and is qualified by reference to, our audited consolidated financial statements and notes thereto, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, or “U.S. GAAP” (with the exception of the consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2006, which are unaudited). Our audited consolidated statements of income, stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 and the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2009 and 2010, together with the notes thereto, are included in “Item 18. Financial Statements” and should be read in their entirety.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

2006

 

2007

 

2008

 

2009

 

2010

 

 

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except for share data)

STATEMENT OF INCOME

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Revenues:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voyage revenue

 

 

$

 

349,997

 

 

 

$

 

370,121

 

 

 

$

 

426,348

 

 

 

$

 

399,939

 

 

 

$

 

353,151

 

Expenses:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Voyage expenses

 

 

 

1,825

 

 

 

 

2,780

 

 

 

 

3,735

 

 

 

 

3,075

 

 

 

 

2,076

 

Voyage expenses—related parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

410

 

Charter agreement early termination fee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

9,500

 

Vessels’ operating expenses

 

 

 

100,701

 

 

 

 

124,666

 

 

 

 

148,350

 

 

 

 

114,515

 

 

 

 

102,771

 

General and administrative expenses

 

 

 

212

 

 

 

 

466

 

 

 

 

2,608

 

 

 

 

1,716

 

 

 

 

1,224

 

Management fees—related parties

 

 

 

10,198

 

 

 

 

11,812

 

 

 

 

13,541

 

 

 

 

12,231

 

 

 

 

11,256

 

Amortization of dry-docking and special survey costs

 

 

 

2,767

 

 

 

 

3,095

 

 

 

 

6,722

 

 

 

 

7,986

 

 

 

 

8,465

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

67,134

 

 

 

 

50,710

 

 

 

 

72,256

 

 

 

 

71,148

 

 

 

 

70,887

 

Gain on sale of vessels

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(95

)

 

 

 

 

(2,854

)

 

 

 

 

(9,588

)

 

Foreign exchange gains / (losses)

 

 

 

143

 

 

 

 

579

 

 

 

 

(235

)

 

 

 

 

535

 

 

 

 

273

 

Other income / (expenses)

 

 

 

910

 

 

 

 

301

 

 

 

 

(37

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Operating income

 

 

$

 

166,107

 

 

 

$

 

175,712

 

 

 

$

 

179,503

 

 

 

$

 

191,587

 

 

 

$

 

155,877

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Other Income (Expenses):

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interest income

 

 

$

 

5,627

 

 

 

$

 

3,589

 

 

 

$

 

5,575

 

 

 

$

 

2,672

 

 

 

$

 

1,449

 

Interest and finance costs

 

 

 

(54,211

)

 

 

 

 

(62,568

)

 

 

 

 

(68,420

)

 

 

 

 

(86,817

)

 

 

 

 

(71,949

)

 

Other

 

 

 

63

 

 

 

 

188

 

 

 

 

109

 

 

 

 

3,892

 

 

 

 

306

 

Gain (loss) on derivative instruments

 

 

 

5,820

 

 

 

 

(1,498

)

 

 

 

 

(16,988

)

 

 

 

 

5,595

 

 

 

 

(4,459

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total other income (expenses)

 

 

$

 

(42,701

)

 

 

 

$

 

(60,289

)

 

 

 

$

 

(79,724

)

 

 

 

$

 

(74,658

)

 

 

 

$

 

(74,653

)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Income

 

 

$

 

123,406

 

 

 

$

 

115,423

 

 

 

$

 

99,779

 

 

 

$

 

116,929

 

 

 

$

 

81,224

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Earnings per common share, basic and diluted

 

 

$

 

2.63

 

 

 

$

 

2.46

 

 

 

$

 

2.12

 

 

 

$

 

2.49

 

 

 

$

 

1.65

 

Weighted average number of shares, basic and diluted

 

 

 

47,000,000

 

 

 

 

47,000,000

 

 

 

 

47,000,000

 

 

 

 

47,000,000

 

 

 

 

49,113,425

 

1


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year Ended December 31,

 

2006

 

2007

 

2008

 

2009

 

2010

 

 

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except for share data)

OTHER FINANCIAL DATA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net cash provided by operating activities

 

 

$

 

7,864

 

 

 

$

 

166,619

 

 

 

$

 

247,518

 

 

 

$

 

161,893

 

 

 

 

127,946

 

Net cash (used in) provided by investing activities

 

 

 

(350,456

)

 

 

 

 

(257,550

)

 

 

 

 

(138,301

)

 

 

 

 

12,811

 

 

 

 

(23,850

)

 

Net cash (used in) provided by financing activities

 

 

 

342,026

 

 

 

 

93,099

 

 

 

 

(22,529

)

 

 

 

 

(252,684

)

 

 

 

 

43,396

 

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents

 

 

 

(566

)

 

 

 

 

2,168

 

 

 

 

86,688

 

 

 

 

(77,980

)

 

 

 

 

147,492

 

Dividends and distributions paid

 

 

 

(13,564

)

 

 

 

 

(88,572

)

 

 

 

 

(279,778

)

 

 

 

 

(161,230

)

 

 

 

 

(10,000

)

 

BALANCE SHEET DATA (at period end)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total current assets

 

 

$

 

117,540

 

 

 

$

 

120,274

 

 

 

$

 

121,495

 

 

 

$

 

48,305

 

 

 

 

211,212

 

Total assets

 

 

 

1,453,988

 

 

 

 

1,674,665

 

 

 

 

1,815,500

 

 

 

 

1,710,300

 

 

 

 

1,828,782

 

Total current liabilities

 

 

 

153,651

 

 

 

 

177,575

 

 

 

 

287,534

 

 

 

 

183,271

 

 

 

 

184,788

 

Total long-term debt, including current portion

 

 

 

968,822

 

 

 

 

1,102,926

 

 

 

 

1,529,948

 

 

 

 

1,435,593

 

 

 

 

1,341,737

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

 

 

446,452

 

 

 

 

521,453

 

 

 

 

(10,750

)

 

 

 

 

155,222

 

 

 

 

362,142

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Average for the Year Ended December 31,

 

2006

 

2007

 

2008

 

2009

 

2010

FLEET DATA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Number of vessels

 

 

 

43.6

 

 

 

 

46.2

 

 

 

 

52.8

 

 

 

 

47.3

 

 

 

 

42.4

 

TEU capacity

 

 

 

177,274

 

 

 

 

194,865

 

 

 

 

226,878

 

 

 

 

218,733

 

 

 

 

211,185

 

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

The following table sets forth our (i) cash and cash equivalents, (ii) restricted cash and (iii) consolidated capitalization as of December 31, 2010:

This information should be read in conjunction with “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects”, and our consolidated financial statements and the related notes thereto included elsewhere in this annual report.

 

 

 

 

 

As of December 31, 2010

 

 

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars)

Cash and cash equivalents

 

 

$

 

159,774

 

 

 

 

Restricted cash

 

 

$

 

41,935

 

 

 

 

Debt:

 

 

Total long-term debt(1)(2)

 

 

$

 

1,341,737

 

 

 

 

Stockholders’ equity:

 

 

Common stock, par value $0.0001 per share; 1,000,000,000 shares authorized on an actual basis and 1,000,000,000 shares authorized on an as adjusted basis; 60,300,000 shares issued and outstanding on an actual basis basis

 

 

$

 

6

 

Additional paid-in capital

 

 

$

 

519,971

 

Other comprehensive loss

 

 

 

(82,895

)

 

Retained earnings (accumulated deficit)

 

 

 

(74,940

)

 

 

 

 

Total stockholders’ equity

 

 

 

362,142

 

 

 

 

Total capitalization

 

 

$

 

1,703,879

 

 

 

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

We had $194.2 million of undrawn borrowing capacity under our committed credit facilities as of December 31, 2010. See “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Facilities”.

 

(2)

 

 

 

All of our existing indebtedness is secured.

2


C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

Risks Inherent in Our Business

Our growth depends upon continued increases in world and regional demand for chartering containerships, and the recent global economic slowdown may impede our ability to continue to grow our business.

The ocean-going container shipping industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter rates and profitability. Containership charter rates peaked in 2005 and generally stayed strong until the middle of 2008, when the effects of the recent economic crisis began to affect global container trade, driving rates to their 10-year lows.

Demand for containerships also declined significantly during 2008 and 2009. In late 2009 and up through December 31, 2010, however, there has been improvement on Far East-to-Europe and trans-Pacific container trade lanes, alongside improvements also witnessed on other, non-mainlane, trade routes including certain intra-Asia and North-South trade routes. Although liner companies have experienced improvement in container shipping activity, resulting in increased average freight rates in the second half of 2010, any future declines in freight rates would negatively affect the liner companies to which we seek to charter our containerships. The economics of our business have also been affected negatively by the large number of containership newbuilds ordered prior to the onset of the downturn. Accordingly, weak conditions in the containership sector may affect our ability to generate cash flows and maintain liquidity, as well as adversely affect our ability to obtain financing.

The factors affecting the supply and demand for containerships are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable. The factors that influence demand for containership capacity include:

 

 

 

 

supply and demand for products shipped in containers;

 

 

 

 

changes in global production of products transported by containerships;

 

 

 

 

global and regional economic and political conditions;

 

 

 

 

developments in international trade;

 

 

 

 

environmental and other regulatory developments;

 

 

 

 

the distance container cargo products are to be moved by sea;

 

 

 

 

changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns;

 

 

 

 

port and canal congestion; and

 

 

 

 

currency exchange rates.

The factors that influence the supply of containership capacity include:

 

 

 

 

the availability of financing;

 

 

 

 

the price of steel and other raw materials;

 

 

 

 

the number of newbuild deliveries;

 

 

 

 

the availability of shipyard capacity;

 

 

 

 

the scrapping rate of older containerships;

 

 

 

 

the number of containerships that are out of service;

 

 

 

 

changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful lives of containerships;

 

 

 

 

the price of fuel; and

 

 

 

 

the economics of slow steaming.

3


Consumer confidence and consumer spending recovered substantially in 2010 from the low levels in 2008 and 2009. Our ability to re-charter our containerships upon the expiration or termination of their current time charters and the charter rates payable under any renewal options or replacement time charters will depend upon, among other things, the prevailing state of the containership charter market, which can be affected by consumer demand for products shipped in containers. If the charter market is depressed when our containerships’ time charters expire, we may be forced to re-charter our containerships at reduced or even unprofitable rates, or we may not be able to re-charter them at all, which may reduce or eliminate our earnings or make our earnings volatile. The same issues will exist if we acquire additional vessels and attempt to obtain multi-year time charters as part of our acquisition and financing plan.

Our liner company customers have been placed under significant financial pressure, thereby increasing our charter counterparty risk.

The sharp decline in global economic activity in 2008 and 2009 resulted in a substantial decline in the demand for container shipping services. While demand for container shipping activity improved substantially in 2010, resulting in increased cargo volumes and freight rates achieved by liner companies, there can be no assurance that this recovery will be maintained. Any future declines in demand for container shipping could result in financial challenges faced by our liner company customers and may increase the likelihood of one or more of our customers being unable or unwilling to pay us contracted charter rates. We expect to generate most of our revenues from these charters and if our charterers fail to meet their obligations to us, we will sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

An oversupply of containership capacity may prolong or further depress the current charter rates and adversely affect our ability to initially charter our recently acquired or re-charter our existing containerships at profitable rates or at all.

From 2005 through the first quarter of 2010, the size of the containership order-book was at historically high levels. Although order-book volume has recently dropped to relatively low levels, deliveries of vessels ordered at the peak period will significantly increase the size of the container fleet over the next two years. An oversupply of newbuild and/or re-chartered containership capacity entering the market, combined with any future decline in the demand for containerships, may result in a reduction of charter rates and may decrease our ability to re-charter our containerships other than for reduced rates or unprofitable rates, or we may not be able to re-charter our containerships at all.

Weak economic conditions throughout the world, particularly the Asia Pacific region and recent EU sovereign debt default fears, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Negative trends in the global economy emerged in 2008 and 2009, and although there was some improvement in 2010, the global economy remains relatively weak. The current global recovery is proceeding at varying speeds across regions and is still subject to downside risks stemming from factors like fiscal fragility in advanced economies, highly accommodative macroeconomic policies and persistent difficulties in access to credit. In particular, recent concerns regarding the possibility of sovereign debt defaults by European Union member countries, including Greece, disrupted financial markets throughout the world, and may lead to weaker consumer demand in the European Union, the United States, and other parts of the world. The deterioration in the global economy has caused, and may continue to cause, a decrease in worldwide demand for certain goods shipped in containerized form.

We anticipate that a significant number of port calls made by our containerships will continue to involve the loading or unloading of container cargoes in ports in the Asia Pacific region. In recent years, China has been one of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, which has had a significant impact on shipping demand. However, if China’s

4


growth in gross domestic product declines and other countries in the Asia Pacific region experience slowed or experience negative economic growth in the future, this may exacerbate the effect of the significant downturns in the economies of the United States and the European Union, and thus, may negatively impact container shipping demand. For example, the possibility of sovereign debt defaults by European Union member countries, including Greece, and the possibility of market reforms to float the Chinese renminbi, either of which development could weaken the Euro against the Chinese renminbi, could adversely affect consumer demand in the European Union. Moreover, the revaluation of the renminbi may negatively impact the United States’ demand for imported goods, many of which are shipped from China in containerized form. Such weak economic conditions could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

Global financial markets and economic conditions were severely disrupted and volatile in 2008 and 2009 and, while generally stabilizing in 2010, remain subject to significant vulnerabilities in the year-to-date, such as the deterioration of fiscal balances and the rapid accumulation of public debt, continued deleveraging in the banking sector and limited supply of credit. Credit markets and the debt and equity capital markets were exceedingly distressed in 2008 and 2009, and only marginally rebounded in 2010. The credit crisis in Greece, for example, and concerns over debt levels of certain other European Union member states, has increased volatility in global credit and equity markets. These issues, along with the re-pricing of credit risk and the difficulties currently experienced by financial institutions have made, and will likely continue to make, it difficult to obtain financing. As a result of the disruptions in the credit markets, many lenders have increased interest rates, enacted tighter lending standards, required more restrictive terms (including higher collateral ratios for advances, shorter maturities and smaller loan amounts), or refused to refinance existing debt at all or on terms similar to our current debt. Furthermore, certain banks that have historically been significant lenders to the shipping industry have announced an intention to reduce or cease lending activities in the shipping industry. New banking regulations, including larger capital requirements and the resulting policies adopted by lenders, could reduce lending activities. We may experience difficulties obtaining financing commitments or be unable to fully draw on the capacity under our committed revolving credit facility or our committed term loan in the future if our lenders are unwilling to extend financing to us or unable to meet their funding obligations due to their own liquidity, capital or solvency issues. We cannot be certain that financing will be available on acceptable terms or at all. If financing is not available when needed, or is available only on unfavorable terms, we may be unable to meet our future obligations as they come due. Our failure to obtain the funds for these capital expenditures could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, as well as our cash flows. In the absence of available financing, we also may be unable to take advantage of business opportunities or respond to competitive pressures.

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

We expect that our containerships will continue to be chartered to customers mainly under multi-year fixed rate time charters. Payments to us under these time charters are and will be our sole source of operating cash flow. Many of our charterers finance their activities through cash from operations, the incurrence of debt or the issuance of equity. Since 2008, there has been a significant decline in the credit markets and the availability of credit, and the equity markets have been volatile. The combination of a reduction of cash flow resulting from declines in world trade, a reduction in borrowing bases under reserve-based credit facilities and the lack of availability of debt or equity financing may result in a significant reduction in the ability of our charterers to make

5


charter payments to us. Additionally, we could lose a time charter if the charterer exercises certain specified, limited termination rights.

If we lose a time charter because the charterer is unable to pay us or for any other reason, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on similarly favorable terms or at all. Also, we will not receive any revenues from such a vessel while it is un-chartered, but we will be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain and insure the vessel and service any indebtedness on it. The combination of any surplus of containership capacity and the expected increase in the size of the world containership fleet over the next few years may make it difficult to secure substitute employment for any of our containerships if our counterparties fail to perform their obligations under the currently arranged time charters, and any new charter arrangements we are able to secure may be at lower rates. Furthermore, the surplus of containerships available at lower charter rates and lack of demand for our customers’ liner services could negatively affect our charterers’ willingness to perform their obligations under our time charters, which in many cases provide for charter rates significantly above current market rates. Over the past three years the Company has been proactive in working with its charterers to make adjustments to time charters that address the needs of both parties. As a result, while we have agreed in certain cases to charter rate re-arrangements entailing reductions for specified periods, we have been compensated for these adjustments by, among other things, subsequent rate increases, so that the aggregate payments under the charters are not materially reduced, and in some cases we also have arranged for term extensions. However, there is no assurance that any future charter re-arrangements will be on similarly favorable terms.

The loss of any of our charterers, time charters or vessels, or a decline in payments under our time charters, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition, revenues and cash flow and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

A limited number of customers operating in a consolidating industry comprise a large part of our revenues. The loss of these customers could adversely affect our results of operations, cash flows and competitive position.

Our customers in the containership sector consist of a limited number of liner companies. A.P. Moller-Maersk, MSC and COSCO together represented 71%, 74% and 75% of our revenue in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. We expect that a limited number of leading liner companies will continue to generate a substantial portion of our revenues. The cessation of business with these liner companies or their failure to fulfill their obligations under the time charters for our containerships could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our cash flows. In addition, any consolidations involving our customers could increase the concentration of our business.

A decrease in the level of China’s export of goods or an increase in trade protectionism could have a material adverse impact on our charterers’ business and, in turn, could cause a material adverse impact on our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows.

China exports considerably more goods than it imports. Our containerships are deployed on routes involving containerized trade in and out of emerging markets, and our charterers’ container shipping and business revenue may be derived from the shipment of goods from the Asia Pacific region to various overseas export markets including the United States and Europe. Any reduction in or hindrance to the output of China-based exporters could have a material adverse effect on the growth rate of China’s exports and on our charterers’ business. For instance, the government of China has recently implemented economic policies aimed at increasing domestic consumption of Chinese-made goods. This may have the effect of reducing the supply of goods available for export and may, in turn, result in a decrease of demand for container shipping. Additionally, though in China there is an increasing level of autonomy and a gradual shift in emphasis to a “market economy” and enterprise reform, many of the reforms, particularly some limited price reforms that result in the prices for certain commodities being principally determined by market forces, are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition. The level of

6


imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by changes to these economic reforms by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government.

Our operations expose us to the risk that increased trade protectionism will adversely affect our business. If the incipient global recovery is undermined by downside risks and the recent economic downturn is prolonged, governments may turn to trade barriers to protect their domestic industries against foreign imports, thereby depressing the demand for shipping. Specifically, increasing trade protectionism in the markets that our charterers serve has caused and may continue to cause an increase in (i) the cost of goods exported from China, (ii) the length of time required to deliver goods from China and (iii) the risks associated with exporting goods from China, as well as a decrease in the quantity of goods to be shipped.

Any increased trade barriers or restrictions on trade, especially trade with China, would have an adverse impact on our charterers’ business, operating results and financial condition and could thereby affect their ability to make timely charter hire payments to us and to renew and increase the number of their time charters with us. This could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We conduct a substantial amount of business in China, including through one of our local managers, Shanghai Costamare, a Chinese corporation, and our time charters with COSCO. The legal system in China is not fully developed and has inherent uncertainties that could limit the legal protections available to us.

The Chinese legal system is based on written statutes and their legal interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress. Prior court decisions may be cited for reference but have limited precedential value. Since 1979, the Chinese government has been developing a comprehensive system of commercial laws, and considerable progress has been made in introducing laws and regulations dealing with economic matters such as foreign investment, corporate organization and governance, commerce, taxation and trade. However, because these laws and regulations are relatively new, and because of the limited volume of published cases and their non-binding nature, interpretation and enforcement of these laws and regulations involve uncertainties. We do a substantial amount of business in China, including through one of our managers, Shanghai Costamare, a Chinese corporation which, as of March 1, 2011, operated eight vessels under the Hong Kong flag that were exclusively manned by Chinese crews, which exposes us to potential litigation in China. Additionally, we have charters with COSCO, a Chinese corporation, and though these charters are governed by English law, we may have difficulties enforcing a judgment rendered by an English court (or other non-Chinese court) in China.

Our ability to obtain additional debt financing for future acquisitions of vessels may be dependent on the performance of our then existing charters and the creditworthiness of our charterers.

We intend to borrow against unencumbered containerships in our existing fleet and vessels we may acquire in the future as part of our growth plan. The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain additional financing or committing to financing on unattractive terms could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Our ability to pay dividends may be limited by the amount of cash we generate from operations following the payment of fees and expenses, by the establishment of any reserves, by restrictions in our debt instruments and by additional factors unrelated to our profitability.

We intend to pay regular quarterly dividends. The declaration and payment of dividends is, however, subject to the discretion of our board of directors and the requirements of Marshall Islands law. The timing and amount of any dividends declared will depend on, among other things (a) our

7


earnings, financial condition, cash flow and cash requirements, (b) our liquidity, including our ability to obtain debt and equity financing on acceptable terms as contemplated by our vessel acquisition strategy, (c) restrictive covenants in our existing and future debt instruments and (d) provisions of Marshall Islands law governing the payment of dividends.

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

 

 

 

 

the charter-hire payments we obtain from our charters as well as the rates obtained upon the expiration of our existing charters;

 

 

 

 

our fleet expansion strategy and associated uses of our cash and our financing requirements;

 

 

 

 

delays in the delivery of acquired vessels and the beginning of payments under charters relating to those vessels;

 

 

 

 

the level of our operating costs, such as the costs of crews, lubricants and insurance;

 

 

 

 

the number of unscheduled off-hire days for our fleet and the timing of, and number of days required for, scheduled dry-docking of our containerships;

 

 

 

 

prevailing global and regional economic and political conditions;

 

 

 

 

changes in interest rates;

 

 

 

 

the effect of governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards on the conduct of our business;

 

 

 

 

changes in the basis of taxation of our activities in various jurisdictions;

 

 

 

 

modification or revocation of our dividend policy by our board of directors; and

 

 

 

 

the amount of any cash reserves established by our board of directors.

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

In addition, our credit facilities and other financing agreements prohibit the payment of dividends, if an event of default has occurred and is continuing or would occur as a result of the payment of such dividends.

For more information regarding our financing arrangements, please read “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects”.

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

We may have difficulty properly managing our growth through acquisitions of new or secondhand vessels and we may not realize expected benefits from these acquisitions, which may negatively impact our cash flows, liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

We intend to grow our business by ordering newbuilds and through selective acquisitions of high-quality secondhand vessels. Our future growth will primarily depend on:

 

 

 

 

the operations of the shipyards that build any newbuilds we may order;

 

 

 

 

locating and identifying suitable high-quality secondhand vessels;

8


 

 

 

 

obtaining required financing on acceptable terms;

 

 

 

 

consummating vessel acquisitions;

 

 

 

 

enlarging our customer base;

 

 

 

 

hiring additional shore-based employees and seafarers; and

 

 

 

 

managing joint ventures or significant acquisitions.

In addition, any vessel acquisition may not be profitable at or after the time of acquisition and may not generate cash flows sufficient to justify the investment. Other risks associated with vessel acquisitions that may harm our business, financial condition and operating results include the risks that we may:

 

 

 

 

fail to realize anticipated benefits, such as new customer relationships, cost-savings or cash flow enhancements;

 

 

 

 

be unable to hire, train or retain qualified shore and seafaring personnel to manage and operate our growing business and fleet;

 

 

 

 

decrease our liquidity by using a significant portion of available cash or borrowing capacity to finance acquisitions;

 

 

 

 

significantly increase our interest expense or financial leverage if we incur additional debt to finance acquisitions;

 

 

 

 

incur or assume unanticipated liabilities, losses or costs associated with any vessels or businesses acquired; or

 

 

 

 

incur other significant charges, such as impairment of goodwill or other intangible assets, asset devaluation or restructuring charges.

Unlike newbuilds, secondhand vessels typically do not carry warranties as to their condition. While we generally inspect existing vessels prior to purchase, such an inspection would normally not provide us with as much knowledge of a vessel’s condition as we would possess if it had been built for us and operated by us during its life. Repairs and maintenance costs for secondhand vessels are difficult to predict and may be substantially higher than for vessels we have operated since they were built. These costs could decrease our cash flows, liquidity and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

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

Rising fuel prices may adversely affect our profits.

The cost of fuel is a significant factor in negotiating charter rates and will be borne by us when our containerships are employed on voyage charters or contracts of affreightment. We currently have no voyage charters or contracts of affreightment, but we may enter into such arrangements in the future, and to the extent we do so, an increase in the price of fuel beyond our expectations may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geo-political developments, supply and demand for oil, actions by members of the OPEC and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns and regulations.

9


We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet and acquire vessels, which may reduce or eliminate the amount of cash for dividends to our stockholders.

We must make substantial capital expenditures to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet and we generally expect to finance these maintenance capital expenditures with cash balances or credit facilities. In addition, we will need to make substantial capital expenditures to acquire vessels in accordance with our growth strategy. Expenditures could increase as a result of, among other things, the cost of labor and materials, customer requirements and governmental regulations and maritime self-regulatory organization standards relating to safety, security or the environment. Significant capital expenditures, including to maintain the operating capacity of our fleet, may reduce or eliminate the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

The aging of our fleet may result in increased operating costs in the future, which could adversely affect our earnings.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with the age of the vessel. As our fleet ages, we will incur increased costs. Older vessels may require longer dry-dockings, resulting in more off-hire days and reduced revenue. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates may also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations and safety or other equipment standards related to the age of a vessel may also require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which our containerships may engage. Our current fleet of 53 containerships as of March 1, 2011 (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions) had an average age (weighted by TEU capacity) of 10.7 years, two of which are over 30 years old. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet and Newbuilds”. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, market conditions will justify such expenditures or will enable us to profitably operate our older vessels.

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

Our current fleet of 53 containerships as of March 1, 2011 (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions), had an average age (weighted by TEU capacity) of 10.7 years, two of which are over 30 years old. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet and Newbuilds”. Unless we maintain reserves or are able to borrow or raise funds for vessel replacement we will be unable to replace the older vessels in our fleet. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues earned by the chartering of our containerships. The inability to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders. Any reserves set aside for vessel replacement will not be available for dividends.

Containership values decreased significantly in 2008 and 2009, may decrease again, and over time may fluctuate substantially. If these values are low at a time when we are attempting to dispose of a vessel, we could incur a loss.

Containership values can fluctuate substantially over time due to a number of different factors, including:

 

 

 

 

prevailing economic conditions in the markets in which containerships operate;

 

 

 

 

a substantial or extended decline in world trade;

 

 

 

 

increases in the supply of containership capacity;

 

 

 

 

prevailing charter rates; and

10


 

 

 

 

the cost of retrofitting or modifying existing ships to respond to technological advances in vessel design or equipment, changes in applicable environmental or other regulations or standards, or otherwise.

If the market values of our vessels further deteriorate, we may be required to record an impairment charge in our financial statements, which could adversely affect our results of operations. In addition, any such deterioration in the market values of our vessels could trigger a breach under our credit facilities, which could adversely affect our operations. If a charter expires or is terminated, we may be unable to re-charter the vessel at an acceptable rate and, rather than continue to incur costs to maintain the vessel, may seek to dispose of it. Our inability to dispose of the containership at a reasonable price could result in a loss on its sale and adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

Our growth depends on our ability to expand relationships with existing charterers and to obtain new time charters, for which we will face substantial competition from new entrants and established companies with significant resources.

One of our principal objectives is to acquire additional containerships in conjunction with entering into additional multi-year time charters for these vessels. The process of obtaining new multi-year time charters is highly competitive and generally involves an intensive screening process and competitive bids, and often extends for several months. Generally, we compete for charters based upon charter rate, customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation and containership specifications, including size, age and condition.

In addition, as vessels age, it can be more difficult to employ them on profitable time charters, particularly during periods of decreased demand in the charter market. Accordingly, we may find it difficult to continue to find profitable employment for our older vessels, including the two vessels in our fleet over 30 years of age as of March 1, 2011.

We face substantial competition from a number of experienced companies, including state-sponsored entities. Some of these competitors have significantly greater financial resources than we do, and can therefore operate larger fleets and may be able to offer better charter rates. In the future, we may also face competition from reputable, experienced and well-capitalized marine transportation companies that do not currently own containerships, but may choose to do so. Any increased competition may cause greater price competition for time charters, as well as for the acquisition of high-quality secondhand vessels and newbuilds. Further, since the charter rate is generally considered to be one of the principal factors in a charterer’s decision to charter a vessel, the rates offered by our competitors can place downward pressure on rates throughout the charter market. As a result of these factors, we may be unable to expand our relationships with existing customers or to obtain new customers on a profitable basis, if at all, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Due to our lack of diversification, adverse developments in the containership transportation business could reduce our ability to service our debt obligations and pay dividends to our stockholders.

We rely exclusively on the cash flow generated from charters for our containerships. Due to our lack of diversification, an adverse development in the container shipping industry, which experienced weakness from the middle of 2008 through the first half of 2010, would have a significantly greater impact on our financial condition and results of operations than if we maintained more diverse assets or lines of business. An adverse development could also impair our ability to service debt or pay dividends to our stockholders.

11


We may have more difficulty entering into multi-year, fixed-rate time charters if a more active short-term or spot container shipping market develops.

One of our principal strategies is to enter into multi-year, fixed-rate time charters in both strong and weak charter rate environments, although in weaker charter rate environments we would generally expect to target somewhat shorter charter terms. If more containerships become available for the spot or short-term charter market, we may have difficulty entering into additional multi-year, fixed-rate time charters for our containerships due to the increased supply of containerships and the possibility of lower rates in the spot market. As a result, we will then have to charter more of our containerships for shorter periods and our revenues, cash flows and profitability could then reflect, to some degree, fluctuations in the short-term charter market.

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

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to pay our obligations and to make dividend payments depends entirely on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. The ability of a subsidiary to make these distributions could be affected by a claim or other action by a third party, including a creditor, or by the law of their respective jurisdictions of incorporation which regulates the payment of dividends. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, our board of directors may exercise its discretion not to declare or pay dividends.

We may be unable to draw down the full amount of our committed credit facilities if the market value of our vessels declines.

As of March 1, 2011, we had $194.2 million of undrawn borrowing capacity comprised of $74.2 million under our committed revolving credit facility and $120.0 million under a term facility we concluded on November 19, 2010. Our undrawn borrowing capacity excludes $203.3 million under a credit facility we concluded on January 14, 2011, as all funds borrowed under this facility are committed to the shipbuilding contracts for Hulls H 1068A, H 1069A and H 1070A. If the market value of our fleet declines, we may default under our credit facilities, in which case we may not be able to draw down the full amount available to us, obtain additional financing, refinance our debt, or incur debt on terms that are acceptable to us.

Our credit facilities or other financing arrangements contain payment obligations and restrictive covenants that may limit our liquidity and our ability to expand our fleet. A failure by us to meet our obligations under our credit facilities could result in an event of default under such credit facilities and foreclosure on our vessels.

Our credit facilities impose certain operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions in our existing credit facilities generally limit Costamare Inc., and our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

 

 

 

 

pay dividends if an event of default has occurred and is continuing or would occur as a result of the payment of such dividends;

 

 

 

 

purchase or otherwise acquire for value any shares of the subsidiaries’ capital;

 

 

 

 

make or repay loans or advances, other than repayment of the credit facilities;

 

 

 

 

make investments in other persons;

 

 

 

 

sell or transfer significant assets, including any vessel or vessels mortgaged under the credit facilities, to any person, including Costamare Inc. and our subsidiaries;

 

 

 

 

create liens on their assets; or

 

 

 

 

allow the Konstantakopoulos family’s direct or indirect holding in Costamare Inc. to fall below 40% of the total issued share capital.

12


Our existing credit facilities also require Costamare Inc. and certain of our subsidiaries to maintain specified loan to value ratios as summarized below:

 

 

 

 

under our $1 billion credit facility, as amended by a supplemental agreement dated June 22, 2010, Costamare Inc. may not allow the aggregate of (a) the aggregate market value, primarily on a charter inclusive basis, of the mortgaged vessels under this facility, (b) the market value of any additional security provided to the lender, and (c) (during the waiver period only, as described below) the aggregate minimum cash amount equal to 3% of the loan outstanding to fall below 80% during a “waiver period” extending through December 31, 2011, and thereafter, 125% of the aggregate of the term loan, the revolving advances and the swap exposure; or

 

 

 

 

under certain of our subsidiaries credit facilities, each with Costamare Inc. as guarantor, we may not allow the aggregate of (a) the aggregate market value, primarily on an inclusive charter basis, of the mortgaged vessel or vessels, and (b) the market value of any additional security provided to the lender to fall below a percentage ranging between 110% to 125% of the then outstanding amount of the credit facility and any related swap exposure.

Costamare Inc. is required to maintain compliance with the following financial covenants:

 

 

 

 

the ratio of our total liabilities (after deducting all cash and cash equivalents) to market value adjusted total assets (after deducting all cash and cash equivalents) may not exceed 0.75:1;

 

 

 

 

the ratio of EBITDA over net interest expense must be equal to or higher than 2.5:1;

 

 

 

 

the aggregate amount of all cash and cash equivalents may not be less than the greater of (i) $30 million or (ii) 3% of the total debt, provided, however, that (in the case of our $1 billion facility) a minimum cash amount equal to 3% of the loan outstanding must be maintained in the accounts of the borrower; and

 

 

 

 

the market value adjusted net worth must at all times exceed $500 million.

A failure to meet our payment and other obligations could lead to defaults under our credit facilities. Our lenders could then accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose on the vessels in our fleet securing those credit facilities, which could result in the acceleration of other indebtedness that we may have at such time and the commencement of similar foreclosure proceedings by other lenders. The loss of these vessels would have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition. For additional information see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsB. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Facilities”.

Substantial debt levels could limit our flexibility to obtain additional financing and pursue other business opportunities.

As of December 31, 2010, we had outstanding indebtedness of $1.3 billion and we expect to incur additional indebtedness as we grow our fleet. This level of debt could have important consequences to us, including the following:

 

 

 

 

our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, acquisitions or other purposes may be impaired or such financing may be unavailable on favorable terms;

 

 

 

 

we may need to use a substantial portion of our cash from operations to make principal and interest payments on our debt, reducing the funds that would otherwise be available for operations, future business opportunities and dividends to our stockholders;

 

 

 

 

our debt level could make us more vulnerable than our competitors with less debt to competitive pressures or a downturn in our business or the economy generally; and

 

 

 

 

our debt level may limit our flexibility in responding to changing business and economic conditions.

Our ability to service our debt will depend upon, among other things, our future financial and operating performance, which will be affected by prevailing economic conditions and financial, business, regulatory and other factors, some of which are beyond our control. If our operating income is not sufficient to service our current or future indebtedness, we will be forced to take

13


actions such as reducing or delaying our business activities, acquisitions, investments or capital expenditures, selling assets, restructuring or refinancing our debt or seeking additional equity capital. We may not be able to effect any of these remedies on satisfactory terms, or at all.

The derivative contracts we have entered into to hedge our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates could result in higher than market interest rates and reductions in our stockholders’ equity, as well as charges against our income.

We have entered into interest rate swaps, in an aggregate notional amount of approximately $1.3 billion as of December 31, 2010, generally for purposes of managing our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates applicable to indebtedness under our credit facilities which were advanced at floating rates based on LIBOR. We have also entered into certain currency hedges. There is no assurance that our derivative contracts will provide adequate protection against adverse changes in interest rates or currency exchange ratios or that our bank counterparties will be able to perform their obligations.

To the extent our existing interest rate swaps do not, and future derivative contracts may not, qualify for treatment as hedges for accounting purposes we would recognize fluctuations in the fair value of such contracts in our income statement. In addition, changes in the fair value of our derivative contracts are recognized in “Accumulated Other Comprehensive Loss” on our balance sheet, and can affect compliance with the net worth covenant requirements in our credit facilities. Changes in the fair value of our derivative contracts that do not qualify for treatment as hedges for accounting and financial reporting purposes affect, among other things, our net income, earnings per share and EBITDA coverage ratio. For additional information see “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects”.

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

We generate all of our revenues in United States dollars and for the year ended December 31, 2010, we incurred a substantial portion of our vessels’ operating expenses in currencies other than United States dollars. This difference could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the United States dollar relative to other currencies, in particular the Euro. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the United States dollar falls in value could increase, thereby decreasing our net income. While we have hedged some of this exposure, our U.S. dollar denominated results of operations and financial condition and ability to pay dividends could suffer from adverse currency exchange rate movements. While we believe that we are adequately hedged against this exposure through 2011, future declines in the U.S. dollar versus the Euro could have a material effect on our operating expenses and net income.

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

The charter rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors, including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed and fuel economy. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. Physical life is related to the original design and construction, maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new containerships are built that are more efficient or flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced containerships could adversely affect the amount of charter-hire payments that we receive for our containerships once their current time charters expire and the resale value of our containerships. This could adversely affect our ability to service our debt or pay dividends to our stockholders.

14


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

Our business and the operation of our vessels are materially affected by environmental regulation in the form of international, national, state and local laws, regulations, conventions, treaties and standards in force in international waters and the jurisdictions in which our containerships operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration, including those governing the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of oil spills and other contamination, air emissions, water discharges and ballast water management. Because such conventions, laws and regulations are often revised, it is difficult to predict the ultimate cost of compliance with such requirements or their impact on the resale value or useful lives of our containerships.

Environmental requirements can also affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels, require a reduction in cargo capacity, vessel modifications or operational changes or restrictions, lead to decreased availability of, or more costly insurance coverage for, environmental matters or result in the denial of access to certain jurisdictional waters or ports. Under local, national and foreign laws, as well as international treaties and conventions, we could incur material liabilities, including cleanup obligations and claims for natural resource damages, personal injury and/or property damages in the event that there is a release of petroleum or other hazardous materials from our vessels or otherwise in connection with our operations. Violations of, or liabilities under, environmental requirements can result in substantial penalties, fines and other sanctions, including criminal sanctions, and, in certain instances, seizure or detention of our containerships. Events of this nature or additional environmental conventions, laws and regulations could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

The operation of vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the International Safety Management Code (the “ISM Code”). The ISM Code requires vessel owners and managers to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe vessel operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Failure to comply with the ISM Code may subject us to increased liability, may decrease or suspend available insurance coverage for the affected vessels, and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Each of the containerships in our fleet and each of our three managers are ISM Code-certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certifications can be maintained indefinitely.

Governmental regulation of the shipping industry, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental requirements, can be expected to become stricter in the future. In addition, we believe that the heightened environmental, quality and security concerns of insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers will lead to additional requirements, including enhanced risk assessment and security requirements and greater inspection and safety requirements for vessels. In complying with new environmental laws and regulations and other requirements that may be adopted, we may have to incur significant capital and operational expenditures to keep our containerships in compliance, or even to scrap or sell certain containerships altogether. For additional information see “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance—Environmental and Other Regulations”.

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

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

Since the events of September 11, 2001, United States authorities have more than doubled container inspection rates to over 5% of all imported containers. Government investment in non-intrusive container scanning technology has grown and there is interest in electronic monitoring

15


technology, including so-called “e-seals” and “smart” containers, that would enable remote, centralized monitoring of containers during shipment to identify tampering with or opening of the containers, along with potentially measuring other characteristics such as temperature, air pressure, motion, chemicals, biological agents and radiation. Also, as a response to the events of September 11, 2001, additional vessel security requirements have been imposed, including the installation of security alert and automatic identification systems on board vessels.

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

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

A government of the jurisdiction where one or more of our containerships are registered could requisition for title or seize our containerships. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes its owner. Also, a government could requisition our containerships for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a ship and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency, although governments may elect to requisition vessels in other circumstances. Although we would expect to be entitled to compensation in the event of a requisition of one or more of our vessels, the amount and timing of payment, if any, would be uncertain. Government requisition of one or more of our containerships may cause us to breach covenants in certain of our credit facilities, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

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

Terrorist attacks in certain parts of the world over the last decade, such as the attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001, and the continuing response of the United States and other countries to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to cause uncertainty and volatility in the world financial markets and may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. In addition, current conflicts in Afghanistan and general political unrest in certain African nations and the Middle East may lead to additional regional conflicts and acts of terrorism around the world, which may contribute to further economic instability in the global financial markets. In addition, political tension or conflicts in the Asia Pacific Region may reduce the demand for our services. These uncertainties could also adversely affect our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us, or at all.

The collapse of states such as Somalia and widening political chaos in North Africa and the Middle East has resulted in increasing attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other acts that disrupt international shipping. Since late 2010, the frequency and violence level of piracy incidents against commercial shipping vessels has further increased from the already high levels reported going back to 2008, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could also increase in such circumstances. In addition, piracy, future hostilities or other political instability in regions where our vessels trade can also affect trade patterns and adversely affect our operations and performance. Any of these occurrences could also have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

16


Risks inherent in the operation of ocean-going vessels could affect our business and reputation, which could adversely affect our expenses, net income and stock price.

The operation of ocean-going vessels carries inherent risks. These risks include the possibility of:

 

 

 

 

marine disaster;

 

 

 

 

environmental accidents;

 

 

 

 

grounding, fire, explosions and collisions;

 

 

 

 

cargo and property loss or damage;

 

 

 

 

business interruptions caused by mechanical failure, human error, war, terrorism, political action in various countries, or adverse weather conditions; and

 

 

 

 

work stoppages or other labor problems with crew members serving on our containerships, some of whom are unionized and covered by collective bargaining agreements.

Such occurrences could result in death or injury to persons, loss of property or environmental damage, delays in the delivery of cargo, loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts, governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business, higher insurance rates, and damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally. Although we maintain hull and machinery and war risks insurance, as well as protection and indemnity insurance, which may cover certain risks of loss resulting from such occurrences, our insurance coverage may be subject to caps or not cover such losses, and any of these circumstances or events could increase our costs or lower our revenues. The involvement of our vessels in an environmental disaster may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.

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

The operation of any vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, fire, contact with floating objects, property loss, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of a marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps. There are also liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. We procure insurance for our fleet of containerships in relation to risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators. Our current insurance includes (i) hull and machinery insurance covering damage to our and third-party vessels’ hulls and machinery from, among other things, collisions and contact with fixed and floating objects, (ii) war risks insurance covering losses associated with the outbreak or escalation of hostilities and (iii) protection and indemnity insurance (which includes environmental damage) covering, among other things, third-party and crew liabilities such as expenses resulting from the injury or death of crew members, passengers and other third parties, the loss or damage to cargo, third-party claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property and pollution arising from oil or other substances.

We can give no assurance that we are adequately insured against all risks or that our insurers will pay a particular claim. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, we may not be able to obtain a timely replacement containership in the event of a loss of a containership. Under the terms of our credit facilities, we are subject to restrictions on the use of any proceeds we may receive from claims under our insurance policies. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. We may also be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our own claim records but also the claim records of all other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive indemnity insurance coverage. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which, although we believe are standard in the shipping industry, may nevertheless increase our costs. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could exceed our insurance coverage, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results and our ability to pay

17


dividends to our stockholders. Any uninsured or underinsured loss could harm our business and financial condition. In addition, the insurance may be voidable by the insurers as a result of certain actions, such as vessels failing to maintain required certification.

In addition, we do not carry loss of hire insurance. Loss of hire insurance covers the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled dry-docking due to damage to the vessel from accidents. Accordingly, any loss of a vessel or any extended period of vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to our stockholders.

Maritime claimants could arrest our vessels, which could interrupt our cash flows.

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and other parties may be entitled to a maritime lien against a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien-holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels, if such arrest or attachment is not timely discharged, could cause us to default on a charter, breach covenants in certain of our credit facilities, interrupt our cash flows and could require us to pay large sums of money to have the arrest or attachment lifted.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel that is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one containership in our fleet for claims relating to another of our containerships.

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

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the applicable rules and regulation of the classification society. Moreover, every vessel must comply with any applicable international conventions and the regulations of the vessel’s flag state as verified by a classification society. Finally, each vessel must successfully undergo periodic surveys, including annual, intermediate and special surveys.

If any vessel does not maintain its class, it will lose its insurance coverage and be unable to trade, and the vessel’s owner will be in breach of relevant covenants under its financing arrangements. Failure to maintain the class of one or more of our containerships could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our cash flows.

Our business depends upon certain members of our senior management who may not necessarily continue to work for us.

Our future success depends to a significant extent upon our chairman and chief executive officer, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos, certain members of our senior management and our managers. Mr. Konstantakopoulos has substantial experience in the container shipping industry and has worked with us and our managers for many years. He, our managers and certain of our senior management team are crucial to the execution of our business strategies and to the growth and development of our business. If these individuals were no longer to be affiliated with us or our managers, or if we were to otherwise cease to receive services from them, we may be unable to recruit other employees with equivalent talent and experience, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

18


Our arrangements with our chief executive officer restrict his ability to compete with us, and such restrictive covenants generally, may be unenforceable.

Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos, our chairman and chief executive officer, has entered into a restrictive covenant agreement with us on October 19, 2010, which is governed by English law, and under which, except for in certain limited circumstances, he is precluded during the term of his service and for six months thereafter from owning containerships and from acquiring or investing in a business that owns such vessels. English law generally does not favor the enforcement of such restrictions which are considered contrary to public policy and facially are void for being in restraint of trade. Our ability to enforce these restrictions, should it ever become necessary, will depend upon us establishing that we have a legitimate proprietary interest that is appropriate to protect, and that the protection sought is no more than is reasonable, having regard to the interests of the parties and the public interest. We cannot give any assurance that a court would enforce the restrictions as written by way of an injunction or that we could necessarily establish a case for damages as a result of a violation of the restrictive covenants agreement.

We depend on our managers to operate our business, and if our managers fail to satisfactorily perform their management services, our results of operations, financial condition and ability to pay dividends may be harmed.

Pursuant to the group management agreement and the individual ship management agreements, our managers and their affiliates may provide us with certain of our officers and will provide us with, among other things, certain commercial, technical and administrative services. “See Item. 4 Information on the Company—Business Overview—Management of Our Fleet”. Our operational success will depend significantly upon our managers’ satisfactory performance of these services. Costamare Shipping, one of our managers, also owns the Costamare trademarks, which consist of the name “COSTAMARE” and the Costamare logo, and has agreed to license each trademark to us on a royalty free basis for the life of the group management agreement. If the management agreement were to be terminated or if its terms were to be altered, our business could be adversely affected, as we may not be able to immediately replace such services, and even if replacement services were immediately available, the terms offered could be less favorable than the ones currently offered by our managers.

Our ability to compete for and enter into new time charters and to expand our relationships with our existing charterers will depend largely on our relationship with our managers and their reputation and relationships in the shipping industry. If our managers suffer material damage to their reputation or relationships, it may harm our ability to:

 

 

 

 

renew existing time charters upon their expiration;

 

 

 

 

obtain new time charters;

 

 

 

 

successfully interact with shipyards during periods of shipyard construction constraints;

 

 

 

 

obtain financing and other contractual arrangements with third parties on commercially acceptable terms (therefore potentially increasing operating expenditure for the fleet);

 

 

 

 

maintain satisfactory relationships with our charterers and suppliers; or

 

 

 

 

successfully execute our business strategies.

If our ability to do any of the things described above is impaired, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our cash flows.

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

The ability of our managers to continue providing services for our benefit will depend in part on their own financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair our managers’ financial strength, and because they are privately held companies, information about their financial strength is not available. As a result, an investor in our stock might have little advance warning of problems affecting any of our managers, even though these problems could have a material adverse

19


effect on us. As part of our reporting obligations as a public company, we will disclose information regarding our managers that has a material impact on us to the extent that we become aware of such information.

Our chairman and chief executive officer has affiliations with our managers which could create conflicts of interest between us and our managers.

The management agreement is between us and Costamare Shipping, which is controlled by our chairman and chief executive officer, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos. While we believe that the terms of the management agreement are consistent with normal commercial practice of the industry, the agreement was not negotiated at arms-length by non-related parties. Accordingly, the terms may be less favorable to the Company than if such terms were obtained from a non-related third party. Additionally, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos directly or indirectly controls our managers and will continue to be our chairman and chief executive officer and the owner of approximately 25.7% of our common stock, and this relationship could create conflicts of interest between us, on the one hand, and our managers, on the other hand. These conflicts, which are addressed in the management agreement, may arise in connection with the chartering, purchase, sale and operation of the vessels in our fleet versus vessels owned or chartered-in by other companies affiliated with our managers or our chairman and chief executive officer. These conflicts of interest may have an adverse effect on our results of operations. See “Item 4. Information of the Company—Business Overview—Management of Our Fleet” and “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Restrictive Covenant Agreements”.

CIEL and Shanghai Costamare, two of our managers, are not prohibited from providing management services to vessels owned by third parties.

CIEL and Shanghai Costamare, two of our managers, will not be prohibited from providing management services to vessels owned by third parties, including related parties. CIEL and Shanghai Costamare have only provided services to third parties in a limited number of cases in the past and currently only CIEL provides services to three third-party vessels (one vessel owned 51% by Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos and 49% by the family of the co-owner and chief executive officer of CIEL, and the other two vessels wholly owned by the family of the co-owner and chief executive officer of CIEL). If either CIEL or Shanghai Costamare engages in this activity in the future, it could give rise to conflicts of interest or adversely affect the ability of these companies to provide the level of service that we require. Conflicts of interest with respect to certain services, including sale and purchase and chartering activities, among others, may have an adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our vessels may call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions imposed by the United States government, which could negatively affect the trading price of our shares of common stock.

From time to time on charterers’ instructions, our vessels have called and may again call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States government and countries identified by the United States government as state sponsors of terrorism. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. In 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act (“CISADA”), which expanded the scope of the former Iran Sanctions Act. Among other things, CISADA expands the application of the prohibitions to non-U.S. companies, such as the Company, and introduces limits on the ability of companies and persons to do business or trade with Iran when such activities relate to the investment, supply or export of refined petroleum or petroleum products.

From January 2006 through December 2010, vessels in our fleet made a total of 120 calls to ports in Iran, Syria, Sudan and Cuba, representing approximately 0.61% of our 19,500 calls on worldwide ports. Although we believe that we are in compliance with all applicable sanctions and

20


embargo laws and regulations, and intend to maintain such compliance, there can be no assurance that we will be in compliance in the future, particularly as the scope of certain laws may be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in the Company. Additionally, some investors may decide to divest their interest, or not to invest, in the Company simply because we do business with companies that do business in sanctioned countries. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may also be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

We are a Marshall Islands corporation, and the Marshall Islands does not have a well developed body of corporate law or a bankruptcy act, and, as a result, stockholders may have fewer rights and protections under Marshall Islands law than under the laws of a jurisdiction in the United States.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act (the “BCA”). The provisions of the BCA are similar to provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the law of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain U.S. jurisdictions. Stockholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our public stockholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling stockholders than would stockholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction. For more information with respect to how stockholder rights under Marshall Islands law compare with stockholder rights under Delaware law, please read “Marshall Islands Company Considerations”.

The Marshall Islands has no established bankruptcy act, and as a result, any bankruptcy action involving our company would have to be initiated outside the Marshall Islands, and our public stockholders may find it difficult or impossible to pursue their claims in such other jurisdictions.

It may be difficult or impossible to enforce service of process and enforcement of judgments against us and our officers and directors.

We are a Marshall Islands corporation and all of our subsidiaries are, and will likely be, incorporated in jurisdictions outside the United States. In addition, our executive offices are located outside of the United States in Athens, Greece. All of our directors and officers reside outside of the United States, and all or a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of most of our officers and directors are, and will likely be, located outside of the United States. As a result, it may be difficult or impossible for U.S. investors to serve legal process within the United States upon us or any of these persons 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 or our subsidiaries’ assets are located (1) 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 (2) would enforce, in original actions, liabilities against us or our subsidiaries based on those laws. Please read “Enforceability of Civil Liabilities”.

There is also substantial doubt that the courts of the Marshall Islands or Greece would enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on U.S. Federal or state securities laws.

21


Risks Relating to our Common Stock

The price of our common stock may be volatile.

The price of our common stock may be volatile and may fluctuate due to factors including:

 

 

 

 

actual or anticipated fluctuations in quarterly and annual results;

 

 

 

 

fluctuations in the seaborne transportation industry, including fluctuations in the containership market;

 

 

 

 

mergers and strategic alliances in the shipping industry;

 

 

 

 

market conditions in the shipping industry;

 

 

 

 

changes in government regulations;

 

 

 

 

shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecasted by securities analysts;

 

 

 

 

our payment of dividends;

 

 

 

 

announcements concerning us or our competitors;

 

 

 

 

general economic conditions;

 

 

 

 

terrorist acts;

 

 

 

 

future sales of our stock or other securities;

 

 

 

 

investors’ perception of us and the containership transportation industry;

 

 

 

 

the general state of the securities market; and

 

 

 

 

other developments affecting us, our industry or our competitors.

The containership sector of the shipping industry has been highly unpredictable and volatile. Securities markets worldwide are experiencing significant price and volume fluctuations. The market price for our common stock may also be volatile. This market volatility, as well as general economic, market or political conditions, could reduce the market price of our common stock in spite of our operating performance. Consequently, you may not be able to sell our common stock at prices equal to or greater than those at which you pay.

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

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

Sarbanes-Oxley requires, among other things, that we maintain and periodically evaluate our internal control over financial reporting and disclosure controls and procedures. In particular, under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, we will be required to include in each of our future annual reports on Form 20-F a report containing our management’s assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and a related attestation of our independent auditors. This requirement for an attestation of our independent auditors will first apply to us with respect to our annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2011. We are currently undertaking a comprehensive effort in preparation for compliance with Section 404. This effort will include the documentation, testing and review of our internal controls under the direction of our management. We cannot be certain at this time that all our controls will be considered effective. Therefore, we can give no assurances that our internal control over financial reporting will satisfy the new regulatory requirements when they become applicable to us.

22


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

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the securities laws of the United States and the rules of the NYSE. Under the securities laws of the United States, “foreign private issuers” are subject to different disclosure requirements than U.S. domiciled registrants, as well as different financial reporting requirements. Under the NYSE rules, a “foreign private issuer” is subject to less stringent corporate governance requirements. Subject to certain exceptions, the rules of the NYSE permit a “foreign private issuer” to follow its home country practice in lieu of the listing requirements of the NYSE. In addition, the Konstantakopoulos Family continues to control a majority of our outstanding common stock. As a result, we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NYSE corporate governance standards. Under the NYSE rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by another company or group is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain NYSE corporate governance requirements, including (1) the requirement that a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors, (2) the requirement that the nominating committee be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities, (3) the requirement that the compensation committee be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities and (4) the requirement of an annual performance evaluation of the nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees. As permitted by these exemptions, as well as by our bylaws and the laws of the Marshall Islands, we currently have a board of directors with a majority of non-independent directors, an audit committee comprised solely of two independent directors and a combined corporate governance, nominating and compensation committee with one non-independent director serving as a committee chairman. As a result, non-independent directors, including members of our management who also serve on our board of directors, may, among other things, fix the compensation of our management, make stock and option awards and resolve governance issues regarding our company. Accordingly, in the future you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

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

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

Although we do not currently have any plans to sell additional shares of our common stock, subject to the rules of the NYSE, in the future, we may issue additional shares of common stock, and other equity securities of equal or senior rank, without stockholder approval, in a number of circumstances.

The issuance by us of additional shares of common stock or other equity securities of equal or senior rank would have the following effects:

 

 

 

 

our existing stockholders’ proportionate ownership interest in us will decrease;

 

 

 

 

the dividend amount payable per share on our common stock may be lower;

 

 

 

 

the relative voting strength of each previously outstanding share may be diminished; and

 

 

 

 

the market price of our common stock may decline.

Our stockholders also may elect to sell large numbers of shares held by them from time to time. The number of shares of common stock available for sale in the public market will be limited by restrictions applicable under securities laws, and agreements that we and our executive officers, directors and existing stockholders may enter into with the underwriters at the time of an offering. Subject to certain exceptions, these agreements generally restrict us and our executive officers, directors and existing stockholders from directly or indirectly offering, selling, pledging, hedging or

23


otherwise disposing of our equity securities or any security that is convertible into or exercisable or exchangeable for our equity securities and from engaging in certain other transactions relating to such securities for a period of 180 days after the date of an offering prospectus without the prior written consent of the underwriter(s).

Members of the Konstantakopoulos family are our principal existing stockholders and will control the outcome of matters on which our stockholders are entitled to vote; their interests may be different from yours.

Members of the Konstantakopoulos family own, directly or indirectly, approximately 77.9% of our outstanding common stock. These stockholders will be able to control the outcome of matters on which our stockholders are entitled to vote, including the election of our entire board of directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of these stockholders may be different from yours.

Anti-takeover provisions in our organizational documents could make it difficult for our stockholders to replace or remove our current board of directors or could have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a merger or acquisition, which could adversely affect the market price of the shares of our common stock.

Several provisions of our articles of incorporation and bylaws could make it difficult for our stockholders to change the composition of our board of directors in any one year, preventing them from changing the composition of our management. In addition, the same provisions may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that stockholders may consider favorable.

These provisions:

 

 

 

 

authorize our board of directors to issue “blank check” preferred stock without stockholder approval;

 

 

 

 

provide for a classified board of directors with staggered, three-year terms;

 

 

 

 

prohibit cumulative voting in the election of directors;

 

 

 

 

authorize the removal of directors only for cause and only upon the affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of the outstanding stock entitled to vote for those directors;

 

 

 

 

prohibit stockholder action by written consent unless the written consent is signed by all stockholders entitled to vote on the action; and

 

 

 

 

establish advance notice requirements for nominations for election to our board of directors or for proposing matters that can be acted on by stockholders at stockholder meetings.

We have adopted a stockholder rights plan pursuant to which our board of directors may cause the substantial dilution of the holdings of any person that attempts to acquire us without the approval of our board of directors.

These anti-takeover provisions, including the provisions of our stockholder rights plan, could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

Tax Risks

In addition to the following risk factors, you should read “Item 10. Additional Information—Tax Considerations—Marshall Islands Tax Considerations”, “Tax Considerations—Liberian Tax Considerations” and “Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Tax Considerations” for a more complete discussion of expected material Marshall Islands, Liberian and U.S. Federal income tax consequences of owning and disposing of our common stock.

24


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

Under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”), the U.S. source gross transportation income of a ship-owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves, is subject to a 4% U.S. Federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder. U.S. source gross transportation income consists of 50% of the gross shipping income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States.

We believe that we have qualified and currently intend to continue to qualify for this statutory tax exemption for the foreseeable future. However, no assurance can be given that this will be the case in the future. If we or our subsidiaries are not entitled to this exemption under Section 883 for any taxable year, we or our subsidiaries would be subject for those years to a 4% U.S. Federal income tax on our U.S. source gross transportation income. The imposition of this taxation could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our stockholders. Many of our time charters contain provisions pursuant to which charterers undertake to reimburse us for the 4% gross basis tax on our U.S. source gross transportation income.

If we were treated as a “passive foreign investment company”, certain adverse U.S. Federal income tax consequences could result to U.S. stockholders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company”, or PFIC, for U.S. Federal income tax purposes if at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income”, or at least 50% of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income”. For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties that are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income”. U.S. stockholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. Federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC, and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC. If we are treated as a PFIC for any taxable year, we will provide information to U.S. stockholders to enable them to make certain elections to alleviate certain of the adverse U.S. Federal income tax consequences that would arise as a result of holding an interest in a PFIC.

Based on our proposed method of operation, we do not believe that we will be a PFIC with respect to any taxable year. In this regard, we intend to treat the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering activities as services income, rather than rental income. Accordingly, we believe that our income from our time chartering activities does not constitute “passive income”, and the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income do not constitute passive assets. Our counsel, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, is of the opinion that we should not be a PFIC based on certain assumptions made by them as well as certain representations we made to them regarding the composition of our assets, the source of our income, and the nature of our operations.

There is, however, no legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our proposed method of operation. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) or a court of law will accept our position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if there were to be changes in the nature and extent of our operations.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, U.S. stockholders will face adverse tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those stockholders make certain elections available under the Code, such stockholders would be liable to pay U.S. Federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon

25


excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our common stock, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the stockholder’s holding period. Please read “Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of United States Holders—PFIC Status” for a more detailed discussion of the U.S. Federal income tax consequences to U.S. stockholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

The enactment of proposed legislation could affect whether dividends paid by us constitute qualified dividend income eligible for the preferential rate.

Legislation was recently proposed in the United States Senate that would deny the preferential rate of Federal income tax currently imposed on qualified dividend income with respect to dividends received from a non-U.S. corporation, unless the non-U.S. corporation either is eligible for benefits of a comprehensive income tax treaty with the United States or is created or organized under the laws of a foreign country which has a comprehensive income tax system. Because the Marshall Islands has not entered into a comprehensive income tax treaty with the United States and imposes only limited taxes on corporations organized under its laws, it is unlikely that we could satisfy either of these requirements. Consequently, if this legislation were enacted in its current form the preferential rate of Federal income tax discussed at “Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Tax Considerations—Taxation of United States Holders—Distributions on Our Common Stock” may no longer be applicable to dividends received from us. As of the date of this annual report, it is not possible to predict with certainty whether or in what form the proposed legislation will be enacted.

If the regulations regarding the exemption from Liberian taxation for non-resident corporations issued by the Liberian Ministry of Finance were found to be invalid, the net income and cash flows of our Liberian subsidiaries and therefore our net income and cash flows would be materially reduced.

A number of our subsidiaries are incorporated under the laws of the Republic of Liberia. The Republic of Liberia enacted a new income tax act effective as of January 1, 2001 (the “New Act”) which does not distinguish between the taxation of “non-resident” Liberian corporations, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, which conduct no business in Liberia and were wholly exempt from taxation under the income tax law previously in effect since 1977, and “resident” Liberian corporations which conduct business in Liberia and are, and were under the prior law, subject to taxation.

In 2004, the Liberian Ministry of Finance issued regulations exempting non-resident corporations engaged in international shipping, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, from Liberian taxation under the New Act retroactive to January 1, 2001. It is unclear whether these regulations, which ostensibly conflict with the express terms of the New Act adopted by the Liberian legislature, are valid. However, the Liberian Ministry of Justice issued an opinion that the new regulations are a valid exercise of the regulatory authority of the Ministry of Finance. The Liberian Ministry of Finance has not at any time since January 1, 2001 sought to collect taxes from any of our Liberian subsidiaries.

In June 2009, the Legislature, as well as the President, of the Republic of Liberia approved the Economic Stimulus Taxation Act of 2009 (the “ESTA”) which will amend the New Act to specifically exempt non-resident corporations engaged in international shipping, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, from taxation in Liberia. The ESTA, however, is not effective and will not become effective until it is officially published. To the best of our knowledge, such publication has yet to occur.

If our Liberian subsidiaries were subject to Liberian income tax under the New Act, they would be subject to tax at a rate of 35% on their worldwide income. As a result, their, and subsequently our, net income and cash flows would be materially reduced. In addition, as the ultimate stockholder of the Liberian subsidiaries, we would be subject to Liberian withholding tax on dividends paid by our Liberian subsidiaries at rates ranging from 15% to 20%, which would limit our access to funds generated by the operations of our subsidiaries and further reduce our income and cash flows.

26


ITEM 4. INFORMATION ON THE COMPANY

A. History and Development of the Company

Costamare Inc. was incorporated in the Republic of The Marshall Islands on April 21, 2008 under the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, for the purpose of acquiring ownership of various subsidiaries that either owned or were scheduled to own vessels. We are controlled by the Konstantakopoulos family, which has a long history of operating and investing in the international shipping industry, including a long history of vessel ownership. Captain Vasileios Konstantakopoulos, the father of our chairman and chief executive officer, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos, founded Costamare Shipping in 1975. We initially owned and operated drybulk carrier vessels, but in 1984 we became the first Greek owned company to enter the containership market and, since 1992, we have focused exclusively on containerships. After assuming management of our company in 1998, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos has concentrated on building a large, modern and reliable containership fleet run and supported by highly-skilled, experienced and loyal personnel. He founded the management companies CIEL and Shanghai Costamare in 2001 and 2005, respectively, and he founded the manning agency C-Man Maritime in 2006. Today, Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos remains focused on continuing to develop the scope and capabilities of our management companies and related manning agency. Under Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos’s leadership, we have continued to foster a company culture focusing on excellent customer service, industry leadership and innovation.

In November 2010, we completed an initial public offering of our common stock in the United States and our common stock began trading on the New York Stock Exchange on November 4, 2010 under the ticker symbol “CMRE”. We maintain our offices at 60 Zephyrou Street & Syngrou Avenue 17564, Athens, Greece. Our telephone number at that address is +30-210-949-0050. Our registered address in the Marshall Islands is Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Road, Ajeltake Island, Majuro, Marshall Islands MH96960. The name of our registered agent at such address is The Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc.

B. Business Overview

General

We are an international owner of containerships, chartering our vessels to many of the world’s largest liner companies. As of March 1, 2011, we had a fleet of 53 containerships aggregating 275,728 TEU, making us one of the largest public containership companies in the world, based on total TEU capacity. At that date, our fleet consisted of (i) 46 vessels in the water, aggregating 225,117 TEU, (ii) five secondhand vessels aggregating 10,925 TEU that are scheduled to be delivered to us by the end of March 2011, (iii) five newbuild vessels aggregating 44,600 TEUs that are scheduled to be delivered to us between October 2012 and January 2014 and (iv) excluded three older vessels, aggregating 4,914 TEU, currently in the water and contracted to be sold. See “—Our Fleet, Acquisitions and Newbuilds”.

Our strategy is to time-charter our containerships to a geographically diverse, financially strong and loyal group of leading liner companies. Our containerships operate primarily under multi-year time charters and therefore are not subject to the effect of seasonal variations in demand. Our containerships have a record of low unscheduled off-hire days, with fleet utilization levels of 99.3%, 99.9% and 99.7% in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively. Over the last three years our largest customers by revenue were A.P. Moller-Maersk, MSC and COSCO. As of March 1, 2011, the average (weighted by TEU capacity) remaining time-charter duration for our fleet of 53 containerships (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions) was 5.6 years, based on the remaining fixed terms and assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ time charter. As of March 1, 2011, our fixed-term charters represented an aggregate of $2.6 billion of contracted revenue, assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters and 365 revenue days per annum per containership.

Our company operates through a number of wholly-owned vessel-owning subsidiaries incorporated in the Republic of Liberia. Each of our vessels is managed by at least one of our three

27


managers: Costamare Shipping, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare, all of which are controlled by our chairman and chief executive officer. We believe that having three management companies provides us with a deep pool of operational management in multiple locations with market-specific experience and relationships, as well as the geographic flexibility needed to manage and crew our large and diverse fleet so as to provide a high level of service, while remaining cost-effective.

Our Fleet, Acquisitions and Newbuilds

The tables below provide additional information, as of March 1, 2011, about our fleet of 53 containerships, including our contracted disposals, secondhand acquisitions and contracted newbuilding vessels. Each vessel is a cellular containership, meaning it is a dedicated container vessel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Charterer

 

Year
Built

 

Capacity
(TEU)

 

Time
Charter
Term
(1)

 

Current Daily
Charter Hire
(U.S. dollars)

 

Expiration of
Charter
(1)

 

Average Daily
Charter Rate
Until Earliest
Expiry of
Charter
(U.S. dollars)
(2)

 

1

 

COSCO GUANGZHOU

 

COSCO

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

   

12 years

 

 

 

36,400

   

December 2017

 

 

 

36,400

 

 

2

 

COSCO NINGBO

 

COSCO

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

   

12 years

 

 

 

36,400

   

January 2018

 

 

 

36,400

 

 

3

 

COSCO YANTIAN

 

COSCO

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

   

12 years

 

 

 

36,400

   

February 2018

 

 

 

36,400

 

 

4

 

COSCO BEIJING

 

COSCO

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

   

12 years

 

 

 

36,400

   

April 2018

 

 

 

36,400

 

 

5

 

COSCO HELLAS

 

COSCO

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

   

12 years

 

 

 

32,400

(3)

 

 

May 2018

 

 

 

37,236

 

 

6

 

HYUNDAI NAVARINO

 

HMM

 

 

 

2010

 

 

 

 

8,531

   

1.2 years

 

 

 

44,000

   

March 2012

 

 

 

44,000

 

 

7

 

MAERSK KAWASAKI(i)

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

 

7,403

   

10 years

 

 

 

37,000

   

December 2017

 

 

 

37,000

 

 

8

 

MAERSK KURE(i)

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

1996

 

 

 

 

7,403

   

10 years

 

 

 

37,000

   

December 2017

 

 

 

37,000

 

 

9

 

MAERSK KOKURA(i)

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

1997

 

 

 

 

7,403

   

10 years

 

 

 

37,000

   

February 2018

 

 

 

37,000

 

 

10

 

SEALAND NEW YORK

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(4)

 

 

March 2018

 

 

 

28,575

 

 

11

 

MAERSK KOBE

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(5)

 

 

May 2018

 

 

 

31,968

 

 

12

 

SEALAND WASHINGTON

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(6)

 

 

June 2018

 

 

 

28,648

 

 

13

 

SEALAND MICHIGAN

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

   

11 years

 

 

 

29,875

(7)

 

 

August 2018

 

 

 

26,250

 

 

14

 

SEALAND ILLINOIS

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(8)

 

 

October 2018

 

 

 

28,711

 

 

15

 

MAERSK KOLKATA

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

 

6,644

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,500

(9)

 

 

November 2019

 

 

 

33,220

 

 

16

 

MAERSK KINGSTON

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

 

6,644

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(10)

 

 

February 2020

 

 

 

33,385

 

 

17

 

MAERSK KALAMATA

 

A.P. Moller-Maersk

 

 

 

2003

 

 

 

 

6,644

   

11 years

 

 

 

34,875

(11)

 

 

April 2020

 

 

 

33,428

 

 

18

 

ZIM NEW YORK

 

ZIM

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

 

4,992

   

10 years

 

 

 

18,189

(12)

 

 

July 2012

 

 

 

31,429

 

 

19

 

ZIM SHANGHAI

 

ZIM

 

 

 

2002

 

 

 

 

4,992

   

10 years

 

 

 

18,189

(13)

 

 

August 2012

 

 

 

30,687

 

 

20

 

ZIM PIRAEUS(ii)

 

ZIM

 

 

 

2004

 

 

 

 

4,992

   

10 years

 

 

 

20,013

(14)

 

 

March 2014

 

 

 

24,787

 

 

21

 

OAKLAND EXPRESS

 

Hapag Lloyd

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

4,890

   

8 years

 

 

 

35,000

(15)

 

 

September 2016

 

 

 

31,180

 

 

22

 

NEW YORK EXPRESS

 

Hapag Lloyd

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

4,890

   

8 years

 

 

 

35,000

(15)

 

 

October 2016

 

 

 

31,165

 

 

23

 

SINGAPORE EXPRESS

 

Hapag Lloyd

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

4,890

   

8 years

 

 

 

35,000

(15)

 

 

July 2016

 

 

 

31,200

 

 

24

 

MSC MANDRAKI

 

MSC

 

 

 

1988

 

 

 

 

4,828

   

2.8 years

 

 

 

22,200

(16)

 

 

August 2012

 

 

 

22,200

 

 

25

 

MSC MYKONOS

 

MSC

 

 

 

1988

 

 

 

 

4,828

   

3.2 years

 

 

 

22,200

(17)

 

 

September 2012

 

 

 

22,200

 

 

26

 

MSC ANTWERP

 

MSC

 

 

 

1993

 

 

 

 

3,883

   

3 years

 

 

 

20,000

(18)

 

 

April 2012

 

 

 

20,000

 

 

27

 

MSC WASHINGTON

 

MSC

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

3,876

   

3.2 years

 

 

 

20,000

(19)

 

 

February 2013

 

 

 

18,335

 

 

28

 

MSC KYOTO

 

MSC

 

 

 

1981

 

 

 

 

3,876

   

3.1 years

 

 

 

20,000

(20)

 

 

June 2013

 

 

 

18,229

 

 

29

 

MSC AUSTRIA

 

MSC

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

3,584

   

3.7 years

 

 

 

21,100

(21)

 

 

November 2012

 

 

 

19,259

 

 

30

 

KARMEN

 

HMM

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

3,351

   

0.2 years

 

 

 

10,000

   

March 2011

 

 

 

10,000

 

 

31

 

RENA

 

N/A

 

 

 

1990

 

 

 

 

3,351

   

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

   

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

32

 

MARINA

 

N/A

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

 

3,351

   

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

   

N/A

 

 

 

N/A

 

 

33

 

AKRITAS

 

Hapag Lloyd

 

 

 

1987

 

 

 

 

3,152

   

1 year

 

 

 

11,000

   

August 2011

 

 

 

11,000

 

 

34

 

GARDEN(iii)

 

Evergreen Marine

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

2,922

   

5 years

 

 

 

15,200

   

November 2012

 

 

 

15,200

 

 

35

 

GENIUS I(iii)

 

Evergreen Marine

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

2,922

   

3.3 years

 

 

 

15,200

   

November 2012

 

 

 

15,200

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

28


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Charterer

 

Year
Built

 

Capacity
(TEU)

 

Time
Charter
Term
(1)

 

Current Daily
Charter Hire
(U.S. dollars)

 

Expiration of
Charter
(1)

 

Average Daily
Charter Rate
Until Earliest
Expiry of
Charter
(U.S. dollars)
(2)

 

36

 

GATHER(iii)

 

Evergreen Marine

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

2,922

   

5 years

 

 

 

15,200

   

November 2012

 

 

 

15,200

 

 

37

 

GIFTED(iv)

 

Evergreen Marine

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

2,922

   

2.4 years

 

 

 

15,700

   

December 2011

 

 

 

15,700

 

 

38

 

MSC CHALLENGER

 

MSC

 

 

 

1986

 

 

 

 

2,633

   

2 years

 

 

 

10,000

   

September 2012

 

 

 

10,000

 

 

39

 

MSC PYLOS

 

MSC

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

2,020

   

1 year

 

 

 

9,200

   

January 2012

 

 

 

9,200

 

 

40

 

MSC NAMIBIA(v)

 

MSC

 

 

 

1977

 

 

 

 

1,654

   

4.8 years

 

 

 

14,000

(22)

 

 

July 2012

 

 

 

12,985

 

 

41

 

MSC SUDAN(v)

 

MSC

 

 

 

1976

 

 

 

 

1,630

   

3 years

 

 

 

14,000

   

June 2011

 

 

 

14,000

 

 

42

 

MSC SIERRA(v)

 

MSC

 

 

 

1977

 

 

 

 

1,630

   

3.7 years

 

 

 

14,000

(23)

 

 

May 2012

 

 

 

13,019

 

 

43

 

MSC TUSCANY

 

MSC

 

 

 

1978

 

 

 

 

1,468

   

1.9 years

 

 

 

7,920

   

August 2012

 

 

 

7,920

 

 

44

 

MSC FADO

 

MSC

 

 

 

1978

 

 

 

 

1,181

   

2 years

 

 

 

7,400

   

May 2012

 

 

 

7,400

 

 

45

 

ZAGORA

 

I.Messina

 

 

 

1995

 

 

 

 

1,162

   

0.5 years

 

 

 

7,500

   

July 2011

 

 

 

7,500

 

 

46

 

HORIZON

 

OACL

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

1,068

   

7.1 years

 

 

 

7,625

   

April 2012

 

 

 

7,625

 

 

Secondhand Vessels to be Delivered(vi)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Year Built

 

Capacity (TEU)

 

Latest Delivery
Date from Sellers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

Zim Israel

 

1992

 

 

 

3,351

   

21 March 2011

 

2

 

Forever Prosperity

 

1996

 

 

 

1,504

   

25 March 2011

 

3

 

Maersk Maine(v)

 

1992

 

 

 

2,024

   

31 March 2011

 

4

 

Maersk Maryland(v)

 

1991

 

 

 

2,023

   

31 March 2011

 

5

 

Maersk Vermont(v)

 

1991

 

 

 

2,023

   

31 March 2011

 

Vessels under Construction

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Charterer

 

Expected Delivery

 

Approximate
Capacity (TEU)

 

Time
Charter
Term

 

Earliest
Expiration
of Charter

 

1

 

Hull S4010

 

MSC

 

4th Quarter 2012

 

 

 

9,000

   

10 years

 

4th Quarter 2022

 

2

 

Hull S4011

 

MSC

 

4th Quarter 2012

 

 

 

9,000

   

10 years

 

4th Quarter 2022

 

3

 

H1068A

 

MSC

 

November 2013

 

 

 

9,000

   

10 years

 

October 2023

 

4

 

H1069A

 

MSC

 

December 2013

 

 

 

9,000

   

10 years

 

November 2023

 

5

 

H1070A

 

MSC

 

January 2014

 

 

 

9,000

   

10 years

 

December 2023

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Charter terms and expiration dates are based on the earliest possible expiration date.

 

(2)

 

 

 

This average rate is calculated based on contracted charter rates for the days remaining between March 1, 2011 and the earliest expiration of each charter. Certain of our charter rates change until their earliest expiration dates, as indicated in the footnotes below.

 

(3)

 

 

 

This charter rate escalates on August 31, 2011 to $37,596 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(4)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $30,375 and on May 8, 2014 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(5)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on June 1, 2011 to $42,679 per day, on January 1, 2012 to $38,179 per day and on June 30, 2014 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(6)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $30,375 and on August 24, 2014 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

29


 

(7)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $25,375 per day and on October 20, 2014 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(8)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $30,375 per day and on December 4, 2014 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(9)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on June 1, 2011 to $42,990 per day, on January 1, 2012 to $38,490 per day and on January 13, 2016 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(10)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on June 1, 2011 to $42,961 per day, on January 1, 2012 to $38,461 per day and on April 28, 2016 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(11)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on June 1, 2011 to $42,918 per day, on January 1, 2012 to $38,418 per day and on June 11, 2016 to $26,100 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(12)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $16,205 per day and on July 1, 2012 to $23,150 per day until the earliest redelivery date. In addition, if the charterer does not exercise its unilateral option to extend the term, the charterer is required to make a lump sum payment at the earliest redelivery of approximately $6.9 million.

 

(13)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $16,205 per day and on July 1, 2012 to $23,150 per day until the earliest redelivery date. In addition, if the charterer does not exercise its unilateral option to extend the term, the charterer is required to make a lump sum payment at the earliest redelivery of approximately $6.9 million.

 

(14)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $18,150 per day, on May 8, 2012 to $18,274 per day and on January 1, 2013 to $22,150 per day until the earliest redelivery date. In addition, the charterer is required to repay the remaining amount accrued during the reduction period, or approximately $5.0 million, no later than July 2016.

 

(15)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on January 1, 2012 to $30,500 per day until the earliest redelivery.

 

(16)

 

 

 

This charter rate is applicable until November 2, 2011. The “market rate” is payable for the remainder of the term. In order to calculate the average charter rate, we assumed that the charter expires on November 2, 2011.

 

(17)

 

 

 

This charter rate is applicable until July 14, 2011. The “market rate” is payable for the remainder of the term. In order to calculate the average charter rate, we assumed that the charter expires on July 14, 2011.

 

(18)

 

 

 

This charter rate is applicable until May 15, 2011. The “market rate” is payable for the remainder of the term. In order to calculate the average charter rate, we assumed that the charter expires on May 15, 2011.

 

(19)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on December 14, 2011 to $17,250 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(20)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on December 19, 2011 to $17,250 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(21)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on December 29, 2011 to $17,250 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(22)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on December 17, 2011 to $11,500 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(23)

 

 

 

This charter rate changes on December 20, 2011 to $11,250 per day until the earliest redelivery date.

 

(i)

 

 

 

Charterers have unilateral options to extend the charters of the vessels for two periods of 30 months +/-90 days at a rate of $41,700 per day.

 

(ii)

 

 

 

Charterer has a unilateral option to extend the charter of the vessel for a period of 12 months +/-60 days at a rate of $27,500 per day.

 

(iii)

 

 

 

Charterers have unilateral options to extend the charters of the vessels for periods until 2014, at a rate of $14,000 per day.

30


 

(iv)

 

 

 

Charterers have a unilateral option to extend the charter of the vessel for a period of one year +/-30 days at a rate of $14,000 per day.

 

(v)

 

 

 

We have agreed to sell MSC Namibia, MSC Sudan and MSC Sierra, and they are expected to be delivered to their Buyers by May 31, 2011. Maersk Maine, Maersk Maryland and Maersk Vermont will substitute the vessels MSC Namibia, MSC Sudan and MSC Sierra in their charters.

 

(vi)

 

 

 

Each of the secondhand vessels will be renamed upon delivery.

Chartering of Our Fleet

We deploy our containership fleet principally under multi-year time charters with leading liner companies that operate on regularly scheduled routes between large commercial ports. As of March 1, 2011, the average (weighted by TEU capacity) remaining time-charter duration for our fleet of 53 containerships (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions) was 5.6 years, based on the remaining fixed terms and assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters.

A time charter is a contract to charter a vessel for a fixed period of time at a set daily rate and can last from a few days up to several years. Under our time charters the charterer pays for most voyage expenses, such as port, canal and fuel costs, agents’ fees, extra war risks insurance and any other expenses related to the cargoes, and we pay for vessel operating expenses, which include, among other costs, costs for crewing, provisions, stores, lubricants, insurance, maintenance and repairs, dry-docking and intermediate and special surveys.

Our Customers

Since 2006, our customers have included over 10 of the leading international companies, including A.P. Moller-Maersk, COSCO, Evergreen Marine, Hapag Lloyd, HMM, MSC, OACL and ZIM. A.P. Moller-Maersk, MSC and COSCO together represented 71%, 74% and 75% of our revenue in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively.

Management of Our Fleet

Costamare Shipping provides us with general administrative services, certain commercial services, director and officer (“D&O”) related insurance services and the services of our executive officers pursuant to a management agreement (the “Group Management Agreement”) between Costamare Shipping and us. Costamare Shipping, itself or through Shanghai Costamare and CIEL, provides our fleet with technical, crewing, commercial, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase, chartering, accounting, insurance and administrative services pursuant to the Group Management Agreement and separate ship- management agreements between each of our containership-owning subsidiaries and Costamare Shipping, and in respect of certain of our containerships, also CIEL. In return for these services, we pay the management fees described below in this section and elsewhere in this annual report. Our three managers control the selection and employment of seafarers for our containerships, directly through their crewing offices in Athens, Greece and Shanghai, China, and indirectly through our related crewing agent in the Philippines, C-Man Maritime, and independent manning agents in Romania and Bulgaria. Under the Group Management Agreement, Costamare Shipping may subcontract certain of its obligations, or direct that CIEL or Shanghai Costamare enter into a direct ship-management contract with the relevant containership owning subsidiary. As discussed below, these arrangements will not result in any increase in the aggregate amount of management fees we pay. We believe that having three management companies provides us with a deep pool of operational management in multiple locations with market-specific experience and relationships, as well as the geographic flexibility needed to manage and crew our large and diverse fleet so as to provide a high level of service, while remaining cost-effective. For example, Shanghai Costamare employs Chinese nationals with the language skills and local knowledge we believe are necessary to grow and establish meaningful relationships with Chinese shipyards, charterers, ship-owners, financial institutions and containership service providers.

31


All three managers are controlled by our chairman and chief executive officer. Our chairman and chief executive officer and our chief financial officer supervise, in conjunction with our board of directors, the services provided by Costamare Shipping, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare. Our managers report to our board of directors through our chairman and chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, each of whom is appointed by our board of directors. Under the Group Management Agreement, the Company is responsible for the cost of the compensation and benefits for our executive officers. We could request that Costamare Shipping provide the services of additional officers or employees pursuant to the Group Management Agreement, in which case we would be responsible for the cost of their compensation and benefits.

Costamare Shipping, which was established in 1975, is a ship management company which was owned by Vasileios Konstantakopoulos until June 2010, at which point ownership was transferred to our chairman and chief executive officer. Costamare Shipping has 28 years of experience in managing containerships of all sizes, developing specifications for newbuilds and supervising the construction of such newbuilds in reputable shipyards in the Far East. Costamare Shipping has long established relationships with major liner companies, financial institutions and suppliers and we believe is recognized in the containership shipping industry as a leading containership manager. Costamare Shipping provides commercial services and insurance services to all our containerships. Costamare Shipping also provides, either directly or through Shanghai Costamare, technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services to our containerships (other than certain containerships, for which CIEL provides these services, as described below). All of these services are provided by Costamare Shipping pursuant to separate ship-management agreements between Costamare Shipping and each of our containership-owning subsidiaries.

CIEL, which was established in February 2001, is a ship management company owned 50.2% by our chairman and chief executive officer, and 49.8% by Dimitrios Lemonidis, its chief executive officer. CIEL specializes, although not exclusively, in managing containerships of up to 3,500 TEUs. As of March 1, 2011, CIEL provided technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services, as well as certain commercial services, to 13 of our containerships below 3,500 TEU that fly the Liberian and Maltese flags and full management services to Reunion—a 1983-built, 1,348 TEU containership owned 51% by our chairman and chief executive officer and 49% by the family of Dimitrios Lemonidis, which is not part of our current fleet of containerships. CIEL also provides full management services to Cougar—a 1992-built, 1,308 TEU containership and to Jaguar—a 1996 built 1,122 TEU containership, both of which are wholly owned by the family of Dimitrios Lemonidis. The management services performed by CIEL in respect of our Liberian and Maltese flagged containerships are provided in exchange for a fixed daily fee, pursuant to separate ship-management agreements signed between each relevant containership owning subsidiary and CIEL. In the past, CIEL has managed vessels flying a number of flags other than Liberia, including Hong Kong, Malta, Panama, the Bahamas and Gibraltar, and has provided management services to containerships owned by third parties, namely three containerships operated by MSC, two containerships operated by A.P. Moller-Maersk and two containerships operated by MPC Munchmeyer Peterson Steamship GmbH & Co KG, an affiliate of a major German KG house, MPC Capital AG.

Shanghai Costamare, which was established in February 2005, is owned (indirectly) 70% by our chairman and chief executive officer, and 30% by Zhang Lei, a Chinese national who is Shanghai Costamare’s chief executive officer. Shanghai Costamare was established to service the needs of our fleet of containerships when operating in the Far East and South East Asia regions in an efficient and cost-effective manner by providing dedicated on-shore support and manning services in China, and a valuable interface with Chinese shipyards, charterers, ship-owners, financial institutions and containership service providers to our fleet based in these regions. As of March 1, 2011, Shanghai Costamare provided technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services, as well as certain commercial services, to our eight containerships flying the Hong Kong flag. These containerships are exclusively manned by Chinese crews, which means that the Chinese on-shore personnel of Shanghai Costamare can communicate and provide integrated services and support to these containerships in the most efficient manner. Shanghai Costamare provides these

32


services for a fixed daily fee, pursuant to separate management agreements between Costamare Shipping and Shanghai Costamare.

As of March 1, 2011,

 

 

 

 

Costamare Shipping provided commercial and insurance services to all of our containerships as well as technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services to our 25 containerships flying the Greek flag;

 

 

 

 

CIEL provided technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services to 13 of our containerships flying the Liberian and Maltese flag; and

 

 

 

 

Shanghai Costamare provided technical, crewing, provisions, bunkering, sale and purchase and accounting services to the remaining eight containerships of our fleet flying the Hong Kong flag.

Our managers are well-regarded in the industry and have used innovative practices and technological advancement to maximize efficiency in the operation of our fleet of containerships. ISM certification is in place for our fleet of containerships and our three managers, with Costamare Shipping obtaining such certification in 1998, three years ahead of the deadline set by the IMO. All three managers and our fleet of containerships are also certified in accordance with ISO 9001-2008 and ISO 14001-2004 relating to quality management and environmental standards. In 2004, Costamare Shipping received the Lloyd’s List Dry Cargo Company of the Year Award. As of March 1, 2011, except for CIEL’s management of Reunion, Cougar and Jaguar, our managers did not manage containerships other than those owned by us.

Costamare Shipping has agreed that, during the term of the Group Management Agreement, it will not provide any management services to any other entity without our prior written approval. The Group Management Agreement does not prohibit CIEL or Shanghai Costamare from providing services to third parties. In the past, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare have only provided services to third parties on a limited basis and there is no current plan to change that practice.

Under the restrictive covenant agreement between the Company and Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos, during the period of his employment or service with the Company and for six months thereafter, he has agreed to restrictions on his ownership of any containerships or the acquisition, investment in or control of any business involved in the ownership or operation of containerships, subject to certain exceptions. Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos has also agreed that if one of our containerships and a containership owned by him are both available and meet the criteria for an available charter, our containerships will receive such charter. “See Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Restrictive Covenant Agreements”.

Costamare Shipping receives a fee of $850 per day ($425 per day in the case of a containership subject to a bareboat charter) for each containership, pro rated for the calendar days we own each containership, for providing us with general administrative services, certain commercial services, D&O related insurance services and the services of our officers (but not for payment of such officer’s compensation or benefits) and for providing the relevant containership-owning subsidiaries with technical, commercial, insurance, accounting, provisions, sale and purchase, crewing and bunkering services. In the event that Costamare Shipping decides to delegate certain or all of the services it has agreed to perform, either through subcontracting to CIEL or Shanghai Costamare or by directing CIEL or Shanghai Costamare to enter into a direct ship-management agreement with the relevant containership-owning subsidiary, then, in the case of subcontracting, Costamare Shipping will be responsible for paying the management fee charged by the relevant sub-manager for providing such services and, in the case of a direct ship-management agreement, the fee received by Costamare Shipping will be reduced by the fee payable to CIEL or, as the case may be, Shanghai Costamare, under the relevant direct ship-management agreement. As a result, these arrangements will not result in any increase in the aggregate management fees we pay. In addition to management fees, we pay for any capital expenditures, financial costs, operating expenses and any general and administrative expenses, including the salaries of our officers and employees and payments to third parties, including specialist providers, in accordance with the Group Management Agreement and

33


the relevant separate ship-management agreements or supervision agreements. We also pay to Costamare Shipping a flat fee of $700,000 per newbuild vessel for the supervision of the construction of any newbuild vessel for which we may contract. Costamare Shipping also receives a fee of 0.75% on all gross freight, demurrage, charter hire and ballast bonus or other income earned with respect to each containership in our fleet. The initial term of the Group Management Agreement expires on December 31, 2015. The Group Management Agreement automatically renews for five consecutive one-year periods until December 31, 2020, at which point the Group Management Agreement will expire. After the initial term expires on December 31, 2015, we will be able to terminate the Group Management Agreement, subject to a termination fee, by providing written notice to Costamare Shipping at least 12 months before the end of the subsequent one-year term. Pursuant to the terms of our Group Management Agreement and separate ship management agreements and supervision agreements, liability of our managers to us is limited to instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the managers. Further, we are required to indemnify the managers for liabilities incurred by the managers in performance of the Group Management Agreement and separate ship management agreements and supervision agreements, except in instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the managers.

Competition

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. Generally, we compete for charters based upon charter rate, customer relationships, operating expertise, professional reputation and containership specifications, size, age and condition. Competition for providing containership services comes from a number of experienced shipping companies, including a number of our competitors who have been financed by the German KG system, which was based on tax benefits provided to private investors.

Participants in the container shipping industry include “liner” shipping companies, who operate container shipping services and own containerships, containership owners, often known as “charter owners”, who own containerships and charter them out to liner companies, and shippers who require the seaborne movement of containerized goods. Historically, a significant share of the world’s containership capacity has been owned by the liner companies, but since the 1990s there has been an increasing trend for the liner companies to charter-in a larger proportion of the capacity that they operate as a way of retaining some degree of flexibility with regard to capital spending levels over time given the significant costs associated with purchasing vessels.

We believe that the containership sector of the international shipping industry is characterized by the significant time required to develop the operating expertise and professional reputation necessary to obtain and retain customers. We believe that our development of a large fleet of containerships with varying TEU capacities has enhanced our relationship with our principal charterers by enabling them to serve the East-West, North-South and Intra-regional trade routes efficiently, while enabling us to operate in the different rate environments prevailing for those routes. We also believe that our focus on customer service and reliability enhances our relationships with our charterers. In the past decade, we have had successful chartering relationships with the majority of the top 20 liner companies by TEU capacity.

In the past, we have been able to address the periodic scarcity of secondhand containerships available for acquisition in the open market though the acquisition of containerships mainly from our liner company customers in privately negotiated sales. In connection with these acquisitions we then typically charter back the vessels to these customers. We believe we have been able to pursue these privately negotiated acquisitions because of our long-standing customer relations, which we do not believe new entrants have.

Crewing and Shore Employees

We have three shore-based officers, our chairman and chief executive officer, our chief financial officer and our general counsel and secretary. In each case their services are provided under our management agreement with Costamare Shipping. As of December 31, 2010, approximately 2,100 people served in a pool of personnel who rotate their service onboard the containerships in our

34


fleet. Costamare Shipping, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare, our managers, each employed approximately 90, 40 and 30 people, respectively, all of whom were shore-based. In addition, our managers are responsible for recruiting, either directly or through a crewing agent, the senior officers and all other crew members for our containerships. Recruiting is arranged directly through our managers’ crewing offices in Athens, Greece and Shanghai, China, and indirectly through our related crewing agent, C-Man Maritime, in the Philippines, and independent manning agents in Romania and Bulgaria. We believe the streamlining of crewing arrangements through our managers ensures that all of our vessels will be crewed with experienced crews that have the qualifications and licenses required by international regulations and shipping conventions. We have not experienced any material work stoppages due to labor disagreements during the past three years.

Permits and Authorizations

We are required by various governmental and other agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances with respect to each of our vessels. The kinds of permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances required by governmental and other agencies depend upon several factors, including the commodity being transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel’s crew and the type and age of the vessel. All permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances currently required to operate our vessels have been obtained (exclusive of cargo- specific documentation, for which charterers or shippers are responsible). Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of doing business.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, collision, property loss or damage, cargo loss or damage and business interruption due to a number of reasons, including mechanical failure, political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA 90”), which imposes under certain circumstances unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of vessels trading in the United States exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for ship-owners and operators trading in the United States market.

We maintain hull and machinery marine risks insurance and hull and machinery war risks insurance for our fleet of containerships to cover normal risks in our operations and in amounts that we believe to be prudent to cover such risks. In addition, we maintain protection and indemnity insurance up to the maximum insurable limit available at any given time. While we believe that our insurance coverage will be adequate, not all risks can be insured, and there can be no guarantee that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates or at all, or that any specific claim we may make under our insurance coverage will be paid.

Hull & Machinery Marine Risks Insurance, Hull & Machinery War Risks Insurance and Loss of Hire Insurance

We maintain hull and machinery marine risks insurance and hull and machinery war risks insurance, which cover the risk of particular average, general average, 4/4ths collision liability, contact with fixed and floating objects and actual or constructive total loss in accordance with the Swedish Hull conditions. Each of our containerships is insured up to what we believe to be at least its fair market value, after meeting certain deductibles.

We do not and will not obtain loss of hire insurance (or any other kind of business interruption insurance) covering the loss of revenue during off-hire periods for any of our vessels because we believe that this type of coverage is not economical and is of limited value to us, in part because historically our vessels have had a very limited number of off-hire days.

35


Protection and Indemnity Insurance—Pollution Coverage

Protection and indemnity insurance is usually provided by a protection and indemnity association (the “P&I association”) and covers third-party liability, crew liability and other related expenses resulting from the injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, the loss or damage to cargo, third-party claims arising from collisions with other vessels (to the extent not recovered by the hull and machinery policies), damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal.

Our protection and indemnity insurance is provided by a P&I association, which is a member of the International Group of P&I Clubs (“International Group”). The 14 P&I associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial blue-water tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. Insurance provided by a P&I association is a form of mutual indemnity insurance.

Our protection and indemnity insurance coverage is currently subject to a limit of about $5 billion per vessel per incident except that for pollution the limit is set at $1 billion per vessel per incident, and for war risks the limit is set at $500 million per vessel per incident.

As a member of a P&I association, which is a member of the International Group, we will be subject to calls payable to the P&I association based on the International Group’s claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the P&I association of which we are a member.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every seagoing vessel must be “classed” by a classification society. The classification society certifies that the vessel is “in class”, signifying that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of the classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the vessel’s country of registry and the international conventions of which that country is a member. In addition, where surveys are required by international conventions and corresponding laws and ordinances of a flag state, the classification society will undertake them on application or by official order, acting on behalf of the authorities concerned.

The classification society also undertakes on request other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

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

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

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

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

36


year cycle. At a ship-owner’s application, the surveys required for class renewal may be split according to an agreed schedule to extend over the entire period of class. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.

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

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

Insurance underwriters make it a condition for insurance coverage that a vessel be certified as “in class” by a classification society which is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies (“IACS”). All of our vessels are certified as being “in class” by members of IACS.

The following table lists the dates by which we expect to carry out the next dry-dockings and special surveys for the vessels in our current vessel fleet:

Dry-docking Schedule(1)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011

 

2012

 

2013

 

2014

 

2015

Number of vessels

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

7

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

14

 

Number of vessels to be dry-docked that are more than 30 years old (included in above figure)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Excludes the three vessels (MSC Nambia, MSC Sierra and MSC Sudan) we have agreed to sell and the five newbuilding vessels that we have agreed acquire.

Environmental and Other Regulations

Government regulation affects the ownership and operation of our vessels in a significant manner. We are subject to international conventions and national, port state and local laws and regulations applicable to international waters and/or territorial waters of the countries in which our vessels may operate or are registered, including those governing the management and disposal of hazardous substances and wastes, the cleanup of oil spills and the management of other contamination, air emissions, and grey water and ballast water discharges. These laws and regulations include OPA 90, the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”), the U.S. Clean Water Act (“CWA”), the U.S. Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and regulations adopted by the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”), including the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) and the International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea (“SOLAS”), as well as regulations enacted by the European Union and other international, national and local regulatory bodies. Compliance with these laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of governmental and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities Port State Control (such as the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administration (country of registry) and charterers. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, financial assurances and certificates for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend the operation of one or more of our vessels in one or more ports.

We believe that the heightened level of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers is leading to greater inspection and safety requirements for all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the container shipping industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to the

37


strictest environmental standards. We will be required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with U.S. and international regulations. Our managers and our vessels are certified in accordance with ISO 9001-2008 and ISO 14001-2004 relating to quality management and environmental standards.

Our containerships are subject to standards imposed by the IMO, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships. The IMO has adopted regulations that are designed to reduce pollution in international waters, both from accidents and from routine operations, and has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for oil pollution in international waters and a signatory’s territorial waters. For example, Annex III of MARPOL regulates the transportation of marine pollutants and imposes standards on packing, marking, labeling, documentation, stowage, quantity limitations and pollution prevention. These requirements have been expanded by the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code, which imposes additional standards for all aspects of the transportation of dangerous goods and marine pollutants by sea. In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Annex VI, which became effective on May 19, 2005, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. In October 2008, the Marine Environment Protection Committee (the “MEPC”) of the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emission standards that entered into force on July 1, 2010. The new standards seek to reduce air pollution from vessels by, among other things, establishing a series of progressive requirements to further limit the sulfur content of fuel oil that will be phased in through 2020 and by establishing new tiers of nitrogen oxide emission standards for new marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. Additionally, more stringent emission standards could apply in the coastal areas designated as Emission Control Areas, the Baltic Sea, North Sea and United States and Canadian coastal areas. All our existing containerships are generally compliant with current Annex VI requirements, except that for those built before 2000, we may incur costs to install control equipment on their engines to comply with nitrogen oxide emission requirements.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the “Bunker Convention”), which imposes strict liability on vessel owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of vessels over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance in specified amounts to cover liability for bunker fuel pollution damage. The Bunker Convention became effective on November 21, 2008. Each of our containerships has been issued a certificate attesting that insurance is in force in accordance with the Bunker Convention.

In 2004, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”). The BWM Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not enter into force until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. As of December 31, 2010, the BWM Convention had been adopted by 27 states, representing 25.3% of the world’s tonnage.

The operation of our vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the IMO’s Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (the “ISM Code”). The ISM Code requires vessel owners, bareboat charterers and management companies to develop and maintain an extensive Safety Management System (“SMS”) that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy, sets forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describes procedures for dealing with emergencies. The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a “Safety Management Certificate” for each vessel they operate from the government of the vessel’s flag state. The certificate verifies that the vessel operates in compliance with its approved SMS. Noncompliance by a vessel owner, manager or bareboat charterer with the ISM Code may

38


subject such party to increased liability, invalidate existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Our managers and each of our containerships is ISM Code-certified.

United States Requirements

OPA 90 established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection of the environment from oil spills and cleanup of oil spills. OPA 90 applies to discharges of any oil from a vessel, including discharges of fuel and lubricants. OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in U.S. waters, which include the United States’ territorial sea and its two hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone. While we do not carry oil as cargo, we do carry fuel in our containerships, making them subject to the requirements of OPA 90.

Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the discharge of pollutants results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war) for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges, of pollutants from their vessels, including bunkers. OPA 90 defines these other damages broadly to include:

 

 

 

 

natural resource damages and the costs of assessment thereof;

 

 

 

 

real and personal property damage;

 

 

 

 

net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and other lost revenues;

 

 

 

 

lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resource damages; and

 

 

 

 

net cost of public services necessitated by a spill response, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

OPA 90 preserves the right to recover damages under other existing laws, including maritime tort law.

Effective July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA 90 liability to the greater of $1,000 per gross ton or $854,400 per incident for non-tank vessels and established a procedure for adjusting limits every three years. These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable U.S. safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities. As a result of the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico resulting from the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (which was owned and operated by third parties not affiliated with us), bills have been introduced in both houses of the U.S. Congress to increase the limits of OPA liability for all vessels, including non-tank vessels.

CERCLA applies to spills or releases of hazardous substances other than petroleum or petroleum products whether on land or at sea. CERCLA imposes joint and several liability, without regard to fault, on the owner or operator of a vessel, vehicle or facility from which there has been a release, along with other specified parties. Costs recoverable under CERCLA include cleanup and removal costs, natural resource damages and governmental oversight costs. Liability under CERCLA is generally limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5.0 million for vessels carrying any hazardous substances, such as cargo or residue, or $0.5 million for any other vessel, per release of or incident involving hazardous substances. These limits of liability do not apply if the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.

All owners and operators of vessels over 300 gross tons are required to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under OPA 90 and CERCLA. Under the U.S. Coast Guard regulations, vessel owners and operators may evidence their financial responsibility by showing proof of insurance, surety bond, guarantee, letter of credit or self-insurance. An owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required

39


only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet having the greatest maximum liability under OPA 90 and CERCLA. Under the self-insurance provisions, the vessel owner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility.

The U.S. Coast Guard’s regulations concerning certificates of financial responsibility provide, in accordance with OPA 90, that claimants may bring suit directly against an insurer or guarantor that furnishes certificates of financial responsibility. In the event that such insurer or guarantor is sued directly, it is prohibited from asserting any contractual defense that it may have had against the responsible party and is limited to asserting those defenses available to the responsible party and the defense that the incident was caused by the willful misconduct of the responsible party. Certain organizations, which had typically provided certificates of financial responsibility under pre-OPA 90 laws, including the major P&I associations, have declined to furnish evidence of insurance for vessel owners and operators if they are subject to direct actions or required to waive insurance policy defenses. This requirement may have the effect of limiting the availability of the type of vessel coverage required by the U.S. Coast Guard and could increase our costs of obtaining this insurance for our fleet, as well as the costs of our competitors that also require such coverage.

OPA 90 specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, and some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills. In some cases, states which have enacted such legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessels owners’ responsibilities under these laws. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

We will maintain, for each of our containerships, oil pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. In addition, we carry hull and machinery and protection and indemnity insurance to cover the risks of fire and explosion. Although our containerships will only carry bunker fuel, a spill of oil from one of our vessels could be catastrophic under certain circumstances. Losses as a result of fire or explosion could also be catastrophic under some conditions. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, and if the damages from a catastrophic spill exceeded our insurance coverage, the payment of those damages could have an adverse effect on our business or the results of our operations.

Title VII of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004 (the “CGMTA”) amended OPA 90 to require the owner or operator of any non-tank vessel of 400 gross tons or more that carries oil of any kind as a fuel for main propulsion, including bunker fuel, to prepare and submit a response plan for each vessel. These vessel response plans include detailed information on actions to be taken by vessel personnel to prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge of oil from the vessel due to operational activities or casualties. Where required, each of our containerships has an approved response plan.

The CWA prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in navigable waters and imposes liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. It also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under the more recently enacted OPA 90 and CERCLA, discussed above. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”) regulates the discharge of ballast water and other substances under the CWA. Effective February 6, 2009, EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing vessels) to obtain coverage under a Vessel General Permit (“VGP”) authorizing discharges of ballast waters and other wastewaters incidental to the operation of vessels when operating within the three-mile territorial waters or inland waters of the United States. The VGP requires vessel owners and operators to comply with a range of best management practices and reporting and other requirements for a number of incidental discharge types. We have obtained coverage under the VGP for all of our containerships that operate in U.S. waters. We do not believe that any costs associated with meeting the requirements under the VGP will be material.

40


The U.S. National Invasive Species Act (“NISA”) was enacted in 1996 in response to growing reports of harmful organisms being released into U.S. ports through ballast water taken on by vessels in foreign ports. The U.S. Coast Guard adopted regulations under NISA in July 2004 that impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering U.S. waters. These requirements can be met by performing mid-ocean ballast exchange, by retaining ballast water on board the vessel or by using environmentally sound alternative ballast water management methods approved by the U.S. Coast Guard. However, mid-ocean ballast exchange is mandatory for vessels heading to the Great Lakes or Hudson Bay. Mid-ocean ballast exchange is the primary method for compliance with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations, since holding ballast water can prevent vessels from performing cargo operations upon arrival in the United States and alternative methods are still under development. Vessels that are unable to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange due to voyage or safety concerns may discharge minimum amounts of ballast water (in areas other than the Great Lakes and Hudson Bay), provided that they comply with record keeping requirements and document the reasons they could not follow the required ballast water management requirements. The U.S. Coast Guard is proposing new ballast water management standards and practices that could ultimately lead to the establishment of maximum acceptable discharge limits for various invasive species and/or requirements for active treatment of ballast water. A number of bills relating to ballast water management have been introduced in the U.S. Congress, but it is difficult to predict which, if any, will be enacted. Several states, including Michigan and California, have adopted legislation or regulations relating to the permitting and management of ballast water discharges. California has extended its ballast water management program to the regulation of “hull fouling” organisms attached to vessels and adopted regulations limiting the number of organisms in ballast water discharges. Other states could adopt similar requirements that could increase the costs of operation in state waters.

The EPA has adopted standards under the CAA that pertain to emissions from vessel vapor control and recovery and other operations in regulated port areas and emissions from model year 2004 and later large marine diesel engines. On April 30, 2010, the EPA promulgated regulations that impose more stringent standards for emissions of particulate matter, sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides from new Category 3 marine diesel engines on vessels constructed on or after January 1, 2016 and registered or flagged in the U.S. and implement the new MARPOL Annex VI requirements for U.S. and foreign flagged ships entering U.S. ports or operating in U.S. internal waters. The EPA is also considering a petition from a number of environmental groups that requests the EPA to impose more stringent emissions limits on foreign-flagged vessels operating in U.S. waters. Several states regulate emissions from vapor control and recovery under authority of State Implementation Plans adopted under the CAA. Although California’s adoption of emission limits for auxiliary diesel engines of ocean-going vessels operating within 24 miles of the California coast was struck down by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2008, the state has requested the EPA to grant it a waiver under the CAA to enforce the invalidated emission standards. Effective July 1, 2009, California also adopted fuel content regulations that apply to all vessels sailing within 24 miles of the California coast whose itineraries call for them to enter to California ports, terminal facilities or estuarine waters. If new or more stringent regulations relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by ocean-going vessels are adopted by the EPA or states, these requirements could require significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations.

European Union Requirements

The European Union has also adopted legislation that (1) requires member states to refuse access to their ports to certain sub-standard vessels, according to vessel type, flag and number of previous detentions, (2) obliges member states to inspect at least 25% of vessels using their ports annually and provides for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment, (3) provides the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies, and (4) requires member states to impose criminal sanctions for certain pollution events, such as the unauthorized discharge of tank washings. It is also considering legislation that will affect

41


the operation of vessels and the liability of owners for oil pollution. It is difficult to predict what legislation, if any, may be promulgated by the European Union or any other country or authority.

Other Regional Requirements

The environmental protection regimes in certain other countries, such as Canada, resemble those of the United States. To the extent we operate in the territorial waters of such countries or enter their ports, our containerships would typically be subject to the requirements and liabilities imposed in such countries. Other regions of the world also have the ability to adopt requirements or regulations that may impose additional obligations on our containerships and may entail significant expenditures on our part and may increase the costs of our operations. These requirements, however, would apply to the industry operating in those regions as a whole and would also affect our competitors.

Climate Control Initiatives

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the “Kyoto Protocol”) entered into force. Although the Kyoto Protocol requires adopting countries to implement programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, emissions from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol. International or multi-national bodies or individual countries may adopt their own climate change regulatory initiatives that include restrictions on shipping emissions in the future, however. For example, the U.S. Congress is considering climate change legislation, and the EPA is separately considering a petition from the California Attorney General and environmental groups to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels under the CAA. The European Union intends to expand its emissions trading scheme to vessels and MEPC is developing technical and operational measures to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping for consideration by IMO in fall 2010. Any passage of climate control legislation or adoption of regulatory initiatives could require us to incur significant expenditures or otherwise limit our operations.

Vessel Security Regulations

A number of initiatives have been introduced in recent years intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 (the “MTSA”) was signed into law. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations in July 2003 requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. This new chapter came into effect in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (the “ISPS Code”). Among the various requirements are:

 

 

 

 

on-board installation of automatic information systems to enhance vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-shore communications;

 

 

 

 

on-board installation of ship security alert systems;

 

 

 

 

the development of vessel security plans; and

 

 

 

 

compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board a valid “International Ship Security Certificate” that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures required by the IMO, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and have approved ISPS certificates and plans certified by the applicable flag state on board all our containerships.

42


C. Organizational Structure

As of March 1, 2011, Costamare Inc. is a holding company incorporated in the Republic of The Marshall Islands with 74 subsidiaries all of which are incorporated in Liberia. Of our Liberian subsidiaries, 56 either own vessels in our fleet or are parties to contracts to obtain newbuild or secondhand vessels. Our subsidiaries are wholly-owned by us. A list of our subsidiaries as of January 1, 2011 is set forth in Exhibit 8.1 to this annual report.

D. Property, Plant and Equipment

We have no freehold or material leasehold interest in any real property. We occupy office space at 60 Zephyrou Street & Syngrou Avenue, 17564, Athens, Greece, that is provided to us as part of the services we receive under our management agreement. Other than our vessels, we do not have any material property. Our vessels are subject to priority mortgages, which secure our obligations under our various credit facilities. For further details regarding our credit facilities, refer to “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and ProspectsB. Liquidity and Capital ResourcesCredit Facilities” and “Item 3. Business OverviewRisk of Loss and Liability InsuranceEnvironmental and Other Regulations”.

ITEM 4.A. UNRESOLVED STAFF COMMENTS

None.

43


ITEM 5. OPERATING AND FINANCIAL REVIEW AND PROSPECTS

The following discussion of our financial condition and results of operations should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and the notes to those statements included elsewhere in this annual report. This discussion includes forward-looking statements that involve risks and uncertainties. As a result of many factors, such as those set forth under “Item 3. Key Information—D. Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this annual report, our actual results may differ materially from those anticipated in these forward-looking statements. Please see the section “Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this annual report.

Overview

We are an international owner of containerships, chartering our vessels to many of the world’s largest liner companies. As of March 1, 2011, we had a fleet of 53 containerships aggregating 275,728 TEU, making us one of the largest public containership companies in the world, based on total TEU capacity. At that date, our fleet consisted of (i) 46 vessels in the water, aggregating 225,117 TEU, (ii) five secondhand vessels aggregating 10,925 TEU that are scheduled to be delivered to us by the end of March, (iii) five newbuild vessels aggregating 44,600 TEUs that are scheduled to be delivered to us between October 2012 and January 2014 and (iv) excluded three older vessels, aggregating 4,914 TEU, currently in the water and contracted to be sold. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet, Acquisitions and Newbuilds”.

We principally deploy our containerships on multi-year, fixed-rate time charters to take advantage of the stable cash flows and high utilization rates typically associated with multi-year time charters. Time-chartered containerships are generally employed on multi-year charters to liner companies that charter-in vessels on a multi-year basis as part of their business strategies.

As of March 1, 2010, the average (weighted by TEU capacity) remaining time-charter duration for our fleet of 53 containerships (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and newbuilds) was 5.6 years, based on the remaining fixed terms and assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters. As of December 31, 2010, our fixed-term charters represented an aggregate of $1.9 billion of contracted revenue, assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters and 365 revenue days per annum per containership. See the table entitled “Contracted Revenue and Days From Time Charters as of December 31, 2010” in “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations—Voyage Revenue”. As of March 1, 2011, our fixed-term charters represented an aggregate of $2.6 billion of contracted revenue, assuming the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters and 365 revenue days per annum per containership.

The table below provides additional information about the charter coverage for our fleet of containerships as of December 31, 2010. Except as indicated in the footnotes, it does not reflect events occurring after that date. In particular it does not reflect our contracts to acquire secondhand and newbuild vessels or any charter contract we entered into after that date. The table assumes the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters. See “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet and Newbuilds”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2011

 

2012

 

2013

 

2014

 

2015

 

2016

 

2017

 

2018

 

2019

 

2020

 

 

 

No. of Vessels whose Charters Expire

 

 

 

5

 

 

 

 

16

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

3

 

 

 

 

10

 

 

 

 

1

 

 

 

 

2

 

 

 

 

TEUs of Expiring Charters

 

 

 

14,406

 

 

 

 

54,038

 

 

 

 

7,752

 

 

 

 

4,992

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

14,670

 

 

 

 

24,275

 

 

 

 

78,519

 

 

 

 

6,644

 

 

 

 

13,288

 

 

 

 

Contracted Days

 

 

 

14,736

 

 

 

 

11,496

 

 

 

 

7,511

 

 

 

 

7,004

 

 

 

 

6,935

 

 

 

 

6,602

 

 

 

 

5,805

 

 

 

 

2,312

 

 

 

 

1,048

 

 

 

 

162

 

 

 

 

Available Days

 

 

 

772

 

 

 

 

3,126

 

 

 

 

6,146

 

 

 

 

6,501

 

 

 

 

4,380

 

 

 

 

4,744

 

 

 

 

5,510

 

 

 

 

8,273

 

 

 

 

8,807

 

 

 

 

9,720

 

 

 

 

Contracted/Total Days(1)

 

 

 

95.0

%

 

 

 

 

78.6

%

 

 

 

 

55.0

%

 

 

 

 

51.9

%

 

 

 

 

61.3

%

 

 

 

 

58.2

%

 

 

 

 

51.3

%

 

 

 

 

21.8

%

 

 

 

 

10.6

%

 

 

 

 

1.6

%

 

 

 

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Total days are calculated on the assumption that the vessels will continue trading until the age of 30 years old, unless the vessel will exceed 30 years of age at the expiry of its current time charter, in which case we assume that the vessel continues trading until that expiry date.

44


Our containership fleet is currently under time charters with eight different charterers. For the three years ended December 31, 2010, our three largest customers by revenue were A.P. Moller-Maersk, MSC and COSCO; together these three customers represented 71%, 74% and 75% of our revenue in 2008, 2009 and 2010, respectively.

We dry-dock our vessels when the next survey (dry-dock survey or special survey) is scheduled to become due, ranging from 30 to 60 months. We have dry-docked 33 vessels over the past 3 years, and we plan to dry-dock seven vessels in 2011 and seven vessels in 2012. Information about our fleet dry-docking schedule through 2015 is set forth in a table in “Business Overview—Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance—Inspection by Classification Societies—Dry-docking”.

Our Manager

The operations of our fleet of containerships are managed by Costamare Shipping, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare, our managers, under the supervision of our chairman and chief executive officer and our chief financial officer, in conjunction with our board of directors. Costamare Shipping receives a fee of $850 per day ($425 per day in the case of a containership subject to a bareboat charter) for each containership, pro rated for the calendar days we own each containership, for providing us with general administrative services, certain commercial services, director and officer related insurance services and the services of our officers (but not for payment of such officer’s compensation) and for providing the relevant containership owning subsidiaries with technical, commercial, insurance, accounting, provisions, sale and purchase, crewing and bunkering services. In the event that Costamare Shipping decides to delegate certain or all of the services it has agreed to perform, either through subcontracting to CIEL or Shanghai Costamare or by directing CIEL or Shanghai Costamare to enter into a direct ship-management agreement with the relevant containership owning subsidiary, then, in the case of subcontracting, Costamare Shipping will be responsible for paying the management fee charged by the relevant sub-manager for providing such services and, in the case of a direct ship-management agreement, the fee received by Costamare Shipping will be reduced by the fee payable to CIEL or, as the case may be, Shanghai Costamare under the relevant direct ship-management agreement. As a result, these arrangements will not result in any increase in the aggregate management fees we pay. In addition to management fees, we pay for any capital expenditures, financial costs, operating expenses and any general and administrative expenses, including the salaries of our officers and employees and payments to third parties in accordance with the group management agreement and the relevant separate ship-management agreements or supervision agreements. We also pay to Costamare Shipping a flat fee of $700,000 per newbuild vessel for the supervision of the construction of any newbuild vessel for which we may contract. Costamare Shipping also receives a fee of 0.75% on all gross freight, demurrage, charter hire, ballast bonus or other income earned with respect to each containership in our fleet.

The initial term of the group management agreement with Costamare Shipping expires on December 31, 2015. The group management agreement automatically renews for a one-year period and will be extended in one-year increments until December 31, 2020, at which point the group management agreement will expire. The management fee of $850 per day for each containership is fixed until December 31, 2012 and will thereafter be annually adjusted upwards by 4%, with further annual increases permitted to reflect the strengthening of the Euro against the U.S. dollar and/or material unforeseen cost increases. After the initial term expires on December 31, 2015, we will be able to terminate the group management agreement, subject to a termination fee, by providing written notice to Costamare Shipping at least 12 months before the end of the subsequent one-year term. The termination fee is equal to (a) the lesser of (i) five and (ii) the number of full years remaining prior to December 31, 2020, times (b) the aggregate fees due and payable to Costamare Shipping during the 12-month period ending on the date of termination (without taking into account any reduction in fees to reflect that certain obligations have been delegated to a sub-manager), provided that the termination fee will always be at least two times the aggregate fees over the 12-month period described above. Information about other termination events under the group management agreement is set forth in “Our Managers and Management-Related Agreements—Term and Termination Rights”.

45


Pursuant to the terms of our group management agreement and separate ship-management agreements and supervision agreements, liability of our managers to us is limited to instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the managers. Further, we are required to indemnify the managers for liabilities incurred by the managers in performance of the group management agreement and separate ship-management agreements and supervision agreements, except in instances of gross negligence or willful misconduct on the part of the managers.

2008 Reorganization

Costamare Inc. was incorporated on April 21, 2008 for the purpose of completing a reorganization of 53 ship-owning companies then owned by our chief executive officer and other members of the Konstantakopoulos family under a single corporate holding company. Under the Master Sales Agreement (the “MSA”) relating to the reorganization, the Konstantakopoulos family agreed to sell shares or vessels of each of the predecessor companies to the Company or to newly formed subsidiaries of the Company. As a result, subsidiaries of the Company acquired 28 vessels and part of their related assets from 28 of the predecessor companies and assumed or repaid related bank debt and other liabilities, and the Company acquired the shares of each of 25 predecessor companies. In return, the Company made distributions to the shareholders of the predecessor companies totaling $400.0 million ($269.0 million of which was paid as of December 31, 2008 and $131.0 million during the period from January 1, 2009 to April 23, 2009). In addition the Company agreed to assume certain guarantees of Costamare Shipping. For more detail please refer to Note 1 of our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report.

As members of the Konstantakopoulos family are the sole shareholders of Costamare Inc., and previously owned 100% of the predecessor companies, there was no change in ownership or control of the business, and therefore the transaction constituted a reorganization of companies under common control, and was accounted for in a manner similar to a pooling of interests. For more details please refer to Note 1 of our consolidated financial statements included in this annual report.

A. Operating Results

Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations

Our financial results are largely driven by the following factors:

 

 

 

 

Number of Vessels in Our Fleet. The number of vessels in our fleet is a key factor in determining the level of our revenues. Aggregate expenses also increase as the size of our fleet increases. Vessel acquisitions and dispositions give rise to gains and losses and other one-time items. During 2007 and 2008, we increased the number of vessels in our fleet so that on October 31, 2008 our fleet consisted of 53 containerships. Thereafter, from 2009 through the first half of 2010, in response to the global economic recession, we reduced our fleet through dispositions to 41 vessels. Beginning in the second half of 2010, when the market started to recover and vessel prices were at an attractive point, we have substantially grown our fleet to a total of 53 vessels as of March 1, 2011 (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions).

 

 

 

 

Charter Rates. The charter rates we obtain for our vessels also drive our revenues. Charter rates are based primarily on demand and supply of containership capacity at the time we enter into the charters for our vessels. Demand and supply can fluctuate significantly over time as a result of changing economic conditions affecting trade flow between ports served by liner companies and the industries which use liner shipping services. Although our multi-year charters make us less susceptible to cyclical containership charter rates than vessels operated on shorter-term charters, such as spot charters, we are exposed to varying charter rate environments when our chartering arrangements expire and we seek to deploy our containerships under new charters. As illustrated in the table above under “—Overview”, the staggered maturities of our containership charters reduce our exposure to any one particular rate environment and point in the shipping cycle. Over the past two years the Company has

46


 

 

 

 

been proactive in working with its charterers to make adjustments to time charters that address the needs of both parties. See “—Voyage Revenue”.

 

 

 

 

Utilization of Our Fleet. Due to the multi-year time charters under which they generally operate, our containerships have consistently been deployed at high utilization. Nevertheless, the amount of time our vessels spend dry-docked undergoing repairs, maintenance or upgrade work affects our results of operations. Historically, our fleet has had a limited number of unscheduled off-hire days. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 our fleet utilization based on unscheduled off-hire days as a percentage of total operating days for each year was 99.3%, 99.9% and 99.7%, respectively. However, an increase in annual off-hire days could reduce our utilization. The efficiency with which suitable employment is secured, the ability to minimize off-hire days and the amount of time spent positioning vessels also affects our results of operations. If the utilization pattern of our containership fleet changes, our financial results would be affected.

 

 

 

 

Expenses and Other Costs. Our ability to control our fixed and variable expenses is critical to our ability to maintain acceptable profit margins. These expenses include commission expenses, crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses for repairs and maintenance, the cost of spares and consumable stores, lubricating oil costs, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses. In addition, factors beyond our control, such as developments relating to market premiums for insurance and the value of the U.S. dollar compared to currencies in which certain of our expenses, primarily crew wages, are paid, can cause our vessel operating expenses to increase. We proactively manage our foreign currency exposure by entering into Euro/dollar forward contracts covering our Euro-denominated operating expenses.

Voyage Revenue

Our operating revenues are driven primarily by the number of vessels in our fleet, the amount of daily charter hire that our vessels earn under time charters and the number of operating days during which our vessels generate revenues. These factors are, in turn, affected by our decisions relating to vessel acquisitions and dispositions, the amount of time that we spend positioning our vessels, the amount of time that our vessels spend dry-docked undergoing repairs, maintenance and upgrade work, the age, condition and specifications of our vessels and the levels of supply and demand in the containership charter market.

Charter revenues are generated from fixed-rate time charters and are recorded on a straight-line basis over the term of each time charter (excluding the effect of any options to extend the term). Revenues derived from time charters with escalating rates are accounted for as operating leases and thus are recognized on a straight-line basis as the average revenue over the rental periods of such agreements, as service is performed, by dividing (i) the aggregate contracted revenues until the earliest expiration date of the time charter by (ii) the total contracted days until the earliest expiration date of the time charter. Some of our charters provide that the charter rate will be adjusted to a market rate for the final months of their respective terms. For purposes of determining the straight line revenue amount, we exclude these periods and treat the charter as expiring at the end of the last fixed rate period. Our revenues will be affected by the acquisition of any additional vessels in the future subject to time charters, as well as by the disposition of any existing vessel in our fleet. Our revenues will also be affected if any of our charterers cancel a time charter or if we agree to renegotiate charter terms during the term of a charter resulting in aggregate revenue reduction. Our time charter arrangements have been contracted in varying rate environments and expire at different times. Generally, we do not employ our vessels under voyage charters under which a ship-owner, in return for a fixed sum, agrees to transport cargo from one or more loading ports to one or more destinations and assumes all vessel operating costs and voyage expenses.

After rising during 2007 and the first half of 2008, charter rates for containerships fell dramatically to 10-year lows during the second half of 2008 and 2009. While rates improved in 2010, they have not recovered to rate levels similar to those seen in late 2005. While charter rates and the level of demand for containerships are historically volatile, and there can be no assurance that either

47


will improve, we believe that any continued improvement in the global economy and demand for containerships will lead to an improvement in charter rates over time.

Over the past two years, the Company has been proactive in working with its charterers to make adjustments to time charters that address the needs of both parties. In total, we have agreed to charter rate re-arrangements for 28 out of our current fleet of 53 vessels (after giving effect to scheduled acquisitions and dispositions). The charter rate re-arrangements entail rate reductions ranging from $2,125 to $5,655 per day for periods of approximately one year to nine years, combined with, among other things, subsequent rate increases ranging from $780 to $8,490 per day for periods of approximately one to 6.5 years, to ensure that the aggregate payment amount over the entire charter term is not materially reduced. Additionally, pursuant to the straight-line method used for the recognition of charter revenues, the amounts recognized as charter revenues during 2009 and 2010 have not been materially reduced. We have also agreed to four-year extensions of the time charters with A.P. Moller-Maersk for eight of our containerships and re-chartered the Hyundai Navarino (formerly named MSC Navarino). Both the four-year charter extensions and the re-chartering of the Hyundai Navarino have increased our contracted revenues. All of these agreements are reflected in the fleet table under “Information on the Company Our Fleet”.

The table below provides additional information about our expected revenues based on contracted charter rates as of December 31, 2010. Although these expected revenues are based on contracted charter rates, any contract is subject to various risks, including performance by the counterparties or an early termination of the contract pursuant to its terms. If the charterers are unable to make charter payments to us, if we agree to renegotiate charter terms at the request of a charterer or if contracts are prematurely terminated for any reason, our results of operations and financial condition may be materially adversely affected. Historically, we have had no defaults or early terminations by charterers, although in certain cases we have agreed to changes in charter terms.

Contracted Revenue and Days From Time Charters as of December 31, 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On and After January 1,

 

2011

 

2012

 

2013

 

2014

 

2015
and
thereafter

 

Total

 

 

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars, except days and percentages)

Contracted Revenues(1)(2)

 

 

$

 

345,279

 

 

 

$

 

292,834

 

 

 

$

 

239,777

 

 

 

$

 

229,776

 

 

 

$

 

751,993

 

 

 

$

 

1,859,659

 

Fleet Contracted Days(2)

 

 

 

14,736

 

 

 

 

11,946

 

 

 

 

7,511

 

 

 

 

7,004

 

 

 

 

22,864

 

 

 

 

63,611

 

Percentage of fleet contracted days/Total days(2)

 

 

 

95.0

%

 

 

 

 

78.6

%

 

 

 

 

55.0

%

 

 

 

 

51.9

%

 

 

 

 

35.6

%

 

 

 

 

52.3

%

 


 

 

(1)

 

 

 

Annual revenue calculations are based on: (a) an assumed 365 revenue days per vessel per annum, (b) the earliest redelivery dates possible under our containerships’ charters, and (c) no exercise of any option to extend the terms of those charters.

 

(2)

 

 

 

Some of our charters provide that the charter rate will be adjusted to a market rate for the final months of their respective terms. For purposes of determining contracted revenues and the number of days, we exclude these periods and treat the charter as expiring at the end of the last fixed rate period. Total days are calculated on the assumption that the vessels will continue trading until the age of 30 years old, unless the vessel will exceed 30 years of age at the expiry of its current time charter, in which case we assume that the vessel continues trading until that expiry date.

Voyage Expenses

Voyage expenses include port and canal charges, bunker (fuel) expenses, address commissions and brokerage commissions. Under our time charter arrangements, charterers bear the voyage expenses other than address and brokerage commissions. As such, voyage expenses represent a

48


relatively small portion of our vessels’ overall expenses. During 2009 and 2010, brokerage and address commissions represented 46% and 49% of voyage expenses respectively.

These commissions do not include the fees we pay to our manager, which are described below under “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Management Agreement”.

Vessels’ Operating Expenses

Vessels’ operating expenses include crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses for repairs and maintenance, the cost of spares and consumable stores, lubricant costs, statutory and classification expenses and other miscellaneous expenses. Aggregate expenses increase as the size of our fleet increases. We expect that insurance costs, dry-docking and maintenance costs will increase as our vessels age. Factors beyond our control, some of which may affect the shipping industry in general—for instance, developments relating to market premiums for insurance and changes in the market price of lubricants due to increases in oil prices—may also cause vessel operating expenses to increase. In addition, a substantial portion of our vessel operating expenses, primarily crew wages, are in currencies other than the U.S. dollar (mainly in Euro), and any gain or loss we incur as a result of the U.S. dollar fluctuating in value against these currencies is included in vessel operating expenses. As of December 31, 2010, approximately 37% of our outstanding accounts payable were denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar (mainly in Euro). We fund our managers with the amounts they will need to pay our fleet’s vessel operating expenses. Under our time charter arrangements, we generally pay for vessel operating expenses.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses mainly include legal, accounting and advisory fees. We also incur additional general and administrative expenses as a public company. The primary components of general and administrative expenses will consist of the expenses associated with being a public company, which include the preparation of disclosure documents, legal and accounting costs, investor relation costs, incremental director and officer liability insurance costs, director and executive compensation and costs related to compliance with the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

Management Fees

Historically, while we were a privately owned company, we paid our managers—Costamare Shipping, CIEL and Shanghai Costamare (through payments to Costamare Shipping)—a daily management fee of $700 per vessel for their services. With effect from the consummation of our initial public offering on November 4, 2010, we pay to our managers a daily management fee of $850 per vessel for their services. The total management fees paid by us to our managers during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 amounted to $13.5 million, $12.2 million and $11.3 million, respectively.

Our current group management agreement, as described in “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Management Agreement”, went into effect upon the consummation of our initial public offering. If this agreement had been in effect since January 1, 2010, we estimate that the aggregate amount of additional payments to the manager would have been approximately $2.0 million higher, and net income would have been $2.0 million lower in 2010, than the amount recorded with respect to our existing management agreement.

Amortization of Dry-docking and Special Survey Costs

We follow the deferral method of accounting for special survey and dry-docking costs whereby actual costs incurred (mainly shipyard costs, paints and class renewal expenses) are deferred and amortized on a straight-line basis over the period through the date the next survey is scheduled to become due. If a survey is performed prior to the scheduled date, the remaining unamortized balances are immediately written off. Unamortized balances of vessels that are sold are written off and included in the calculation of the resulting gain or loss in the period of the vessel’s sale.

49


Depreciation

We depreciate our containerships on a straight-line basis over their estimated remaining useful economic lives. For years prior to January 1, 2007, we estimated this to be 25 years. As of January 1, 2007, we determined the estimated useful lives of our containerships to be 30 years from their initial delivery from the shipyard. This change was made to reflect our experience, market conditions and the current practice in the containership industry. Depreciation is based on cost, less the estimated scrap value of the vessels. As of December 31, 2010, six of our vessels, aggregating 11,439 TEU, were fully depreciated.

Gain on Sale of Vessels

The gain or loss on the sale of a vessel is presented in a separate line item in our consolidated statements of income. In 2008, 2009 and 2010 we sold one, ten and four vessels, respectively.

Foreign Exchange Gains / (Losses)

Our functional currency is the U.S. dollar because our vessels operate in international shipping markets, and therefore transact business mainly in U.S. dollars. Our books of accounts are maintained in U.S. dollars. Transactions involving other currencies are converted into U.S. dollars using the exchange rates in effect at the time of the transactions. The gain or loss derives from the different foreign currency exchange rates between the time that a cost is recorded in our books and the time that the cost is paid. At the balance sheet dates, monetary assets and liabilities, which are denominated in other currencies, are translated into U.S. dollars at the year-end exchange rates. Resulting gains or losses are reflected as foreign exchange gains / (losses) in our consolidated statement of income.

Other Income / (Expenses)

Other expenses represent primarily non-recurring items that are not classified under the other categories of our consolidated income statement. Such expenses may, for instance, result from various potential claims against our company, or from payments we are effecting on behalf of charterers that cannot meet their obligations.

Interest Income, Interest and Finance Costs

We incur interest expense on outstanding indebtedness under our existing credit facilities which we include in interest expense. We also incur financing and legal costs in connection with establishing those facilities, which is included in our finance costs. Further, we earn interest on cash deposits in interest-bearing accounts and on interest-bearing securities, which we include in interest income. We will incur additional interest expense in the future on our outstanding borrowings and under future borrowings. For a description of our existing credit facilities and our new committed term loan please read “Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Facilities”.

Other

Other primarily represents vessels’ hull and machinery and vessels’ guarantee claims recoveries and gains resulting from “free lubricants” agreements that we have entered into for our vessels with lubricant suppliers. Free lubricants agreements with lubricant suppliers provide for the initial supply of lubricants at no charge to us upon the acquisition of a vessel. Following the initial supply at no charge, we are obliged under these agreements to purchase required lubricants for the vessel from the relevant supplier for a contracted period of time. If we terminate such an agreement before it expires we have to pay the supplier for the initial lubricant fill cost. We amortize the initial lubricant fill benefit through the term of the agreement.

50


Gains (Loss) on Derivative Instruments

We enter into interest rate swap contracts to manage our exposure to fluctuations of interest rate risks associated with specific borrowings. All derivatives are recognized in the consolidated financial statements at their fair value. On the inception date of the derivative contract, we designate the derivative as a hedge of a forecasted transaction or the variability of cash flow to be paid (“cash flow” hedge). Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is qualified, designated and highly effective as a cash flow hedge are recorded in other comprehensive income until earnings are affected by the forecasted transaction or the variability of cash flow and are then reported in earnings. Changes in the fair value of undesignated derivative instruments and the ineffective portion of designated derivative instruments are reported in earnings in the period in which those fair value changes have occurred. As at December 31, 2010, we were engaged in 11 interest rate derivative instruments in order to partially hedge the exposure of interest rate fluctuations associated with our variable rate borrowings and at this date 10 out of 11 of these agreements met hedge accounting criteria and the effective portion in change in their fair value is recognized in “Other Comprehensive Loss” in stockholders’ equity on our balance sheet. We recognize in our statement of income the change in fair value of the one interest rate swap that does not meet hedge accounting criteria. For a description of our existing interest rate swaps, please read “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Interest Rate Risk”.

Results of Operations

Year Ended December 31, 2010 compared year ended December 31, 2009

During the year ended December 31, 2010, we had an average of 42.4 vessels in our fleet, compared to an average of 47.3 vessels in our fleet during 2009. In 2010, we acquired the newbuild vessel MSC Navarino (renamed Hyundai Navarino in January 2011) and the secondhand vessels Karmen and Rena with an aggregate TEU capacity of 15,233, and we sold four vessels with an aggregate TEU capacity of 10,766. In 2009, we acquired the vessels Gifted and Genius with an aggregate TEU capacity of 5,844, and we sold 10 vessels with an aggregate TEU capacity of 18,333. In 2009 and 2010, we had a total of 17,279 and 15,488 fleet operating days, respectively. Operating days are the primary driver of voyage revenue and vessels’ operating expenses and represent the aggregate number of days in a period during which each vessel in our fleet is owned.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year ended December 31,

 

Change

 

Percentage
Change

 

2009

 

2010

 

 

(Expressed in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages)

Voyage revenue

 

 

$

 

399.9

 

 

 

$

 

353.2

 

 

 

$

 

(46.7

)

 

 

 

 

(11.7

%)

 

Voyage expenses

 

 

 

(3.1

)

 

 

 

 

(2.1

)

 

 

 

 

(1.0

)

 

 

 

 

(32.3

%)

 

Voyage expenses—related parties

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(0.4

)

 

 

 

 

0.4

 

 

 

 

 

Vessels operating expenses

 

 

 

(114.6

)

 

 

 

 

(102.8

)

 

 

 

 

(11.8

)

 

 

 

 

(10.3

%)

 

General and administrative expenses

 

 

 

(1.7

)

 

 

 

 

(1.2

)

 

 

 

 

(0.5

)

 

 

 

 

(29.4

%)

 

Management fees—related parties

 

 

 

(12.2

)

 

 

 

 

(11.3

)

 

 

 

 

(0.9

)

 

 

 

 

(7.4

%)

 

Amortization of dry-docking and special survey costs

 

 

 

(8.0

)

 

 

 

 

(8.5

)

 

 

 

 

0.5

 

 

 

 

6.3

%

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

(71.1

)

 

 

 

 

(70.9

)

 

 

 

 

(0.2

)

 

 

 

 

(0.3

%)

 

Gain on sale of vessels

 

 

 

2.9

 

 

 

 

9.6

 

 

 

 

6.7

 

 

 

 

231.0

%

 

Charter agreement early termination fee

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(9.5

)

 

 

 

 

9.5

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign exchange gains / (losses)

 

 

 

(0.5

)

 

 

 

 

(0.3

)

 

 

 

 

(0.2

)

 

 

 

 

(40.0

%)

 

Interest income

 

 

 

2.6

 

 

 

 

1.5

 

 

 

 

(1.1

)

 

 

 

 

(42.3

%)

 

Interest and finance costs

 

 

 

(86.8

)

 

 

 

 

(71.9

)

 

 

 

 

(14.9

)

 

 

 

 

(17.2

%)

 

Other

 

 

 

3.9

 

 

 

 

0.3

 

 

 

 

(3.6

)

 

 

 

 

(92.3

%)

 

Gain (loss) on derivative instruments

 

 

 

5.6

 

 

 

 

(4.5

)

 

 

 

 

(10.1

)

 

 

 

 

(180.4

%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Income

 

 

$

 

116.9

 

 

 

$

 

81.2

 

 

 

$

 

(35.7

)

 

 

 

 

(30.5

%)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

51


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fleet operational data

 

Year ended December 31,

 

Change

 

Percentage
Change

 

2009

 

2010

Average number of vessels

 

 

 

47.3

 

 

 

 

42.4

 

 

 

 

(4.9

)

 

 

 

 

(10.4

%)

 

Operating days

 

 

 

17,279

 

 

 

 

15,488

 

 

 

 

(1,791

)

 

 

 

 

(10.4

%)

 

Number of vessels dry-docked

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

12

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

 

Voyage Revenue

Voyage revenue decreased by 11.7%, or $46.7 million, to $353.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $399.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet during the year; resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was also attributable to the time charter period extension for eight of our vessels for a four-year period commencing the earliest from 2014 at rates on average lower than the existing charter rates.

Voyage Expenses

Voyage expenses decreased by 32.3%, or $1.0 million, to $2.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2010 from $3.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2010, resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was also attributable to decreased commissions charged by third parties as well as to lower fuel consumption during off-hire days.

Voyage Expenses—related parties

Voyage expenses—related parties in the amount of $0.4 million represent management fees charged to us by Costamare Shipping Company S.A. as provided under our management agreement. Voyage Expenses—related parties represent a 0.75% charge on our voyage revenues for the period from November 4, 2010 (Initial Public Offering completion) up to December 31, 2010.

Vessels’ Operating Expenses

Vessels’ operating expenses, which also include the realized gain (loss) under our forward transactions we entered into to hedge our Euro/USD exposure, decreased by 10.3%, or $11.8 million, to $102.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $114.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. Vessels’ operating expenses, excluding the effect of the realized gain (loss) under our forward transactions, decreased by 15.5%, or $18.5 million, to $101.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $119.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was mainly attributable to the decreased fleet operating days during the year ended December 31, 2010 compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses decreased by 29.4%, or $0.5 million, to $1.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $1.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease in the year ended December 31, 2010, was mainly attributable to the decrease in legal, accounting and advisory fees charged to us. In the year ended December 31, 2009, Shanghai Costamare Ship Management Co. Ltd. charged us the amount of $0.5 million for market analysis and research services. There was not such charge for the year ended December 31, 2010.

Management Fees—related parties

Management fees paid to our managers decreased by 7.4%, or $0.9 million, to $11.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $12.2 million during the year ended December 31,

52


2009. The decrease was attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2010, resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet in the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the year ended December 31, 2009, partly offset by the new daily management fee we pay to our managers since the completion of our Initial Public Offering on November 4, 2010.

Amortization of Dry-docking and Special Survey Costs

Amortization of deferred dry-docking and special survey costs increased by 6.3%, or $0.5 million, to $8.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $8.0 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. During the year ended December 31, 2009 and 2010, six vessels and 12 vessels, respectively, underwent their special survey. The increase is attributable to the amortization expense charged for 12 vessels that were dry-docked during the year ended December 31, 2010, partly offset by the amortization expense not charged relating to the vessels sold during the year as their unamortized dry-docking balance at the date they were sold, was written-off and was included in the sale result.

Depreciation

Depreciation expense decreased by 0.3%, or $0.2 million, to $70.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $71.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was attributable to the sale of 10 vessels and four vessels during the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010, respectively, partly offset by the depreciation expense charged for two vessels and three vessels acquired during the years ended December 31, 2009 and December 31, 2010, respectively. Seven out of 10 vessels and three out of four vessels sold in 2009 and 2010, respectively, were fully depreciated as of the dates they were sold.

Gain on Sale of Vessels

In the year ended December 31, 2010, we recorded a gain of $9.6 million from the sale of four vessels, while in the year ended December 31, 2009, we recorded a net gain of $2.9 million from the sale of 10 vessels.

Charter agreement early termination fee

The charter agreement early termination fee of $9.5 million represents a one-time payment made to charterer MSC in December 2010, compensating MSC for the early termination of the time charter of MSC Navarino (renamed Hyundai Navarino in January 2011). The vessel was redelivered to us by the charterer on January 28, 2011 and on January 30, 2011 she was delivered to charterers HMM for a daily charter rate of $44,000, compared to a daily charter rate of $22,000 under the MSC time charter.

Foreign Exchange Gains / (Losses)

Foreign exchange losses were $0.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to losses of $0.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, representing a change of $0.2 million resulting from favorable currency exchange movements between the U.S. dollar and the Euro.

Interest Income

In the year ended December 31, 2010, interest income decreased by 42.3%, or $1.1 million, to $1.5 million, from $2.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The change in interest income was mainly due to the decreased average cash balance held by us during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

53


Interest and Finance Costs

Interest and finance costs decreased by 17.2%, or $14.9 million, to $71.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $86.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was mainly attributable to lower average debt balance during the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to year ended December 31, 2009. The interest expense decreased to $19.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $47.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, due to decreased base rates. The costs relating to our interest rate swap agreements increased to $51.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $34.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, due to the increased difference between market rates and fixed rates.

Other

Other decreased to $0.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2010, from $3.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2009. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decreased income resulting from our vessels’ hull and machinery as well as guarantee claims recoveries.

Gain (Loss) on Derivative Instruments

The fair value of our 11 derivative instruments which were outstanding, as of December 31, 2010, equates to the amount that would be paid by us or to us should those instruments be terminated. As of December 31, 2010, the fair value of these 11 interest rate swaps in aggregate amounted to a liability of $107.9 million. Ten of the 11 interest rate derivative instruments that were outstanding, as at December 31, 2010, qualified for hedge accounting and the effective portion in the change of their fair value is recorded in “Other comprehensive loss” in stockholders’ equity. For the year ended December 31, 2010, a loss of $21.9 million has been included in “Other comprehensive loss” in stockholders’ equity and a loss of $4.9 million has been included in “Gain (loss) on derivative instruments” in the consolidated statement of income, resulting from the fair market value change of the interest rate swaps during the year ended December 31, 2010.

Year Ended December 31, 2009 compared year ended December 31, 2008

During the year ended December 31, 2009, we had an average of 47.3 vessels in our fleet. During the year ended December 31, 2008, we had an average of 52.8 vessels in our fleet. In 2009, we acquired the vessels Gifted and Genius with an aggregate TEU capacity of 5,844, and we sold 10 vessels with an aggregate TEU capacity of 18,333. During 2008, we acquired the vessels Gem and Maersk Kokura with an aggregate TEU capacity of 10,325, and we sold one vessel with a TEU capacity of 978. During 2009 our fleet operating days totaled 17,279 days. During 2008 our fleet operating days totaled 19,316 days. Operating days are the primary driver of voyage revenue and vessels operating expenses.

54


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Year ended December 31,

 

Change

 

Percentage
Change

 

2008

 

2009

 

 

(Expressed in millions of U.S. dollars, except percentages)

Voyage revenue

 

 

$

 

426.3

 

 

 

$

 

399.9

 

 

 

$

 

(26.4

)

 

 

 

 

(6.2

%)

 

Voyage expenses

 

 

 

(3.7

)

 

 

 

 

(3.1

)

 

 

 

 

(0.6

)

 

 

 

 

(16.2

%)

 

Vessels operating expenses

 

 

 

(148.4

)

 

 

 

 

(114.6

)

 

 

 

 

(33.8

)

 

 

 

 

(22.8

%)

 

General and administrative expenses

 

 

 

(2.6

)

 

 

 

 

(1.7

)

 

 

 

 

(0.9

)

 

 

 

 

(34.6

%)

 

Management fees

 

 

 

(13.5

)

 

 

 

 

(12.2

)

 

 

 

 

(1.3

)

 

 

 

 

(9.6

%)

 

Amortization of dry-docking and special survey costs

 

 

 

(6.7

)

 

 

 

 

(8.0

)

 

 

 

 

1.3

 

 

 

 

19.4

%

 

Depreciation

 

 

 

(72.3

)

 

 

 

 

(71.1

)

 

 

 

 

(1.2

)

 

 

 

 

(1.7

%)

 

Gain on sale of vessels

 

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

2.9

 

 

 

 

2.8

 

 

 

 

 

Foreign exchange gains / (losses)

 

 

 

0.2

 

 

 

 

(0.5

)

 

 

 

 

(0.7

)

 

 

 

 

(350.0

%)

 

Interest income

 

 

 

5.6

 

 

 

 

2.6

 

 

 

 

(3.0

)

 

 

 

 

(53.6

%)

 

Interest and finance costs

 

 

 

(68.4

)

 

 

 

 

(86.8

)

 

 

 

 

18.4

 

 

 

 

26.9

%

 

Other

 

 

 

0.1

 

 

 

 

3.9

 

 

 

 

3.8

 

 

 

 

 

Gain (loss) on derivative instruments

 

 

 

(17.0

)

 

 

 

 

5.6

 

 

 

 

22.6

 

 

 

 

132.9

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Income

 

 

$

 

99.7

 

 

 

$

 

116.9

 

 

 

$

 

17.2

 

 

 

 

17.3

%

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fleet operational data

 

Year ended December 31,

 

Change

 

Percentage
Change

 

2008

 

2009

Average number of vessels

 

 

 

52.8

 

 

 

 

47.3

 

 

 

 

(5.5

)

 

 

 

 

(10.4

%)

 

Operating days

 

 

 

19,316

 

 

 

 

17,279

 

 

 

 

(2,037

)

 

 

 

 

(10.5

%)

 

Number of vessels dry-docked

 

 

 

15

 

 

 

 

6

 

 

 

 

(9

)

 

 

 

 

 

Voyage Revenue

Voyage revenue decreased by 6.2%, or $26.4 million, to $399.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $426.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet for the year, resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet in 2009 compared to 2008.

Voyage Expenses

Voyage expenses decreased by 16.2%, or $0.6 million, to $3.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $3.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet for the year, resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet in 2009 compared to 2008. Furthermore, the decrease is attributable to off-hire related lower port and fuel consumption expenses as well as to decreased commissions charged by third parties. The main reason for the decrease in off-hire related expenses in 2009 is the decreased fleet off-hire days in 2009 compared to 2008, resulting from six of our vessels being dry-docked in 2009 compared to 15 vessels in 2008.

Vessels’ Operating Expenses

Vessels’ operating expenses decreased by 22.8%, or $33.8 million, to $114.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $148.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was mainly attributable to decreased fleet operating days for the year, resulting from the sale of 10 vessels in 2009.

General and Administrative Expenses

General and administrative expenses decreased by 34.6%, or $0.9 million, to $1.7 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $2.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease in 2009 is mainly attributable to the increase in legal, accounting and advisory fees charged to us for the corporate structure reorganization process we underwent in 2008.

55


Management Fees

Management fees paid to our managers decreased by 9.6%, or $1.3 million, to $12.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $13.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease was attributable to the decrease in operating days of our fleet for the year, resulting from the lower average number of vessels in our fleet in 2009 compared to 2008.

Amortization of Dry-docking and Special Survey Costs

Amortization of deferred dry-docking and special survey costs expense increased by 19.4%, or $1.3 million, to $8.0 million in 2009, from $6.7 million in 2008. The increase is attributable to the amortization expense charged for the six of our vessels that were dry-docked in 2009 and to the amortization expense charged for the whole year for 15 of our vessels that were dry-docked in 2008.

Depreciation

Depreciation expense decreased by 1.7%, or $1.2 million, to $71.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $72.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The decrease is attributable to the sale of 10 of our vessels in 2009. Seven of the 10 vessels sold in 2009 were fully depreciated as of the dates they were sold.

Gain on Sale of Vessels

In 2009, we recorded a gain of $2.9 million from the sale of 10 vessels, while in 2008 we recorded a gain of $0.1 million from the sale of one vessel.

Foreign Exchange Gains / (Losses)

Foreign exchange losses were $0.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, compared to gains of $0.2 million during the year ended December 31, 2008, representing a change of $0.7 million resulting primarily from more unfavorable currency translation between the U.S. dollar and the Euro.

Interest Income

During the year ended December 31, 2009, interest income decreased by 53.6%, or $3.0 million, to $2.6 million, from $5.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The change in interest income is mainly due to the aggregate gain of $2.1 million that we recorded in 2008, which resulted from the termination of two interest rate swap agreements we had entered into in 2008.

Interest and Finance Costs

Interest and finance costs increased by 26.9%, or $18.4 million, to $86.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $68.4 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The interest expense decreased to $47.5 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $60.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2008, due to the decreased base rates. The costs relating to our interest rate swap agreements increased to $34.6 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $2.8 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The change in interest and finance costs was primarily due to the increased indebtedness during the year.

Other

Other increased to $3.9 million during the year ended December 31, 2009, from $0.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2008. The increase is primarily attributable to the increased income resulting from our vessels’ hull and machinery as well as guarantee claims recoveries.

56


Gain (Loss) on Derivative Instruments

The fair value of the 11 derivative instruments that were outstanding as at December 31, 2009, equates to the amount that would be paid by us should those instruments be terminated. As at December 31, 2009, the fair value of these 11 interest rate swaps in aggregate amounted to a liability of $81.2 million. On December 31, 2008, 12 interest rate derivative instruments that were outstanding and their fair value amounted to a liability of $132.3 million. Ten of the 11 interest rate derivative instruments that were outstanding, as at December 31, 2009, qualified for hedge accounting and the effective portion in the change of their fair value is recorded in “Other comprehensive loss” in stockholders’ equity. For the year ended December 31, 2009, a gain of $42.7 million has been recorded in “Other comprehensive loss” in the consolidated statement of stockholders’ equity and a gain of $8.1 million has been recorded in “Gain (loss) on derivative instruments” in the consolidated statement of income.

B. Liquidity and Capital Resources

In the past, our principal sources of funds have been operating cash flows and long-term bank borrowings. Our principal uses of funds have been capital expenditures to establish, grow and maintain our fleet, comply with international shipping standards, environmental laws and regulations, fund working capital requirements and pay dividends. In monitoring our working capital needs, we project our charter hire income and vessels’ maintenance and running expenses, as well as debt service obligations, and seek to maintain adequate cash reserves in order to address any budget overruns.

Our primary short-term liquidity need is to fund our vessel operating expenses. Our long-term liquidity needs primarily relate to additional vessel acquisitions in the containership sectors and debt repayment. We anticipate that our primary sources of funds will be cash from operations and undrawn borrowing capacity under our committed revolving credit facility and our new committed term loan, along with borrowings under new credit facilities that we intend to obtain from time to time in connection with vessel acquisitions. We do not currently have any specific plans with respect to any future equity financing. We believe that these sources of funds will be sufficient to meet our short-term and long-term liquidity needs, including our contracts to purchase secondhand containerships and our agreements, subject to certain conditions, to acquire newbuilds, although there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain future debt financing on terms acceptable to us.

As at December 31, 2010, we had total cash liquidity of $207.8 million, consisting of cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash and investments.

As at December 31, 2010, we had an aggregate of $1.3 billion of indebtedness outstanding under various credit agreements. As at the same date, we had $194.2 million of undrawn borrowing capacity comprising from $74.2 million under our committed revolving credit facility and $120.0 million under a term facility we concluded on November 19, 2010. See “—Credit Facilities”. Furthermore, as of March 1, 2011, the vessels shown in the table below were free of debt.

57


Unencumbered Vessels in the water as of March 1, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Year
Built

 

TEU
Capacity

COSCO HELLAS

 

 

 

2006

 

 

 

 

9,469

 

HYUNDAI NAVARINO

 

 

 

2010

 

 

 

 

8,531

 

SEALAND MICHIGAN

 

 

 

2000

 

 

 

 

6,648

 

MSC AUSTRIA

 

 

 

1984

 

 

 

 

3,584

 

KARMEN

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

3,351

 

RENA

 

 

 

1990

 

 

 

 

3,351

 

MARINA

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

 

3,351

 

AKRITAS

 

 

 

1987

 

 

 

 

3,152

 

MSC CHALLENGER

 

 

 

1986

 

 

 

 

2,633

 

MSC PYLOS

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

2,020

 

MSC SIERRA*

 

 

 

1977

 

 

 

 

1,630

 

MSC SUDAN*

 

 

 

1976

 

 

 

 

1,630

 

MSC TUSCANY

 

 

 

1978

 

 

 

 

1,468

 

MSC FADO

 

 

 

1978

 

 

 

 

1,181

 

ZAGORA

 

 

 

1995

 

 

 

 

1,162

 

HORIZON

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

1,068

 


 

 

*

 

 

 

We have agreed to sell these vessels

Unencumbered Vessels Purchased and to be delivered as of March 1, 2011

 

 

 

 

 

Vessel Name

 

Year
Built

 

TEU
Capacity

ZIM ISRAEL

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

 

3,351

 

MAERSK MAINE

 

 

 

1992

 

 

 

 

2,024

 

MAERSK MARYLAND

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

2,023

 

MAERSK VERMONT

 

 

 

1991

 

 

 

 

2,023

 

FOREVER PROSPERITY

 

 

 

1996

 

 

 

 

1,504

 

On February 4, 2011, we paid a dividend for the fourth quarter ended December 31, 2010, of $0.25 per share. This was the first cash dividend we have declared since our initial public offering in November 2010. See “Item 8. Financial Information—Consolidated Statements and Other Financial Information—Dividend Policy”. In 2010, we did not declare any dividends. In 2009, we declared dividends from our retained earnings to our existing stockholders of $40.2 million, of which $30.2 million were paid in 2009 and $10.0 million were paid on January 14, 2010. In 2008, we declared and paid dividends from our retained earnings to our existing stockholders of $10.8 million.

Furthermore, in 2008, in relation to our reorganization process we paid out distributions to our existing stockholders of $400.0 million ($269.0 million of which was paid in 2008 and $131.0 million in 2009). As discussed under “2008 Reorganization”, the $400.0 million in distributions were paid pursuant to the MSA in connection with the sale by the Konstantakopoulos family of the shares or assets of 53 ship-owning companies to the Company or newly formed subsidiaries of the Company. No distributions were paid in the year ended December 31, 2010.

The dividends and distributions paid during the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, were funded in part by borrowings and in part by cash from operations. On a cumulative basis for the entire period, cash flow from operating activities exceeded the aggregate amount of dividends and distributions.

Working Capital Position

We have historically financed our capital requirements with cash flow from operations, equity contributions from stockholders and long-term bank debt. Our main uses of funds have been capital expenditures for the acquisition of new vessels, expenditures incurred in connection with ensuring

58


that our vessels comply with international and regulatory standards, repayments of bank loans and payments of dividends. We will require capital to fund ongoing operations, the construction of our new vessels, the acquisition cost of our secondhand vessels and debt service. Working capital, which is current assets minus current liabilities, including the current portion of long-term debt, was positive of $26.4 million at December 31, 2010 and negative of $135.0 million at December 31, 2009.

We anticipate that internally generated cash flow will be sufficient to fund the operations of our fleet, including our working capital requirements. Currently, we have $194.2 million undrawn credit lines to finance future vessel acquisitions and $203.3 million available under our CEXIM-Adele Facility to finance part of the pre-delivery and delivery installments of the construction of Hulls H 1068A, H 1069A, and H 1070A. See “—Credit Facilities”.

Cash Flows

Years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

Year ended December 31,

 

2008

 

2009

 

2010

 

 

(Expressed in millions of U.S. dollars)

Condensed cash flows

 

 

 

 

 

 

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities

 

 

$

 

247.5

 

 

 

$

 

161.9

 

 

 

$

 

128.0

 

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities

 

 

 

(138.3

)

 

 

 

 

12.8

 

 

 

 

(23.9

)

 

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities

 

 

 

(22.5

)

 

 

 

 

(252.7

)

 

 

 

 

43.4

 

Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities

Net cash flows provided by operating activities for 2010 decreased $33.9 million to $128.0 million, compared to $161.9 million for 2009. The decrease was primarily attributable to (a) decreased cash from operations of $38.0 million resulting from the decreased average number of vessels in 2010 compared to 2009 and to the increased “Accrued charter revenue” which results from the time difference between the revenue recognition and the cash collection, (b) unfavorable change in working capital position, excluding the current portion of long-term debt and the accrued charter revenue, of $7.8 million, (c) increased payments for dry-dockings of $6.7 million and (d) a one-time payment of $9.5 million in December 2010 to charterer MSC for the early redelivery of MSC Navarino (renamed Hyundai Navarino in January 2011), partly offset by reduced payments for interest (including swap payments) of $16.9 million in the year ended December 31, 2010, compared to the year ended December 31, 2009.

Net cash flows provided by operating activities for 2009 decreased $85.6 million to $161.9 million, compared to $247.5 million for 2008. The decrease was primarily attributable to (a) decreased cash from operations of $49.9 million resulting from the decreased average number of vessels in 2009 compared to 2008 and to the increased “Accrued charter revenue” of $22.4 million deriving from escalating charter rates under which certain of our vessels operate (“Accrued charter revenue” is attributed to the time difference between the revenue recognition and the cash collection) (b) increased interest payments (including swap payments) of $17.2 million and (c) unfavorable change in the working capital position, excluding the current portion of long-term debt and the accrued charter revenue of $70.0 million, partly offset by a reduction in dry-docking payments of $17.3 million in 2009 compared to 2008.

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Investing Activities

Net cash used in investing activities in 2010 was $23.9 million, which consists of (a) $28.3 million in payments to the shipyard for the construction cost of MSC Navarino, (b) $22.5 million in payments for the acquisition of two vessels, (c) $3.8 million advance payments for the acquisition of four vessels, (d) $22.7 million we received from the sale of four vessels and (e) $8.0 million we received from the sale of government securities.

59


Net cash provided by investing activities in 2009 was $12.8 million, which consists of (a) $8.9 million in payments for the acquisition of the vessels Genius and Gifted, (b) $47.9 million in payments for the construction cost of MSC Navarino, (c) $21.4 million we received from the sale of government securities and (d) $48.2 million we received from the sale of 10 vessels.

Net cash used in investing activities in 2008 was $138.3 million, which consists of (a) $104.2 million in payments for the acquisition of the vessels Gem and Maersk Kokura, (b) $56.9 million in payments for the purchase of government securities, (c) $21.7 million we received from the sale of government securities and (d) $1.1 million we received from the sale of the vessel Windward.

Net Cash Provided by (Used in) Financing Activities

Net cash provided by financing activities in 2010 was $43.4 million, which mainly consists of (a) $93.9 million of indebtedness that we repaid, (b) $10.0 million in dividends we paid to our shareholders and (c) $145.5 million net proceeds we received from our Initial Public Offering in November 2010.

Net cash used in financing activities in 2009 was $252.7 million, which mainly consists of $30.0 million of proceeds drawn under our loan facility, $124.4 million of indebtedness that we repaid and $161.2 million in dividends we paid to our shareholders.

Net cash used in financing activities in 2008 was $22.5 million and mainly consists of $1,161.4 million of proceeds drawn under our credit facilities, $875.3 million of indebtedness that we repaid, net of assets acquired in connection with our company’s corporate structure reorganization, $269.0 million we paid to our shareholders in connection with our company’s corporate structure reorganization and $47.6 million reflecting the increase in restricted cash.

Credit Facilities

We operate in a capital-intensive industry, which requires significant amounts of investment, and we fund a portion of this investment through long-term bank debt. We, either as guarantor or direct borrower, and certain of our subsidiaries as borrowers or guarantors, have entered into a number of credit facilities in order to finance the acquisition of the vessels owned by our subsidiaries and for general corporate purposes. The obligations under our credit facilities are secured by, among other things, first priority mortgages over the vessels owned by the respective borrower subsidiaries, charter assignments, first priority assignments of all insurances and earnings of the mortgaged vessels and guarantees by Costamare Inc.

The following summarizes certain terms of our existing credit facilities discussed below as at December 31, 2010:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lender

 

Outstanding
Principal
Amount

 

Available
Borrowing
Capacity
(5)

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Maturity

 

Repayment profile

 

 

(in thousands)

 

 

   

 

 

RBS(4)

 

 

 

0

 

 

 

$

 

120,000

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2020

(4)

 

 

Straight line amortization with balloon(4)

 

Bank Syndicate(3)

 

 

$

 

845,758

 

 

 

$

 

74,242

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2018

   

Fixed payments through June 2011, thereafter determined based on the TEU weighted age of the ships used as collateral

 

Emporiki

 

 

 

127,500

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2018

   

Straight line amortization with balloon in 2018

 

HSBC

 

 

 

68,000

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2018

   

Variable installments with balloon in 2018

 

Calyon

 

 

 

70,000

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2018

   

Straight line amortization with balloon in 2018

 

RBS

 

 

 

67,500

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2018

   

Straight line amortization with balloon in 2018

 

Alpha

 

 

 

126,000

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2017

   

Variable installments with balloon in 2017

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

60


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Lender

 

Outstanding
Principal
Amount

 

Available
Borrowing
Capacity
(5)

 

Interest Rate(1)

 

Maturity

 

Repayment profile

 

 

(in thousands)

 

 

   

 

 

Calyon

 

 

 

6,500

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2013

   

Fixed payments until 2013

 

Calyon

 

 

 

9,500

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2013

   

Fixed payments until 2013

 

NBG

 

 

 

20,979

 

 

 

 

0

   

LIBOR + Margin(2)

 

 

 

2012

   

Fixed payments until 2012

 

 

(1)

 

 

 

The interest rates of long-term debt at December 31, 2010 ranged from 1.31% to 6.75%, and the weighted average interest rate as at December 31, 2010 was 4.59%.

 

(2)

 

 

 

The interest rate margin at December 31, 2010 ranged from 0.70% to 1.75%, and the weighted average interest rate margin as at December 31, 2010, was 1.02%.

 

(3)

 

 

 

Bank Syndicate: Deutsche Schiffsbank Aktiengesellschaft, Unicredit Bank AG, Credit Suisse, HSH Nordbank AG and BNP-Paribas S.A. (ex. Fortis Bank S.A./N.V.).

 

(4)

 

 

 

Borrowings under this facility may be made during the 18 months following our November 2010 initial public offering. The year 2020 represents the latest possible maturity under the facility. The actual maturity, repayment profile and balloon payment will be determined based on the age of the vessels securing borrowings under this facility. No amounts have been drawn under this facility.

 

(5)

 

 

 

As of March 1, 2011 our available borrowing capacity also includes $203.3 million under a credit facility we concluded on January 14, 2011. All funds borrowed under this facility are committed to the shipbuilding contracts for Hulls H 1068A, H 1069A and H 1070 A. For information on the terms of the credit facility, see “CEXIM—Adele”.

Below is a description of certain material terms of our existing credit facilities. In 2011, we obtained a commitment letter, subject to definitive documentation, for a term loan facility that would provide up to $140.0 million to finance part of the pre-delivery and the delivery payments for Hulls S4010 and S4011, for which we have entered into shipbuilding contracts. This term loan facility is expected to have a repayment period of eight years from delivery of each newbuild

The principal financial and other covenants and events of default under each credit facility are also discussed below.

CEXIM-Adele

On January 14, 2011, our subsidiaries, Adele Shipping Co., Bastian Shipping Co., and Cadence Shipping Co., as borrowers, entered into a ten-year loan, which also provides for a Lenders’ early repayment option in year seven, for up to $ 203.3 million, with The Export-Import Bank of China, DnB NOR Bank ASA, and China Everbright Bank, which we refer to in this section as the “CEXIM—Adele credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the acquisition and construction cost of Hulls H 1068A, H 1069A, and H 1070A.

The interest rate under the CEXIM—Adele credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The credit facility provides that the borrowers must repay the loan by forty consecutive quarterly installments, the first thirty-nine (1-39) in the amount of $1.4 million per tranche each, and the amount of the fortieth and final installment shall be $12.7 million per tranche.

The obligations under the CEXIM—Adele credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the CEXIM—Adele credit facility are secured by assignment of refund guarantees and shipbuilding contracts, a first priority mortgage over the vessels upon delivery, charter assignments, account assignments, master agreement assignment and a general assignment of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation.

As of March 1, 2011, we had not drawn any amounts under the CEXIM—Adele credit facility.

RBS

On November 19, 2010, Costamare Inc., as borrower, entered into a $120.0 million term loan facility with The Royal Bank of Scotland plc (the “RBS credit facility”), which will be available for

61


drawing for up to 18 months. We intend to use the RBS credit facility to finance the acquisition of additional newbuild or secondhand containerships, but we are also permitted to use it to refinance existing containerships in our fleet. The loans will have maturities ranging from three to eight years.

The obligations under the RBS credit facility will be guaranteed by the various owners of the mortgaged vessels. Our obligations under the RBS credit facility will be secured by mortgages over each financed vessel, account charges, charter assignments, swap assignment and general assignments of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation.

As of March 1, 2011, we had not drawn any amounts under the RBS credit facility.

Costamare

On July 22, 2008, Costamare Inc., as borrower, entered into a ten-year, $1 billion credit facility comprised of a $700 million term loan facility and a $300 million revolving credit facility. The purpose of the revolving credit facility was to finance part of the acquisition costs of vessels to be acquired or part of the market value of vessels owned by our subsidiaries. The purpose of the term loan facility was to finance general corporate and working capital purposes. On June 22, 2010, we entered into the second supplemental agreement with the lenders, which modified certain covenants (as detailed below).

The interest rate under the Costamare credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The Costamare credit facility provides for repayment by forty consecutive quarterly installments, the first four (1-4) in the amount of $6.5 million and the next eight (5-12) in the amount of $9 million. The final twenty-eight (13-40) installments, and the balloon installment repayable together with the fortieth (40th) installment, are to be calculated by using a formula that takes into account the then outstanding amount of this facility and the TEU weighted age of the mortgaged vessels.

The obligations under the Costamare credit facility are guaranteed by the various owners of the mortgaged vessels. Our obligations under this credit facility are secured by mortgages over the vessels owned by our subsidiaries, who are the guarantors, and general assignments of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation, account pledges, and charter assignments.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $845.8 million outstanding under the Costamare credit facility, and, as of same date, there was $74.2 million of undrawn available credit.

Emporiki-Costis

On May 12, 2008, our subsidiaries, Christos Maritime Corporation and Costis Maritime Corporation, as joint and several borrowers, entered into a ten-year, $150 million credit facility with Emporiki Bank of Greece S.A., which we refer to in this section as the “Emporiki-Costis credit facility”. The loan is divided into two tranches: a Tranche A loan in the amount of $75 million to Christos Maritime Corporation, and a Tranche B loan in the amount of $75 million to Costis Maritime Corporation. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the market value of two vessels, the Sealand Washington and the Sealand New York.

The interest rate under the Emporiki-Costis credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The Emporiki-Costis credit facility provides that our subsidiaries, jointly and severally, repay the loan by twenty consecutive semi-annual payments, the first nineteen (1-19) in the amount of $2.25 million for each tranche, and a final twentieth (20th) installment in the amount of $2.25 million, together with a balloon payment in the amount $30 million for each tranche.

The obligations under the Emporiki-Costis credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the Emporiki-Costis credit facility are secured by first-priority mortgages over the vessels Sealand Washington and Sealand New York, account pledges, general assignments of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation, and charter assignments.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $127.5 million outstanding under the Emporiki-Costis credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

62


HSBC-Mas

On January 30, 2008, our subsidiary, Mas Shipping Co., as borrower, entered into a ten-year, $75 million credit facility with HSBC Bank, which we refer to in this section as the “HSBC-Mas credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the purchase price of a vessel, the Maersk Kokura.

The interest rate under the HSBC-Mas credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The repayment terms provide for Mas Shipping Co. to pay HSBC by twenty consecutive semi-annual installments, the first two (1-2) such repayment installments each in the sum of $1 million, the following two (3-4) such repayment installments each in the sum of $1.5 million, the following two (5-6) such repayment installments each in the sum of $2 million, the following four (7-10) such repayment installments each in the sum of $3.75 million, the following two (11-12) such repayment installments each in the sum of $4 million, and the following eight (13-20) such repayment installments each in the sum of $4.13 million, plus a balloon payment payable together with the twentieth (20th) and final repayment installment in the sum of $10 million.

The obligations under the HSBC-Mas credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the HSBC-Mas credit facility are secured by a first priority mortgage over the vessel, Maersk Kokura, an account pledge, a general assignment of earnings, insurances, requisition compensation and charter rights.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $68.0 million outstanding under the HSBC-Mas credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

Calyon-Capetanissa

On June 29, 2006, our subsidiary Capetanissa Maritime Corporation, as borrower, entered into a twelve-year, $90 million credit facility with Calyon, which we refer to in this section as the “Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the acquisition and collateral cost of a vessel, the Cosco Beijing.

The interest rate under the Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility provides that Capetanissa Maritime Corporation must repay the loan by twenty-three consecutive semi-annual installments in the amount of $2.5 million, and a final twenty-fourth installment in the amount of $32.5 million.

The obligations under the Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility are secured by a first-priority mortgage over the vessel, Cosco Beijing, an account pledge, and a general assignment of earnings, insurances, requisition compensation and charter rights.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $70 million outstanding under the Calyon-Capetanissa credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

RBS-Rena

On February 17, 2006, our subsidiary, Rena Maritime Corporation, as borrower, entered into a twelve-year, $90 million credit facility with The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, which we refer to in this section as the “RBS-Rena credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the purchase price of a vessel, the Cosco Guangzhou, at a contract price of $90.8 million.

The interest rate under the RBS Rena credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The RBS-Rena credit facility provides for twenty-four (24) consecutive semi-annual installments in the amount of $2.5 million each, plus a balloon payment of $30 million together with the twenty-fourth (24th) consecutive installment.

The obligations under the RBS-Rena credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the RBS-Rena credit facility are secured by a first priority mortgage over the vessel Cosco Guangzhou, an account charge and a general assignment of our earnings, insurances and requisition compensation of the vessel.

63


As of December 31, 2010, there was $67.5 million outstanding under the RBS-Rena credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

Alpha-Montes

On December 7, 2007, our subsidiaries, Montes Shipping Co. and Kelsen Shipping Co., as joint and several borrowers, entered into a ten-year, $150 million credit facility with Alpha Bank A.E., which we refer to in this section as the “Alpha-Montes credit facility”. The loan is divided into two tranches: Tranche A in the amount of $75 million to Montes Shipping Co., and Tranche B in the amount of $75 million to Kelsen Shipping Co. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the acquisition costs of two vessels, the Maersk Kawasaki and the Maersk Kure.

The interest rate under the Alpha-Montes credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The Alpha-Montes credit facility provides that our subsidiaries must repay the loan, jointly and severally, by twenty consecutive semi-annual payments, the first six (1-6) in the amount of $4 million each, the next thirteen (7-19) in the amount of $6 million each, and the twentieth (20th) installment comprised of a $6 million payment together with a balloon payment in the amount of $42 million.

The obligations under the Alpha-Montes credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations are secured by first priority mortgages over the vessels, the Maersk Kawasaki and the Maersk Kure, general assignments of earnings, insurances, requisition compensation, and charter assignments.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $126.0 million outstanding under Tranche A and Tranche B in aggregate, of the Alpha-Montes credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

Calyon-Bullow

On February 17, 2005, our subsidiary, Bullow Investments Inc., as borrower, entered into an eight-year, $31 million credit facility with Calyon, which we refer to in this section as the “Calyon-Bullow credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the acquisition cost of a previously acquired vessel, the MSC Mykonos.

The interest rate under the Calyon-Bullow credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The credit facility provides that Bullow Investments Inc. must repay the loan by sixteen consecutive semi-annual installments, the first six (1-6) in the amount of $2.5 million each, the next four (7-10) in the amount of $2 million each, the next four (11-14) in the amount of $1.5 million, and the final two (15-16) in the amount of $1 million.

The obligations under the Calyon-Bullow credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the Calyon-Bullow credit facility are secured by a first priority mortgage over the vessel, MSC Mykonos, an account pledge and a general assignment of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $6.5 million outstanding under the Calyon-Bullow credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

Calyon-Marathos

On June 29, 2006, our subsidiary, Marathos Shipping Inc., as borrower, entered into a seven-year, $24.8 million credit facility with Calyon, which we refer to in this section as the “Calyon-Marathos credit facility”. The purpose of this facility was to finance part of the acquisition and collateral cost of a vessel, the MSC Mandraki.

The interest rate under the Calyon-Marathos credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The repayment period began on February 22, 2007 and consists of thirteen consecutive semi-annual repayment installments in the amount of $2 million for the first (1st) repayment installment and $1.9 million each for the final twelve (2-13) repayment installments.

64


The obligations under the Calyon-Marathos credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the Calyon-Marathos credit facility are secured by a first-priority mortgage over the vessel, MSC Mandraki, an account pledge, a general assignment of earnings, insurances, requisition compensation and charter rights.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $9.5 million outstanding under the Calyon-Marathos credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

National Bank-Venor

On December 11, 2009, our subsidiaries, Merin Shipping Co., Lytton Shipping Co., Volk Shipping Co. and Venor Shipping Co., as joint and several borrowers, entered into a three-year, $30 million credit facility with the National Bank of Greece, which we refer to in this section as the “National Bank-Venor credit facility”. The purpose of this facility is to provide finances for general corporate purposes of the borrowing subsidiaries.

The interest rate under the National Bank-Venor credit facility is LIBOR plus an agreed margin. The subsidiaries will repay the National Bank of Greece by six consecutive semi-annual installments in the amount of $3.8 million each, plus a balloon installment in the amount of $1.4 million together with the second (2nd) consecutive installment, and a second balloon installment of $5.74 million together with the sixth (6th) consecutive installment on the third anniversary of the loan.

The obligations under the National Bank-Venor credit facility are guaranteed by Costamare Inc. Our obligations under the National Bank-Venor credit facility are secured by a first priority mortgages over the vessels Garden, Genius I, Gather and Gifted, and general assignments of earnings, insurances and requisition compensation.

As of December 31, 2010, there was $21.0 million outstanding under the National Bank-Venor credit facility, and, as of same date, there was no undrawn available credit.

Covenants and Events of Default

The credit facilities impose certain operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions in our existing credit facilities generally limit Costamare Inc., and our subsidiaries’ ability to, among other things:

 

 

 

 

pay dividends if an event of default has occurred and is continuing or would occur as a result of the payment of such dividends;

 

 

 

 

purchase or otherwise acquire for value any shares of the subsidiaries’ capital;

 

 

 

 

make or repay loans or advances, other than repayment of the credit facilities;

 

 

 

 

make investments in other persons;

 

 

 

 

sell or transfer significant assets, including any vessel or vessels mortgaged under the credit facilities, to any person, including Costamare Inc. and our subsidiaries;

 

 

 

 

create liens on their assets; or

 

 

 

 

allow the Konstantakopoulos family’s direct or indirect holding in Costamare Inc. to fall below 40% of the total issued share capital.

Our existing credit facilities also require Costamare Inc. and certain of our subsidiaries to maintain specified loan to value ratios as summarized below:

 

 

 

 

under the Costamare credit facility, Costamare Inc. may not allow the aggregate of (a) the aggregate market value, primarily on a charter inclusive basis, of the mortgaged vessels under this facility, (b) the market value of any additional security provided to the lender, and (c) (during the waiver period only, as described below) the aggregate minimum cash amount equal to 3% of the loan outstanding to fall below 80% during a “waiver period” extending through December 31, 2011, and thereafter, 125% of the aggregate of the term loan, the revolving advances and the swap exposure; or

65


 

 

 

 

under certain of our subsidiaries credit facilities, each with Costamare Inc. as guarantor, we may not allow the aggregate of (a) the aggregate market value, primarily on an inclusive charter basis, of the mortgaged vessel or vessels, and (b) the market value of any additional security provided to the lender to fall below a percentage ranging between 110% to 125% of the then outstanding amount of the credit facility and any related swap exposure.

 

 

 

 

the minimum value covenant must be determined at the expense of the borrower at any such time as the lenders may request.

Costamare Inc. is required to maintain compliance with the following financial covenants:

 

 

 

 

the ratio of our total liabilities (after deducting all cash and cash equivalents) to market value adjusted total assets (after deducting all cash and cash equivalents) may not exceed 0.75:1;

 

 

 

 

the ratio of EBITDA over net interest expense must be equal to or higher than 2.5:1;

 

 

 

 

the aggregate amount of all cash and cash equivalents may not be less than the greater of (i) $30 million or (ii) 3% of the total debt, provided, however, that (in the case of our $1 billion facility) a minimum cash amount equal to 3% of the loan outstanding must be maintained in the accounts of the borrower; and

 

 

 

 

the market value adjusted net worth must at all times exceed $500 million.

Our credit facilities contain customary events of default, including nonpayment of principal or interest, breach of covenants or material inaccuracy of representations, default under other indebtedness in excess of a threshold and bankruptcy.

We expect our committed term loan facility with the Royal Bank of Scotland plc to contain similar covenants and events of default.

The Company is not in default under any of its credit facilities.

Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

Interest Rate Risk

The shipping industry is a capital intensive industry, requiring significant amounts of investment. Much of this investment is provided in the form of long-term debt. Our debt usually contains interest rates that fluctuate with the financial markets. Increasing interest rates could adversely impact future earnings.

Our interest expense is affected by changes in the general level of interest rates, particularly LIBOR. As an indication of the extent of our sensitivity to interest rate changes, an increase of 100 basis points would have decreased our net income and cash flows during the year ended December 31, 2010 by approximately $1.5 million based upon our debt level during 2010.

For more information on our interest rate risk see “Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk—Interest Rate Risk”.

Interest Rate Swaps

We have entered into interest rate swap agreements converting floating interest rate exposure into fixed interest rates in order to economically hedge our exposure to fluctuations in prevailing market interest rates. For more information on our interest rate swap agreements, refer to Notes 2 and 14 to our financial statements included at the end of this annual report.

Foreign Currency Exchange Risk

We generate all of our revenue in U.S. dollars, but a substantial portion of our vessel operating expenses, primarily crew wages, are in currencies other than U.S. dollars (mainly in Euro), and any gain or loss we incur as a result of the U.S. dollar fluctuating in value against those currencies is included in vessel operating expenses. As of December 31, 2010, approximately 37% of our

66


outstanding accounts payable were denominated in currencies other than the U.S. dollar (mainly in Euro). We hold cash and cash equivalents mainly in U.S. dollars.

As of December 31, 2010, the Company was engaged in 16 Euro/U.S. dollar contracts totaling $36.0 million at an average forward rate of Euro/U.S. dollar 1.3269 expiring in monthly intervals in 2011.

As of December 31, 2009, the Company was engaged in six Euro/U.S. dollar contracts totaling $12.0 million at an average forward rate of Euro/U.S. dollar 1.4348 expiring in monthly intervals in 2010.

As of December 31, 2008, the Company was engaged in 30 forward Euro/U.S. dollar contracts totaling $81.0 million at an average forward rate of Euro/U.S. dollar 1.3225 expiring in monthly intervals in 2009. Out of the 30 forward Euro/U.S. dollar contracts in 24 contracts the Company has the “sell” position (notional amount $54.0 million) and in six contracts the Company has the “buy” position (notional amount $27.0 million).

We recognize these financial instruments on our balance sheet at their fair value. These foreign currency forward contracts do not qualify as hedging instruments, and thus we recognize changes in their fair value in our earnings.

Capital Expenditures

On September 21, 2010, we contracted for the construction and purchase of three newbuild containerships, which are scheduled to be delivered between November 2013 and January 2014. On January 28, 2011, we contracted for two additional newbuild containerships, which are scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2012. The total aggregate price for all five newbuild containerships, each of approximately 9,000 TEU capacity, is $476.24 million, payable in installments until delivery.

On September 23, 2010, we contracted for four 3,351 TEU secondhand containerships at a purchase price of $11.25 million per containership, all of which have been delivered. In December 2010 and January 2011 we contracted for three secondhand containerships of 2,020 TEU (built in 1991), 1,162 TEU (built in 1995) and 1,504 TEU (built in 1996) for a purchase price of $7.5 million, $8.3 million and $9.5 million, respectively, all of which have been delivered. In February, 2011, we also contracted for three secondhand containerships of approximately 2,024 TEU at a total acquisition cost of $30.0 million. For the delivery schedule of each of certain secondhand acquisitions, see “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview—Our Fleet, Acquisitions and Newbuilds”. In addition, dry-docking expenses totaled approximately $13 million in 2010, excluding off-hire costs.

As of March 1, 2010, we had a total of undrawn credit lines of $194.2 million and 19 ships free of debt. This undrawn amount excludes $203.3 million under a credit facility we concluded on January 14, 2011. All funds borrowed under this facility are committed to the shipbuilding contracts for Hulls H 1068A, H 1069A and H 1070A.

Critical Accounting Policies

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of those financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amounts of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses and related disclosure at the date of our financial statements. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions and conditions. Critical accounting policies are those that reflect significant judgments of uncertainties and potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. We have described below what we believe are our most critical accounting policies, because they generally involve a comparatively higher degree of judgment in their application. For a description of all our significant accounting policies, see Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this annual report.

67


Vessel Impairment

We evaluate the carrying amounts of our vessels to determine if events have occurred that would require modification to their carrying values or useful lives. In evaluating useful lives and carrying values of long-lived assets, we review certain indicators of potential impairment, such as undiscounted projected operating cash flows, vessel sales and purchases, business plans and overall market conditions.

The economic and market conditions as at December 31, 2009 and 2010, including the significant disruptions in the global credit markets in the prior two years, had broad effects on participants in a wide variety of industries. Since mid-August 2008, the charter rates in the containership charter market have declined significantly, and container vessel values have also declined both as a result of a slowdown in the availability of global credit and the significant deterioration in charter rates, conditions that we consider indicators of impairment.

In developing estimates of future undiscounted cash flows, we make assumptions and estimates about the vessels’ future performance, with the significant assumptions being related to time charter rates, vessels’ operating expenses, vessels’ capital expenditures, vessels’ residual value, fleet utilization, and the estimated remaining useful life of each vessel. The assumptions used to develop estimates of future undiscounted cash flows are based on historical trends as well as future expectations and taking into consideration growth rates.

We determine undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel and compare it to the vessel’s carrying value. Consistent with prior years and to the extent impairment indicators were present, the projected net operating cash flows are determined by considering the charter revenues from existing time charters for the fixed fleet days and an estimated daily time charter rate for the unfixed days (based on the most recent ten year historical average rates, inflated annually by a 4.0% growth rate being the historical and forecasted average world GDP nominal growth rate) over the remaining estimated life of the vessel assumed to be 30 years from the delivery of the vessel from the shipyard, expected outflows for vessels’ operating expenses assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.85% (in line with the average world Consumer Price Index forecasted), planned dry-docking and special survey expenditures, management fees expenditures which are adjusted every year, after November 4, 2012 as provided under our management agreements, by an inflation rate of 4.0% and fleet utilization of 99.2% (excluding the scheduled off-hire days for planned dry-dockings and special surveys which are determined separately ranging from 14 to 25 days depending on size and age of each vessel) based on historical experience. The salvage value used in the impairment test is estimated to be in the range from $150 to $250 per light weight ton in accordance with our vessels’ depreciation policy.

Based on our analysis, the undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel were in excess compared to each vessel’s carrying value, and accordingly, step two of the impairment analysis was not required and no impairment of vessels existed as of December 31, 2009 and 2010.

An internal analysis, which used a discounted cash flow model utilizing inputs and assumptions based on market observations as of December 31, 2010, suggests that five of our 43 vessels may have current market values below their carrying values. However, we believe that, with respect to these five vessels, each of which is currently under time charter, we will recover their carrying values through the end of their useful lives, based on their undiscounted cash flows. We currently do not expect to sell any of these vessels, or otherwise dispose of them, significantly before the end of their estimated useful life.

Although we believe that the assumptions used to evaluate potential impairment are reasonable and appropriate, such assumptions are highly subjective. There can be no assurance as to how long charter rates and vessel values will remain at their current low levels or whether they will improve by any significant degree. Charter rates may remain at depressed levels for some time which could adversely affect our revenue and profitability, and future assessments of vessel impairment.

68


Vessel Lives and Depreciation

We depreciate our vessels based on a straight line basis over the expected useful life of each vessel, which is 30 years from the date of their initial delivery from the shipyard, which we believe is within industry standards and represents the most reasonable useful life for each of our vessels. Depreciation is based on the cost of the vessel less its estimated residual value. Secondhand vessels are depreciated from the date of their acquisition through their remaining estimated useful lives. A decrease in the useful life of a vessel or in its residual value would have the effect of increasing the annual depreciation charge. When regulations place limitations over the ability of a vessel to trade on a worldwide basis, its useful life is adjusted to end at the date such regulations become effective.

Special Survey and Dry-docking Costs

Within the shipping industry, there are two methods that are used to account for special survey and dry-docking costs: (1) capitalize special survey and dry-docking costs as incurred (deferral method) and amortize such costs over the period to the next scheduled survey, and (2) expense special survey and dry-docking costs as incurred. Since special survey and dry-docking cycles typically extend over a period of 30 to 60 months, management believes that the deferral method provides a better matching of revenues and expenses than the expense-as-incurred method. Costs deferred are limited to actual costs incurred at the shipyard and parts used in the dry-docking or special survey. If a survey is performed prior to the scheduled date, the remaining unamortized balances are immediately written off. Unamortized balances of vessels that are sold are written off and included in the calculation of the resulting gain or loss in the period of the vessel’s sale. Furthermore, unamortized dry-docking and special survey balances of vessels that are classified as assets held for sale and are not recoverable, as of the date of such classification, are immediately written off to the income statement.

Vessel, Cost

Vessels are stated at cost, which consists of the contract price and any material expenses incurred upon acquisition (initial repairs, improvements and delivery expenses, interest and on-site supervision costs incurred during the construction periods). Subsequent expenditures for conversions and major improvements are also capitalized when they appreciably extend the life, increase the earning capacity or improve the efficiency or safety of the vessels; otherwise these amounts are charged to expenses as incurred.

Voyage Revenue Recognition

Revenues are generated from time charters and are usually paid 15 days in advance. Time charters with the same charterer are accounted for as separate agreements according to the terms and conditions of each agreement. Time charter revenues over the term of the time charter are recorded as service is provided, when they become fixed and determinable. Revenues from time charters providing for varying annual rates are accounted for as operating leases and thus recognized on a straight line basis as the average revenue over the rental periods of such agreements, as service is performed. Some of our time charters provide that the charter rate will be adjusted to a market rate for the final months of their respective terms. For purposes of determining the straight line revenue amount, we exclude these periods and treat the charter as expiring at the end of the last fixed rate period. A voyage is deemed to commence upon the completion of discharge of the vessel’s previous cargo and is deemed to end upon the completion of discharge of the current cargo, provided an agreed non-cancelable time charter between the Company and the charterer is in existence, the charter rate is fixed or determinable and collectability is reasonably assured. Unearned revenue includes cash received prior to the balance sheet date for which all criteria to recognize as revenue have not been met, including any unearned revenue resulting from time charters providing for varying annual rates, which are accounted for on a straight line basis. Unearned revenue also includes the unamortized balance of the liability associated with the acquisition of secondhand vessels with time charters attached that were acquired at values below fair market value at the date the acquisition agreement is consummated.

69


Accrued / Unearned Charter Revenue

We record identified assets or liabilities associated with the acquisition of a vessel at fair value, determined by reference to market data. The Company values any asset or liability arising from the market value of the time charters assumed when a vessel is acquired from entities that are not under common control. This policy does not apply when a vessel is acquired from entities that are under common control. The amount to be recorded as an asset or liability at the date of vessel delivery is based on the difference between the current fair market value of the charter and the net present value of future contractual cash flows. When the present value of the contractual cash flows of the time charter assumed is greater than its current fair value, the difference is recorded as accrued prepaid charter revenue. When the opposite situation occurs, any difference, capped to the vessel’s fair value on a charter free basis, is recorded as deferred revenue. Such assets and liabilities, respectively, are amortized as a reduction of, or an increase in, revenue over the period of the time charter assumed. In developing estimates of the net present value of contractual cash flows of the time charters assumed, we must make assumptions about the discount rate that reflect the risks associated with the assumed time charter and the fair value of the assumed time charter at the time the vessel is acquired. Although management believes that the assumptions used to evaluate present and fair values discussed above will be reasonable and appropriate, such assumptions are highly subjective.

Receivables

Revenue is based on contracted time charters and although our business is with customers who are believed to be of the highest standard, there is always the possibility of dispute. In such circumstances, we will assess the recoverability of amounts outstanding and a provision will be estimated if there is a possibility of non-recoverability. Although we may believe that our provisions are based on fair judgment at the time of their creation, it is possible that an amount under dispute will not be recovered and the estimated provision of doubtful accounts would be inadequate. If any of our revenues become uncollectible, these amounts would be written-off at that time.

Derivative Financial Instruments

We enter into interest rate swap contracts to manage our exposure to fluctuations of interest rate risks associated with specific borrowings. Interest rate differentials paid or received under these swap agreements are recognized as part of interest expense related to the hedged debt. All derivatives are recognized in the consolidated financial statements at their fair value. On the inception date of the derivative contract, we designate the derivative as a hedge of a forecasted transaction or the variability of cash flow to be paid (“cash flow” hedge). Changes in the fair value of a derivative that is qualified, designated and highly effective as a cash flow hedge are recorded in other comprehensive income until earnings are affected by the forecasted transaction or the variability of cash flow and are then reported in earnings. Changes in the fair value of undesignated derivative instruments and the ineffective portion of designated derivative instruments are reported in earnings in the period in which those fair value changes have occurred. Realized gains or losses on early termination of the derivative instruments are also classified in earnings in the period of termination of the respective derivative instrument. We may re-designate an undesignated hedge after its inception as a hedge but then will consider its non-zero value at re-designation in its assessment of effectiveness of the cash flow hedge.

We formally document all relationships between hedging instruments and hedged terms, as well as the risk-management objective and strategy for undertaking various hedge transactions. This process includes linking all derivatives that are designated as cash flow hedges to specific forecasted transactions or variability of cash flow.

We also formally assess, both at the hedge’s inception and on an ongoing basis, whether the derivatives that are used in hedging transactions are highly effective in offsetting changes in cash flow of hedged items. We consider a hedge to be highly effective if the change in fair value of the derivative hedging instrument is within 80% to 125% of the opposite change in the fair value of the hedged item attributable to the hedged risk. When it is determined that a derivative is not highly

70


effective as a hedge or that it has ceased to be a highly effective hedge, we discontinue hedge accounting prospectively, in accordance with ASC 815 “Derivatives and Hedging” (formerly FAS133).

We also enter forward exchange rate contracts to manage our exposure to currency exchange risk on certain foreign currency liabilities. We have not designated these forward exchange rate contracts for hedge accounting.

C. Research and Development, Patents and Licenses, etc.

We incur from time to time expenditures relating to inspections for acquiring new vessels. Such expenditures are insignificant and they are expensed as they are incurred.

D. Trend Information

Our results of operations depend primarily on the charter hire rates that we are able to realize, and the demand for containership transportation services. After reaching historical highs in mid-2008, charter hire rates reached near historically low levels and have recovered since then, although they still remain at levels below the mid-2008 historic highs. Demand for containership transportation services is influenced by global financial conditions. During 2008 and 2009, the rapid contraction in the world economy and the expectation of declining growth or economic decline in the Asian region reduced demand for containership transportation services. Accordingly, the recovery in China and India influenced positively the charter rates, however, global financial conditions remain volatile and demand for containership services may decrease in the future. The combination of increasing containership capacity (both current and expected) and decreasing demand is likely to result in reductions in charter hire rates and, as a consequence, adversely affect our operating results.

E. Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements

As of December 31, 2010, we did not have any off-balance sheet arrangements.

F. Tabular Disclosure of Capital Obligations

Our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2010 were:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Payments Due by Period

 

Total

 

Less than
1 year

 

1-3 years

 

3-5 years

 

More than
5 years

 

 

(Expressed in thousands of U.S. dollars)

Long-term debt obligations

 

 

$

 

1,341,737

 

 

 

$

 

114,597

 

 

 

$

 

281,514

 

 

 

$

 

260,081

 

 

 

$

 

685,545

 

Interest on long-term debt obligations(1)

 

 

 

309,644

 

 

 

 

67,295

 

 

 

 

95,269

 

 

 

 

76,275

 

 

 

 

70,805

 

Payments to our manager(2)

 

 

 

141,752

 

 

 

 

16,771

 

 

 

 

30,496

 

 

 

 

28,670

 

 

 

 

65,815

 

Payment for secondhand vessel acquisitions(3)

 

 

 

34,470

 

 

 

 

34,470

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total(4)

 

 

$

 

1,827,603

 

 

 

$

 

233,133

 

 

 

$

 

407,279

 

 

 

$

 

365,026

 

 

 

$

 

822,165

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

(1)

 

 

 

We expect to be obligated to make the interest payments set forth in the above table with respect to our long-term debt obligations. The interest payments are based on annual assumed all-in rates calculated for the un-hedged portion of our debt obligations based on the forward yield curve and on the average yearly debt outstanding.

 

(2)

 

 

 

This amount assumes that we will cease paying our managers any fees in connection with the management of a vessel once the vessel exceeds 30 years of age, unless the vessel will exceed 30 years of age at the expiry of its current time charter, in which case we assume that we will pay the manager a fee for the management of that vessel until its charter expires. The management fees include (a) a daily fee of $850 per day per vessel and (b) a 0.75% chartering fee on charter revenues earned. Pursuant to the terms of the management agreement, the amount assumes an annual escalation of the daily fee by 4% beginning January 1, 2013.

71


 

(3)

 

 

 

This amount represents the remaining balance that was paid upon delivery of the vessels Marina, Konstantina (formerly named Zim Israel), Zagora and MSC Pylos (formerly named Oranje). This amount excludes $39.5 million, which represents the aggregate amount for the acquisition of four secondhand vessels (Forever Prosperity, Maersk Marine, Maersk Vermont, Maersk Maryland) that we contracted to acquire in 2011.

 

(4)

 

 

 

The above does not include (i) obligations arising under shipbuilding contracts that were finalized in 2011 for five newbuild vessels and (ii) the related newbuild supervision fees payable to our manager. Our capital commitments in respect of these five newbuild vessels are approximately $95.2 million in 2011, $362.0 million over 2012-2014 and $19.0 over 2014-2016. The supervision fee commitment will be $1.75 million in 2011, $0.7 million in 2012, $0.7 million in 2013 and $0.35 million in 2014. The table also excludes management fees for our contracted secondhand vessels, which also occurred in 2011. See “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—Related Party Transactions—Management Agreement”.

72


ITEM 6. DIRECTORS, SENIOR MANAGEMENT AND EMPLOYEES

A. Directors and Senior Management

The following table sets forth information regarding our directors and executive officers. The business address of each of our executive officers and directors listed below is 60 Zephyrou Street & Syngrou Avenue, 17564 Athens, Greece. Our telephone number at that address is +30-210-949-0050. Our board of directors will be elected annually on a staggered basis, and each elected director will hold office for a three-year term. The following directors or nominees for director have been determined by our board of directors to be independent: Vagn Lehd Møller and Charlotte Stratos. Officers are elected from time to time by vote of our board of directors and hold office until a successor is elected and qualified.

 

 

 

 

 

Name

 

Age

 

Position

Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos

 

41

 

Chief Executive Officer, Chairman of the Board and
Class III Director

Gregory Zikos

 

42

 

Chief Financial Officer and Class II Director

Konstantinos Zacharatos

 

38

 

General Counsel, Secretary and Class I Director

Vagn Lehd Møller

 

65

 

Class II Director

Charlotte Stratos

 

56

 

Class III Director

The term of our Class I directors expires in 2011, the term of our Class II directors expires in 2012 and the term of our Class III directors expires in 2013.

Konstantinos Konstantakopoulos is our Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of our board of directors. Mr. Konstantakopoulos serves as President and Chief Executive Officer of Costamare Shipping, one of our three managers, which he wholly owns and joined in 1992 (and where he worked part- time beforehand). In 2001, Mr. Konstantakopoulos founded CIEL, one of our managers, and he has served as President of CIEL since its inception. Mr. Konstantakopoulos owns 50.2% of CIEL. In 2005, Mr. Konstantakopoulos founded another of our managers, Shanghai Costamare, of which he is the controlling shareholder. Mr. Konstantakopoulos also owns, indirectly, 25% of C-Man Maritime, a vessel manning agency which he founded in 2006. Mr. Konstantakopoulos has served on the board of directors of the Union of Greek Ship-owners since 2006. Mr. Konstantakopoulos studied engineering at Université Paul Sabatier in France.

Gregory Zikos is our Chief Financial Officer and a member of our board of directors. Prior to joining us in 2007, Mr. Zikos was employed at DryShips, Inc., a public shipping company, as the Chief Financial Officer from 2006 to 2007. From 2004 to 2006, Mr. Zikos was employed with J&P Avax S.A., a real estate investment and construction company, where he was responsible for project and structured finance debt transactions. From 2000 to 2004, Mr. Zikos was employed at Citigroup (London), global corporate and investment banking group, where he was involved in numerous European leveraged and acquisition debt financing transactions. Mr. Zikos practiced law from 1994 to 1998, during which time he advised financial institutions and shipping companies in debt and acquisition transactions. Mr. Zikos holds an M.B.A. in finance from Cornell University, an L.L.M. from the University of London King’s College, and a bachelor of laws, with merits, from the University of Athens.

Konstantinos Zacharatos is our General Counsel, Secretary and a member of our board of directors. Mr. Zacharatos has also served as the Vice Chairman of Shanghai Costamare since its incorporation in 2005. Mr. Zacharatos joined Costamare Shipping in 2000, became a member of the board of directors of Costamare Shipping in June 2010 and has also been responsible for the legal affairs of CIEL, Shanghai Costamare and C-Man Maritime. Mr. Zacharatos has been the legal adviser of Costaterra S.A., a Greek property company, since 2000. Prior to joining Costamare Shipping and Costaterra S.A., Mr. Zacharatos was employed with Pagoropoulos & Associates, a law firm. Mr. Zacharatos holds an L.L.M. and an L.L.B. from the London School of Economics and Political Science.

Vagn Lehd Møller is a member of our board of directors. From 1963 to 2007, Mr. Møller worked with A.P. Møller-Maersk A/S where he eventually served as Executive Vice President and Chief Operations Officer of the world’s largest liner company, Maersk Line. Mr. Møller was

73


instrumental in the purchase and integration of Sea-land Services by A.P. Moller-Maersk A/S in 2000 and of P&O Nedlloyd in 2005. From 1992 to July 2010, Mr. Møller served as a board member for Norfolk Line Holdings, a Netherlands based sea ferry company. From 2000 to April 2010, Mr. Møller served as a board member for Svitzer A/S, a Denmark based salvage and towing company.

Charlotte Stratos is a member of our board of directors. Since 2008, Ms. Stratos has served as a Senior Advisor to Morgan Stanley’s Investment Banking Division-Global Transportation team. From 1987 to 2007, Ms. Stratos served as Managing Director and Head of Global Greek Shipping for Calyon Corporate and Investment Bank of the Credit Agricole Group. From 1976 to 1987, Ms. Stratos served in various roles with Bankers Trust Company including, Advisor to the Shipping Department and Vice President of Greek shipping finance. Ms. Stratos currently serves as an independent director for Hellenic Carriers Ltd. and Gyroscopic Fund, a hedge fund company.

B. Compensation of Directors and Senior Management

Non-executive directors receive annual fees in the amount of $65,000, plus reimbursement for their out-of-pocket expenses. Our officers who serve as our directors will not receive additional compensation for their service as directors.

We have not paid any compensation to our chief executive officer, our chief financial officer or our general counsel. Our executive officers are employees of Costamare Shipping and their compensation is set and paid by Costamare Shipping. Under our management agreement with Costamare Shipping, we are responsible for the compensation of our executive officers. Currently, such compensation is $1.0 million per year in the aggregate. We do not have any service contracts with our non-executive directors that provide for benefits upon termination of their services.

C. Board Practices

We have five members on our board of directors. The board of directors may change the number of directors to not less than three, nor more than 15, by a vote of a majority of the entire board. Each director shall be elected to serve until the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified, except in the event of death, resignation or removal. A vacancy on the board created by death, resignation, removal (which may only be for cause), or failure of the stockholders to elect the entire class of directors to be elected at any election of directors or for any other reason, may be filled only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors then in office, even if less than a quorum, at any special meeting called for that purpose or at any regular meeting of the board of directors.

We are a “foreign private issuer” under the securities laws of the United States and the rules of the NYSE. Under the securities laws of the United States, “foreign private issuers” are subject to different disclosure requirements than U.S. domiciled registrants, as well as different financial reporting requirements. Under the NYSE rules, a “foreign private issuer” is subject to less stringent corporate governance requirements. Subject to certain exceptions, the rules of the NYSE permit a “foreign private issuer” to follow its home country practice in lieu of the listing requirements of the NYSE. In addition, the Konstantakopoulos Family controls a majority of our outstanding common stock. As a result, we are a “controlled company” within the meaning of the NYSE corporate governance standards. Under the NYSE rules, a company of which more than 50% of the voting power is held by another company or group is a “controlled company” and may elect not to comply with certain NYSE corporate governance requirements, including (1) the requirement that a majority of the board of directors consist of independent directors, (2) the requirement that the nominating committee be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities, (3) the requirement that the compensation committee be composed entirely of independent directors and have a written charter addressing the committee’s purpose and responsibilities and (4) the requirement of an annual performance evaluation of the nominating and corporate governance and compensation committees. As permitted by these exemptions, as well as by our bylaws and the laws of the Marshall Islands, we currently have a board of directors with a majority of non- independent directors and a combined corporate governance, nominating and compensation committee with one non-independent director serving as a

74


committee member. As a result, non-independent directors, including members of our management who also serve on our board of directors, may among other things, fix the compensation of our management, make stock and option awards and resolve governance issues regarding our company. In addition, we currently have an audit committee composed solely of two independent committee members, whereas a domestic public company would be required to have three such independent members. Accordingly, in the future you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the NYSE corporate governance requirements.

Corporate Governance

The board of directors and our Company’s management have engaged in an ongoing review of our corporate governance practices in order to oversee our compliance with the applicable corporate governance rules of the New York Stock Exchange and the SEC.

We have adopted a number of key documents that are the foundation of the Company’s corporate governance, including:

 

 

 

 

a Code of Business Conduct and Ethics for all officers and employees, which incorporates a Code of Ethics for directors and a Code of Conduct for corporate officers;

 

 

 

 

a Corporate Governance, Nominating and Compensation Committee Charter; and

 

 

 

 

an Audit Committee Charter.

These documents and other important information on our governance are posted on our website and may be viewed at http://www.costamare.com. We will also provide a paper copy of any of these documents upon the written request of a stockholder. Stockholders may direct their requests to the attention of our Secretary, Konstantinos Zacharatos, 60 Zephyrou Street & Syngrou Avenue, 17564, Athens, Greece.

Committees of the Board of Directors

Audit Committee

Our audit committee consists of Vagn Lehd Møller and Charlotte Stratos. Ms. Stratos is the chairman of the committee. The audit committee is responsible for:

 

 

 

 

the appointment, compensation, retention and oversight of independent auditors and approving any non-audit services performed by such auditor;

 

 

 

 

assisting the board in monitoring the integrity of our financial statements, the independent auditors’ qualifications and independence, the performance of the independent accountants and our internal audit function and our compliance with legal and regulatory requirements;

 

 

 

 

annually reviewing an independent auditors’ report describing the auditing firm’s internal quality-control procedures, and any material issues raised by the most recent internal quality control review, or peer review, of the auditing firm;

 

 

 

 

discussing the annual audited financial and quarterly statements with management and the independent auditors;

 

 

 

 

discussing earnings press releases, as well as financial information and earnings guidance provided to analysts and rating agencies;

 

 

 

 

discussing policies with respect to risk assessment and risk management;

 

 

 

 

meeting separately, and periodically, with management, internal auditors and the independent auditor;

 

 

 

 

reviewing with the independent auditor any audit problems or difficulties and management’s responses;

 

 

 

 

setting clear hiring policies for employees or former employees of the independent auditors;

 

 

 

 

annually reviewing the adequacy of the audit committee’s written charter, the internal audit charter, the scope of the annual internal audit plan and the results of internal audits;

75


 

 

 

 

establishing procedures for the consideration of all related-party transactions, including matters involving potential conflicts of interest or potential usurpations of corporate opportunities;

 

 

 

 

reporting regularly to the full board of directors; and