Pangaea Logistics Solutions Ltd. (PANL) Business

ITEM 1. BUSINESS

Introduction

Pangaea Logistics Solutions Ltd. and its subsidiaries collectively, Pangaea or the Company, provide seaborne drybulk logistics and transportation services as well as terminal and stevedoring services. Pangaea utilizes its logistics expertise to service a broad base of industrial customers who require the transportation of a wide variety of drybulk cargoes, including grains, coal, iron ore, pig iron, hot briquetted iron, bauxite, alumina, cement clinker, dolomite and limestone. The Company addresses the logistics needs of its customers by undertaking a comprehensive set of services and activities, including cargo loading, cargo discharge, port and terminal operations, vessel chartering, voyage planning, and vessel technical management.

Available Information

Our Internet website address is www.pangaeals.com. We make available free of charge on or through our website our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with, or furnished to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. The information contained on, or accessible through, our website is not incorporated by reference into this Annual Report

on Form 10-K.

Business Overview and Recent Developments

The Company provides ocean transportation services utilizing a fleet of ocean-going motor vessels (“m/v”) in the Handymax, Supramax, Ultramax, Panamax and Post-Panamax segments. The fleet typically consists of 60 to 75 vessels, either owned or chartered-in on a short-term basis. As of December 31, 2025, the Company owned 39 vessels, wholly owned or partially owned through joint ventures. The Company transported approximately 26.2 million tons of cargo annually to over 300 ports worldwide, averaging approximately 64 vessels in service per day during 2025, compared to 48 vessels during 2024.

The Company’s port, projects, and logistics services include cargo loading, cargo discharge, and port and terminal services to vessel and cargo owners. Our logistics capabilities provide a wide array of services which allow our customers to extend their own services, to more efficiently transport their cargo, and to extend relationships with their own suppliers and customers. For some customers, the Company acts as their ocean logistics department, providing scheduling, terminal operations, port services, and marketing functions. The Company has worked with other customers on design, construction, and operation of loading and discharge facilities.

In addition, the Company focuses on fixing cargo and cargo contracts for transportation on backhaul routes. Backhaul routes position vessels for cargo discharge in typical loading areas. Backhaul routes allow us to reduce ballast days and instead earn revenues at times and on routes that are typically traveled without paying cargo.

The Company is a leader in the high ice class sector, supported by its operation of the world's largest fleet of dry bulk vessels over 60,000 dwt with Ice-Class 1A designation. High ice class trading includes service in ice-restricted areas in the Northern Hemisphere during both the winter (Baltic Sea and Gulf of St. Lawrence) and summer (Arctic Ocean). Trading during the ice seasons have historically provided superior profit margins, rewarding the Company for its investment in the specialized ships and the expertise it has developed working in these harsh environments.

5

The Company derives substantially all of its revenue from contracts of affreightment, “COAs”, voyage charters, and time charters. The Company transports a wide range of fundamental global commodities including grains, coal, iron ore, pig iron, hot briquetted iron, bauxite, alumina, cement clinker, dolomite, limestone, and other minor bulk cargo.

The Company’s COAs typically extend for a period of one to five years, although some extend for longer periods. A voyage charter is a contract for the carriage of a specific amount and type of cargo on a load port to discharge port basis, subject to various cargo handling terms. COAs and voyage charters provide voyage revenue to the Company. A time charter is a contract under which the Company is paid to provide a vessel on a per day basis for a specified period of time. Time charters provide charter revenues to the Company.

Active risk management is an important part of our business model. The Company believes its active risk management allows it to reduce the sensitivity of its revenues to market fluctuations and helps it to secure its long-term profitability and lower relative volatility of earnings. We manage market risk by chartering in vessels for periods of less than nine months on average and through a portfolio approach based upon owned vessels, chartered-in vessels, COAs, voyage charters, and time charters. The Company tries to identify routes and ports for efficient bunkering to minimize its fuel expense. The Company also seeks to hedge a portion of its exposure to changes in the price of marine fuels, or bunkers, through fuel swaps; and to fluctuating future freight rates through forward freight agreements. The Company has also entered into interest rate agreements to fix a portion of our interest rate exposure.

The Company employs the technical management services of Seamar Management S.A. which is wholly owned by the Company, and Bernard Schulte Ship Management, a third party, for its ice class 1A fleet and M.T.M Ship Management, a related party, for its Handysize fleet. The Company is in the process of transferring its ice class 1A fleet to Seamar Management S.A., following which the Company will employ the technical management services of Seamar Management S.A. and M.T.M Ship Management.

Business Strategy

The Company’s principal business objectives are to profitably grow its business and increase shareholder value. The Company expects to achieve these objectives through the following strategies:

•Focus on increasing strategic COAs. COA is an agreement providing for the transportation between specified points for a specific quantity of cargo over a specific time period but without designating specific vessels or voyage schedules, thereby allowing flexibility in scheduling since no vessel designation is required. COAs can either have a fixed rate or a market-related rate. The Company intends to increase our COA business, in particular, COAs for cargo discharge in traditional loading areas (backhaul), by leveraging its relationships with existing customers and attracting new customers. The Company believes that its dedication to solving its customer’s logistics problems, and its reputation and experience in carrying a wide range of cargoes and transiting less common routes and ports, increases its likelihood of securing strategic COAs. COA’s provide a consistent cargo base and revenue for our transportation services, around which we attempt to structure other logistics offerings.

•Expand capacity and flexibility by renewing its owned fleet.The Company is continually looking to acquire additional high-quality vessels suited for its business strategy, the needs of its customers and growth opportunities the Company identifies. The Company believes that its experience as a reliable and serious counterparty in the sale and purchase market for second-hand vessels positions it as a candidate for acquisition of high quality vessels. The Company currently controls (owns or has an ownership interest in) a fleet of 39 bulk carriers as of March 16, 2026. The current fleet includes six Ice-Class 1A Panamax, four Post Panamax Ice Class 1A, three Panamax, two Ultramax Ice Class 1C, two Ultramax, eight Supramax drybulk vessels and fourteen Handysize vessels.

•Increase backhaul focus, expand and defend its presence in the niche ice trades and increase fleet efficiency. The Company continues to focus on backhaul cargoes, including backhaul cargoes associated with COAs, to reduce ballast days and increase expected earnings for well-positioned vessels. In addition, the Company intends to continue to charter in vessels for periods of less than nine months, on average, to permit it to match its variable costs to demand. The Company believes that increased vessel utilization and positioning efficiency will enhance its profitability. The Company demonstrated its commitment to remain the leader in high ice class large bulk carriers by taking delivery of its four newbuilding Post Panamax Ice Class vessels in 2021.

6

•Focus on customized and complete logistics solutions within targeted dry bulk trades. The Company intends to leverage its experience in designing custom loading and discharging systems in critical ports and optimizing vessel operations in ports to provide complete logistics solutions to its clients. The Company continues to look for opportunities to transport cargo for clients from, or to, rarely used or underdeveloped port facilities to expand its operations. The Company believes this operational expertise and complete logistics solutions will enhance the services offered, strengthen our client relationships and generate increased operating margins for the Company.

Competitive Strengths

The Company believes that it possesses a number of competitive strengths in its industry, including:

•Expertise in certain niche markets and routes. The Company has developed expertise and a major presence in selected niche markets and less commoditized routes, especially the Baltic Sea in winter, ice laden northern Atlantic ports in the summer, and the trade route between Jamaica and the United States, as well as selected ports, particularly in Newfoundland and Baffin Island. The Company believes that there is less competition to carry “minor,” as compared to traditional “major,” bulk cargoes, and, similarly, that there is less competition on less commoditized routes. The Company believes that its experience in carrying a wide range of cargoes and transiting less common routes and ports increases its likelihood of securing higher rates and margins than those available for more commoditized cargoes and routes. The Company believes it operates assets well suited to certain of these routes, including its Ice-Class 1A Panamax, Post Panamax Ice Class 1A and Ice-Class 1C Ultramax vessels. The ice-class fleet has historically produced margins that are superior to the average market rate.

•Enhanced vessel utilization and profitability through strategic backhaul and triangulation methods. The Company enhances vessel utilization and profitability through selecting COAs and other contracts to carry cargo on what would normally be backhaul or ballast legs. In contrast to the typical practice of incurring charter hire and bunker costs to position an empty vessel in a port or area where cargo is normally loaded, the Company instead actively works with its customers to secure cargoes for discharge in traditional loading areas (backhaul). This practice allows the Company to position vessels for loading at lower costs than it would bear if it positioned such vessels by traveling unladen or if the Company chartered in vessels in a loading area. The Company believes that this focus on backhaul cargoes permits them to benefit from ballast bonuses that are paid to position vessels for fronthaul cargoes or, alternatively, to earn a premium for delivering ships that are in position for fronthaul cargoes.

•Strong relationships with major industrial customers. The Company has developed strong commercial relationships with a number of major industrial customers. These customer relationships are based upon the Company’s reputation and specific history of service to these customers. The Company believes that these relationships help it generate recurring business with such customers which, in some cases, are formalized through contracts for repeat business (COAs). The Company also believes that these relationships can help create new opportunities. Although many of these relationships have extended over a period of years, there is no assurance that such relationships or business will continue in the future. The Company believes that its familiarity with local regulations and market conditions at its routinely serviced ports, particularly in Newfoundland, Baffin Island and Jamaica, provides it with a strong competitive advantage and allows it to attract new customers and secure recurring business.

•Logistics approach to commodity business. The Company seeks employment for its vessels in a way that utilizes its expertise in enhancing productivity of clients' supply chains. The Company focuses on movements of cargo beyond loading and discharge berths and looks for opportunities to add value in clients' supply chains. The Company believes its additional efforts in providing complete logistics provides a competitive advantage and allows it to maintain strong client relationships and generate increased operating margins for the Company.

•Experienced management team. The day-to-day operations of a logistics and transportation services company requires close coordination among customers, land-based transportation providers and port authorities around the world. Its efficient operation depends on the experience and expertise of management at all levels, from vessel acquisition and financing strategy to oversight of vessel technical operations and cargo loading and discharge. The Company has a management team of senior executive officers and key employees with extensive experience and relationships in the commercial, technical, and financial areas of the drybulk shipping industry.

7

•Strong Alignment and Transparency. The Company observes that many publicly traded shipping companies rely on service providers affiliated with senior management or dominant shareholders for fundamental activities. Beyond the operational benefits to its customers of integrated commercial and technical management, the Company believes that its shareholders benefit by its strategy of performing many of those activities in-house. Related to these efforts to maximize alignment of interest, the Company believes that the associated transparency of ownership and authority will be attractive to current and prospective shareholders.

•Risk-management discipline. The Company believes its risk management strategy allows it to reduce the sensitivity of its earnings to market changes and lower the risk of losses. The Company manages its risks primarily through short-term charter-in agreements of less than nine months, on average, through the use of forward freight agreements ("FFAs") and fuel hedges, and through modest leverage. The Company believes that shorter-term charters permit it to adjust its variable costs to match demand more rapidly than if it chartered in those vessels for longer periods. The Company may choose to manage the risks of higher rates for certain future voyages by purchasing and selling FFAs to limit the impact of changes in chartering rates. Similarly, the Company may choose to manage the risks of increasing fuel costs through bunker hedging transactions in order to limit the impact of changes in fuel prices on voyage results.

Management

The Company’s management team consists of senior executive officers and key employees with decades of experience in the commercial, technical, management and financial areas of the logistics and shipping industries. The Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Mads Boye Petersen, has over 20 years of experience in the shipping industry. Other members of its management team, Gianni Del Signore and Daniel Schildt, also have extensive experience in the shipping industry. The Company believes its management team and key employees are well respected in the drybulk sector of the shipping industry and, over the years, has developed strong commercial relationships with industrial customers and lenders. The Company believes that the experience, reputation and background of its management team will continue to be key factors in its success.

The Company provides logistics services and commercially manages its fleet primarily from offices in Newport, Rhode Island, Copenhagen, Denmark, Southport, Connecticut, and Singapore. Logistics services and commercial management include identifying cargo for transportation, voyage planning, managing relationships, identifying vessels to charter in, and operating such vessels.

The technical management of the Company’s vessels is performed primarily in-house by Seamar Management, S.A which is wholly owned by the Company. In addition the Company employs the technical management services of Bernard Schulte Ship Management, a third party, for its ice class 1A fleet and M.T.M Ship Management, a related party, for its Handysize fleet. The Company is in the process of transferring its ice class 1A fleet to Seamar Management S.A.. The Company’s technical management personnel have extensive experience in oceangoing vessel operations, including the supervision of maintenance, repairs, improvements, drydocking and crewing. The technical management of the Company’s chartered-in vessels is performed by the respective third-party shipowners.

Operations and Assets

The Company is a service business and our customers use the services we provide because they believe the Company adds and creates value for them. To add value, the Company offers a wide range of logistics services beyond the traditional loading, carriage and discharge of cargoes. The Company works with certain customers to review their contractual delivery terms and conditions, permitting those customers to reduce costs and certain risks. Another example of value-added services is the formation of a new port in Newfoundland, Canada to load aggregate cargo for export and a temporary port used in Greenland to load the northernmost dry bulk cargo ever carried. As a result of efforts such as these, in some cases the Company is the de facto logistics department for certain clients.

The Company’s core offering is the safe, reliable, and timely loading, carriage, and discharge of cargoes for customers. This offering requires identifying customers, agreeing on the terms of service, selecting a vessel to undertake the voyage, working with port personnel to load and discharge cargo, and documenting the transfers of title upon loading or discharge of the cargo. As a result, the Company spends significant time and resources to identify and retain customers and source potential cargoes in its areas of operation. To further expand its customer base and potential cargoes, the Company has developed expertise in servicing ports and routes subject to severe ice conditions.

8

As of March 16, 2026, the Company operates its fleet of 39 owned or partially owned vessels, which are described in the table below:

The Company owns its vessels through separate wholly-owned subsidiaries and through joint venture entities with other owners, which the Company consolidates as variable interest entities in its consolidated financial statements.

The Company operates a variety of chartered-in drybulk carriers in addition to its owned vessels. These chartered-in vessels, including Panamax, Supramax, Ultramax, Handymax, and Handysize vessels, play a significant role in the Company's operations. The Company employed an average of 64 vessels at any one time during 2025 and 48 in 2024. In 2025, the Company owned interests in 41 vessels and chartered in another 245 for one or more voyages. In 2024, the Company owned interests in 41 vessels and chartered in another 216 for one or more voyages. The Company generally charters in third-party vessels for periods of less than nine months and, in most cases, less than six months. Chartered-in contracts are negotiated through third-party brokers, who are paid commission on a percentage of charter cost. The Company believes that shorter-term charters afford it flexibility to match its variable costs to its customers’ service requirements and to respond quickly to market volatility. The Company also believes that this combination of owned and chartered-in vessels helps it to more efficiently match its customer demand than the Company could with only owned vessels or an entirely chartered-in fleet.

9

Engagement of New Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

On August 27, 2025, the Audit Committee approved the engagement of Deloitte & Touche LLP as the Company’s independent registered public accounting firm for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2025.

Executive Officer and Board Appointments

Pursuant to a certain Cooperation Agreement between the Company and SSI dated November 26, 2025, the Board of Directors of the Company increased the size of the Board of Directors from nine to ten directors and appointed Mr. Leand to the Board as a Class III director to fill the vacancy created by such increase.

On December 18, 2025, effective upon Christina Tan’s resignation, the Board appointed Eugene I. Davis to the Board as a Class II director pursuant to the Investor and Registration Rights Agreement dated as of December 30, 2024, by and between the Company and Strategic Shipping Inc.

On January 1, 2026, Mads Petersen was appointed to succeed Mr. Filanowski as President, Chief Executive Officer and Director of the Company.

Corporate Structure

The Company is a holding company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda as an exempted company on April 29, 2014. The Company’s principal executives operate from the offices of its wholly-owned subsidiary Phoenix Bulk Carriers (US) LLC, which is located at 109 Long Wharf, Newport, Rhode Island 02840.The phone number at that address is (401) 846-7790. The Company also has offices in Copenhagen, Denmark, Athens, Greece and Singapore. The Company’s corporate website address is http://www.pangaeals.com.

As of March 16, 2026, the Company’s significant subsidiaries are as follows:

10

(A)The primary purpose of this corporation is to manage and operate ocean going vessels.

(B)The primary purpose of this entity is to perform certain administrative management functions that have been assigned by PBC.

(C)The primary purpose of this corporation is to provide logistics services to customers by chartering, managing and operating ships.

(D)The primary purpose of this corporation is to manage the fuel procurement for all vessels.

(E)The primary purpose of this corporation is to act as the U.S. administrative agent for the Company.

(F)The primary purpose of this corporation is to act as the treasury agent for the Company.

(G)The primary purpose of these entities is owning bulk carriers.

11

(H)The primary purpose of these entities is to provide logistics services to customers by chartering, managing and operating ships. NBV is the holding company of Pangaea Denmark.

(I)Long Wharf is a limited liability company duly organized under the laws of Delaware for the purpose of holding real estate located in Newport, Rhode Island.

(J)The primary purpose of these entities is owning bulk carriers. These companies are wholly-owned by NBHC, which is two-third owned by the Company.

(K)The primary purpose of this entity is to hold the Company's interest in vessel owning companies.

(L)The primary purpose of this entity is to own or lease bulk carriers through wholly-owned subsidiaries. The Company’s interest in Bulk Odyssey, Bulk Orion, Bulk Oshima, Bulk Olympic, Bulk Odin and Bulk Oasis is through its interest in NBHC.

(M)The primary purpose of this entity is to own or lease bulk carriers through wholly-owned subsidiaries.

(N)The primary purpose of VLNL is to own and operate the deck barge Miss Nora G. Pearl.

(O)The primary purpose of FVL is the carriage of specialized cargo.

(P)This entity is the technical manager of 25 vessels owned and operated by the Company.

(Q)The primary purpose of the company is to manage and operate port terminals.

(R)The primary purpose of the company is to manage U.S.-based business activities.

Crewing and Employees

Each of our vessels is crewed with 20-25 independently contracted officers and crew members and, on certain vessels, directly contracted officers. Our technical managers are responsible for locating, contracting and retaining qualified officers for its vessels. The crewing agencies handle each crew member’s training, travel and payroll, and ensure that all the crew members on its vessels have the qualifications and licenses required to comply with international regulations and shipping conventions. The Company typically has more crew members on board than are required by the country of the vessel’s flag in order to allow for the performance of routine maintenance duties.

The Company employs approximately 170 shore-based personnel and has approximately 900 independently contracted seagoing personnel on its owned vessels. The shore-based personnel are employed in the United States, Athens, Copenhagen and Singapore.

Competition

The Company operates in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand for ocean transport of drybulk commodities. The Company competes for COAs on the basis of service, price, route history, size, age and condition of the vessel and for charters on the basis of service, price, vessel availability, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on its reputation as an owner and operator. The Company principally competes with owners and operators of Panamax, Supramax, Ultramax, Handymax and Handysize bulk carriers. The Company attempts to differentiate itself from other owners and operators by extending its services to support more of its customers' supply chains and concentrates on established niche markets.

Seasonality

Demand for vessel capacity has historically exhibited seasonal variations and, as a result, fluctuations in charter rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in the Company's operating results. The dry bulk carrier market is typically stronger in the fall months in anticipation of increased consumption of coal and other raw materials in the northern hemisphere during the winter months. Seasonal fluctuation are also observed in harvest times in the Northern and Southern Atlantic trades. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. The Company may earn higher margins on ice-class business in winter and during severe ice trading.

Permits and Authorizations

The Company is required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits and certificates with respect to its vessels. The kinds of permits and certificates required depend upon several factors, including the commodity transported, the waters in which the vessel operates, the nationality of the vessel’s crew and the age of the vessel. The Company has been able to obtain all permits and certificates currently required to permit its vessels to operate. Additional laws and regulations, environmental or otherwise, may be adopted which could limit its ability to do business or increase the cost of doing business.

12

Environmental and Other Regulations

Government regulation and laws significantly affect the ownership and operation of the Company's vessels. The Company is subject to international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which its vessels may operate or are registered. These regulations relate to safety, health and environmental protection including the storage, handling, emission, transportation and discharge of hazardous and non-hazardous materials, and the remediation of contamination and liability for damage to natural resources. Compliance with such laws, regulations and other requirements entails significant expense, including vessel modifications and implementation of certain operating procedures.

A variety of government and private entities subject the Company’s vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (such as the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administrations (countries of registry), charterers and terminal operators. Certain of these entities require them to obtain permits, certificates or approvals for the operation of its vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits, certificates or approvals could require it to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend the operation of one or more of its vessels.

Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to the stricter environmental standards. The Company is required to maintain operating standards for all of its vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of its officers and crews and compliance with United States and international regulations. The Company believes that the operation of its vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that its vessels have all material permits, certificates or other approvals necessary for the conduct of its operations as of the date of this Form 10-K. However, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly strict requirements, the Company cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with these requirements, or the impact of these requirements on the resale value or useful lives of its vessels. In addition, a future serious marine incident that results in significant oil pollution or otherwise causes significant adverse environmental impact could result in additional legislation or regulation that could negatively affect the Company’s profitability.

As a global logistics provider, headquartered in the United States, we recognize the impacts of our actions and are focused on establishing safe, responsible, and sustainable policies and practices that will enhance our business for the long term. Transparency is an important step toward sustainability in our industry and we were pleased to present our third concise Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) report based on the Marine Transportation framework developed by the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB) during 2023. More specifically over the past several years we have taken steps to integrate ESG into operations, including:

1.Renewed our owned fleet with modern second hand and newbuilding vessels with lower overall fuel consumption than

older vessels in order to reduce our fleet’s greenhouse gas emissions. The Company took delivery of four Post Panamax vessels in 2021, which has significantly improved the fleet's emissions profile. The improvement is measured by fuel consumption per deadweight ton.

2.We utilize performance monitoring and weather routing services on both our owned and our chartered fleet. Using

sophisticated forecasting algorithms and machine learning, we optimize the speed of our vessels by considering

commercial and environmental concerns while reducing the amount of fuel consumed when the ships encounter adverse

weather and/or currents;

3.We have established Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (SEEMP) to improve the efficiency of our vessels.

Through the SEEMP, we ensure that all our ships are operated efficiently by:

a.Optimizing the speed of the vessels;

b.Making course changes to avoid higher fuel consumption caused by rough weather;

c.Hull cleaning in dry dock to improve speed and reduce fuel consumption;

4.For our chartered-in fleet we seek to employ the most fuel efficient designs available;

5.Ballast water treatment systems are currently installed on all vessels;

6.Use of environmental consultants to assess and improve terminal operations. As the Company expands its operations to ports and terminals, it becomes more exposed to environmental requirements and regulations ashore.

13

International Maritime Organization

The United Nations’ International Maritime Organization, or the IMO, has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, collectively referred to as MARPOL 73/78 and herein as “MARPOL,” the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974 ("SOLAS Convention"), and the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966 (the "LL Convention"). MARPOL entered into force on October 2, 1983 and establishes environmental standards related to oil leakage or spilling, air emissions, garbage management, sewage, and handling and disposal of noxious liquids, including harmful substances in packaged form. It has been adopted by over 150 nations, including many of the jurisdictions in which the Company's vessels operate. MARPOL sets forth pollution-prevention requirements applicable to drybulk carriers, among other vessels, and is broken into six Annexes, each of which regulates a different source of pollution. Annex I relates to oil leakage or spilling; Annexes II and III relate to harmful substances carried, in bulk, in liquid or packaged form, respectively; and Annexes IV and V relate to sewage and garbage management, respectively. Annex VI, separately adopted by the IMO in September of 1997, relates to air emissions. New

emissions standards, titled IMO-2020, took effect on January 1, 2020.

In 2013, the IMO's Marine Environmental Protection Committee, or the "MEPC," adopted a resolution amending MARPOL Annex I Condition Assessment Scheme, or "CAS." These amendments became effective on October 1, 2014 and require compliance with the 2011 International Code on the Enhanced Programme of Inspections during Surveys of Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers, or "ESP Code," which provides for enhanced inspection programs. The Company may need to make certain financial expenditures to comply with these amendments in the future, which could be significant.

Air Emissions

In September of 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to MARPOL to address air pollution from vessels. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits “deliberate emissions” of “ozone depleting substances,” defined to include certain halons and chlorofluorocarbons. Deliberate emissions are not limited to times when the ship is at sea; they can for example include discharges occurring in the course of the ship’s repair and maintenance. Emissions of “volatile organic compounds” from certain tankers, and the shipboard incineration (from incinerators installed after January 1, 2000) of certain substances (such as polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)) are also prohibited. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil (see below).

The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee, or MEPC, adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding emissions of sulfur oxide, nitrogen oxide, particulate matter and ozone depleting substances, which entered into force on July 1, 2010. The Amended Annex VI seeks to further reduce air pollution by, among other things, implementing a progressive reduction of the amount of sulfur contained in any fuel oil used onboard ships. On October 27, 2016, MEPC 70 agreed to implement a global 0.5% m/m sulfur oxide emissions limit (reduced from 3.50%) starting from January 1, 2020. This limitation can be met by using low-sulfur compliant fuel oil, alternative fuels, or certain exhaust gas cleaning systems. Ships are now required to obtain bunker delivery notes and International Air Pollution Prevention (“IAPP”) Certificates from their flag states that specify sulfur content. Additionally, at MEPC 73, amendments to Annex VI to prohibit the carriage of bunkers above 0.5% sulfur on ships were adopted and took effect March 1, 2020, with the exception of vessels fitted with exhaust gas cleaning equipment ("scrubbers") which can carry fuel of higher sulfur content. These regulations subject ocean-going vessels to stringent emissions controls, and may cause us to incur substantial costs, including those related to the purchase, installation and operation of scrubbers and the purchase of compliant fuel oil.

14

Sulfur content standards are even stricter within certain “Emission Control Areas,” or (“ECAs”). As of January 1, 2015, ships operating within an ECA were not permitted to use fuel with sulfur content in excess of 0.1% m/m. Currently, the IMO has designated five ECAs, including specified portions of the Baltic Sea area, Mediterranean Sea area, North Sea area, North American area and United States Caribbean area. Ocean-going vessels in these areas will be subject to stringent emission controls and may cause us to incur additional costs. Certain ports in which our vessels call, including China and Singapore, are currently or may become subject to local regulations that impose stricter emission controls. In July 2023, MEPC 80 announced three new ECA proposals, including the Canadian Arctic waters and the Norwegian Sea, which should take effect in March 2027. MEPC 83 also approved Northeast Atlantic Ocean as an ECA and is expected to take effect in 2028. If other ECAs are approved by the IMO, or other new or more stringent requirements relating to emissions from marine diesel engines or port operations by vessels are adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) or the states where we operate, compliance with these regulations could entail significant capital expenditures or otherwise increase the costs of our operations. Refer to “Capital Expenditures” in Item 7, Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations and “We are subject to regulation and liability under environmental and operational safety laws that could require significant expenditures or subject us to increased liability” in Item 1A. Risk Factors for further details of our plan for compliance and potential costs.

The amended Annex VI also established new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. Tier III Nitrogen Oxide, or NOx, standards were designed for the control of NOx produced by vessels and apply to ships that operate in the North American and U.S. Caribbean Sea ECAs with marine diesel engine installed and constructed on or after January 1, 2016. At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, the MEPC approved the North Sea and Baltic Sea as ECAs for nitrogen oxide for ships built on or after January 1, 2021. The Canadian-Arctic ECA for NOx will also be effective starting from March 1, 2026 for ships built on or after January 1, 2025. For the Norwegian Sea ECA, the NOx Tier III engine certification requirement will apply to ships (i) with building contracts placed on or after March 1, 2026, (ii) in the absence of a building contract, constructed on or after September 1, 2026, or (iii) delivered on or after March 1, 2030. For the North-East Atlantic ECA, the requirement is expected to apply to ships (i) contracted on or after January 1, 2027, (ii) in the absence of a building contract, constructed on or after July 1, 2027, or (iii) delivered on or after January 1, 2031. The EPA promulgated equivalent (and in some senses stricter) emissions standards in 2010 and we are compliant with the Tier I and Tier II requirements for NOx emissions under the EPA standards and Annex VI. We do not currently own any vessels subject to the Tier III requirements, although we may acquire such vessels in the future. In April 2025, MEPC 83 also adopted amendments (expected to enter into force late 2026 and early 2027) to the NOx Technical Code 2008, which allows ships to optimize fuel consumption based on their operational profile, thus improving energy efficiency, while ensuring compliance with NOx emission requirements. As a result of these designations or similar future designations, we may be required to incur additional operating or other costs.

At MEPC 70, Regulation 22A of MARPOL Annex VI became effective as of March 1, 2018 and requires ships above 5,000 gross tonnage to collect and report annual data on fuel oil consumption to an IMO database, with the first year of data collection having commenced on January 1, 2019. The IMO used such data as part of its initial roadmap (through 2023) for developing its strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships, as discussed further below. MEPC 83 approved draft amendments to make the IMO's data collection system more accessible to the public through an anonymized database.

As of January 1, 2013, MARPOL made mandatory certain measures relating to energy efficiency for ships. All ships are now required to develop and implement Ship Energy Efficiency Management Plans (“SEEMP”), and new ships must be designed in compliance with minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile as defined by the Energy Efficiency Design Index (“EEDI”). Under these measures, by 2025, all new ships built will be 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. MEPC 75 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI which brings forward the effective date of the EEDI’s “phase 3” requirements from January 1, 2025 to April 1, 2022 for several ship types, including gas carriers, general cargo ships, and LNG carriers.

15

Additionally, in 2022, MEPC amended Annex VI to impose new regulations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from ships. These amendments introduce requirements to assess and measure the energy efficiency of all ships and set the required attainment values, with the goal of reducing the carbon intensity of international shipping. The requirements include (1) a technical requirement to reduce carbon intensity based on a new Energy Efficiency Existing Ship Index (“EEXI”), and (2) operational carbon intensity reduction requirements, based on a new operational carbon intensity indicator (“CII”). The attained EEXI is required to be calculated for ships of 400 gross tonnage and above, in accordance with different values set for ship types and categories. With respect to the CII, the draft amendments would require ships of 5,000 gross tonnage to document and verify their actual annual operational CII achieved against a determined required annual operational CII. All ships above 400 gross tonnage must also have an approved SEEMP on board. For ships above 5,000 gross tonnage, the SEEMP needs to include certain mandatory content. That same year, MEPC 75 amended MARPOL Annex I to prohibit the use and carriage for use as fuel of heavy fuel oil (“HFO”) by ships in Arctic waters on and after July 1, 2024. In 2021, MEPC 77 adopted a non-binding resolution which urges Member States and ship operators to voluntarily use distillate or other cleaner alternative fuels or methods of propulsion that are safe for ships and could contribute to the reduction of Black Carbon emissions from ships when operating in or near the Arctic.

In late 2022, MEPC 79 adopted amendments to MARPOL Annex VI, Appendix IX to include the attained and required CII values, the CII rating and attained EEXI for existing ships in the required information to be submitted to the IMO Ship Fuel Oil Consumption Database. MEPC 79 also revised the EEDI calculation guidelines to include a CO2 conversion factor for ethane, a reference to the updated ITCC guidelines, and a clarification that in case of a ship with multiple load line certificates, the maximum certified summer draft should be used when determining the deadweight. The amendments entered into force on May 1, 2024. In July 2023, MEPC 80 approved the plan for reviewing CII regulations and guidelines, and in April 2025, MEPC 83 adopted amendments to 2021 Guidelines on operational carbon intensity reduction factors, which outline methods for determining CII reduction factors from 2023 and now includes newly defined factors from 2027 to 2030. MEPC 83 also approved a work plan on the development of a regulatory framework for the use of onboard carbon capture and storage systems, which will capture carbon produced by a ship before it is emitted into the air.

We may incur costs to comply with these revised standards. Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. The Company plans to continue to invest in its existing fleet to improve fuel efficiency and comply with these revised standards through its comprehensive IMO 2023 plan.

Safety Management System Requirements

The SOLAS Convention was amended to address the safe manning of vessels and emergency training drills. The Convention of Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (the “LLMC”) sets limitations of liability for a loss of life or personal injury claim or a property claim against ship owners. We believe that our vessels are in substantial compliance with SOLAS and LLMC standards.

Under Chapter IX of the SOLAS Convention, or the International Safety Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and for Pollution Prevention (the “ISM Code”), our operations are also subject to environmental standards and requirements. The ISM Code requires the party with operational control of a vessel to develop an extensive safety management system that includes, among other things, the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for operating its vessels safely and for responding to emergencies. We rely upon the safety management system that we and our technical management team have developed for compliance with the ISM Code. The failure of a vessel owner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject such party to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel’s management with the ISM Code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a safety management certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. GSSM has valid documents of compliance for our offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the IMO. The document of compliance and safety management certificate are renewed as required.

16

Regulation II-1/3-10 of the SOLAS Convention governs ship construction and stipulates that ships over 150 meters in length must have adequate strength, integrity and stability to minimize risk of loss or pollution. Goal-based standards amendments in SOLAS regulation II-1/3-10 entered into force in 2012, with July 1, 2016 set for application to new oil tankers and bulk carriers. The SOLAS Convention regulation II-1/3-10 on goal-based ship construction standards for bulk carriers and oil tankers, which entered into force on January 1, 2012, requires that all oil tankers and bulk carriers of 150 meters in length and above, for which the building contract is placed on or after July 1, 2016, satisfy applicable structural requirements conforming to the functional requirements of the International Goal-based Ship Construction Standards for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers (“GBS Standards”).

Amendments to the SOLAS Convention Chapter VII apply to vessels transporting dangerous goods and require those vessels be in compliance with the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (“IMDG Code”). Effective January 1, 2018, the IMDG Code includes (1) the provisions for radioactive material, reflecting the latest provisions from the International Atomic Energy Agency, (2) marking, packing and classification requirements for dangerous goods, and (3) mandatory training requirements. Amendments that took effect on January 1, 2020, also reflect the latest material from the UN Recommendations on the Transport of Dangerous Goods, including (1) provisions regarding IMO type 9 tank, (2) abbreviations for segregation groups, and (3) special provisions for carriage of lithium batteries and of vehicles powered by flammable liquid or gas. Additional amendments, which came into force on June 1, 2022, include (1) addition of a definition of dosage rate, (2) additions to the list of high consequence dangerous goods, (3) new provisions for medical/clinical waste, (4) addition of various ISO standards for gas cylinders, (5) a new handling code, and (6) changes to stowage and segregation provisions. The newest edition of the IMDG Code took effect on January 1, 2024, although the changes are largely incremental.

The IMO has also adopted the International Convention on Standards of Training, Certification and Watchkeeping for Seafarers (“STCW”). As of February 2017, all seafarers are required to meet the STCW standards and be in possession of a valid STCW certificate. Flag states that have ratified SOLAS and STCW generally employ the classification societies, which have incorporated SOLAS and STCW requirements into their class rules, to undertake surveys to confirm compliance.

The IMO's Maritime Safety Committee and MEPC, respectively, each adopted relevant parts of the International Code for Ships Operating in Polar Water (the “Polar Code”). The Polar Code, which entered into force on January 1, 2017, covers design, construction, equipment, operational, training, search and rescue as well as environmental protection matters relevant to ships operating in the waters surrounding the two poles. It also includes mandatory measures regarding safety and pollution prevention as well as recommendatory provisions. The Polar Code applies to new ships constructed after January 1, 2017, and after January 1, 2018, ships constructed before January 1, 2017 are required to meet the relevant requirements by the earlier of their first intermediate or renewal survey.

Furthermore, cybersecurity guidance and regulations have been developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. For new ships and offshore installations contracted for construction on or after January 1, 2024, the International Association of Classification Societies, or IACS, now requires vessel owners, yard and suppliers to build cybersecurity barriers into their systems and vessels, requiring compliance across the full spectrum of critical on-board control and navigation systems. On July 16, 2025, the U.S. Coast Guard’s final rule, Cybersecurity in the Martine Transportation System, went into effect. Under this rule, all regulated entities are required to develop Cybersecurity and Cyber Incident Response Plans, designate a Cybersecurity Officer to implement plans, and to report certain cyber incidents to the National Response Center The impact of these regulations is hard to predict at this time.

Pollution Control and Liability Requirements

The IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatories to such conventions. For example, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments (the “BWM Convention”) in 2004. The BWM Convention entered into force on September 8, 2017. The BWM Convention requires ships to manage their ballast water to remove, render harmless, or avoid the uptake or discharge of new or invasive aquatic organisms and pathogens within ballast water and sediments. 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, and require all ships to carry a ballast water record book and an international ballast water management certificate.

17

The MEPC maintains guidelines for approval of ballast water management systems (G8). Ships over 400 gross tons generally must comply with a “D-1 standard,” requiring the exchange of ballast water only in open seas and away from coastal waters. The “D-2 standard” specifies the maximum amount of viable organisms allowed to be discharged, and compliance dates vary depending on the IOPP renewal dates. The standards have been in force since 2019, and for most ships, compliance with the D-2 standard involved installing on-board systems to treat ballast water and eliminate unwanted organisms. Ballast water management systems, which include systems that make use of chemical, biocides, organisms or biological mechanisms, or which alter the chemical or physical characteristics of the ballast water, must be approved in accordance with IMO Guidelines (Regulation D-3). Since September 8, 2024, all ships have been required to meet the D-2 standard. Costs of compliance with these regulations may be substantial. Additionally, in November 2020, MEPC 75 adopted amendments to the BWM Convention which would require a commissioning test of the ballast water management system for the initial survey or when performing an additional survey for retrofits. This analysis will not apply to ships that already have an installed BWM system certified under the BWM Convention. These amendments entered into force on June 1, 2022. In December 2022, MEPC 79 agreed that it should be permitted to use ballast tanks for temporary storage of treated sewage and grey water. MEPC 79 also established that ships are expected to return to D-2 compliance after experiencing challenging uptake water and bypassing a BWM system should only be used as a last resort.

In addition to the BWM Convention, many countries already regulate the discharge of ballast water carried by vessels from country to country to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species via such discharges. The U.S., for example, requires vessels entering its waters from another country to conduct mid-ocean ballast exchange, or undertake some alternate measure, and to comply with certain reporting requirements. The system specification requirements for trading in the U.S. have been formalized and we have been installing ballast water treatment systems on our vessels as their special survey deadlines come due. These ballast water treatment systems range in cost from $0.5 million to $0.7 million each, primarily dependent on the size of the vessel. The cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers and may have a material effect on our operations. Refer to “Capital Expenditures” section for further information.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, as amended by different Protocols in 1976, 1984, and 1992, and amended in 2000, or the CLC. Under the CLC and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel’s registered owner may be strictly liable for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain exceptions. The 1992 Protocol changed certain limits on liability expressed using the International Monetary Fund currency unit, the Special Drawing Rights. The limits on liability have since been amended so that the compensation limits on liability were raised. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless act or omission where the shipowner knew pollution damage would probably result. The CLC requires ships over 2,000 tons covered by it to maintain insurance covering the liability of the owner in a sum equivalent to an owner’s liability for a single incident. We have protection and indemnity insurance for environmental incidents. P&I Clubs in the International Group issue the required Bunkers Convention “Blue Cards” to enable signatory states to issue certificates. All of our vessels are in possession of a CLC State issued certificate attesting that the required insurance coverage is in force.

The IMO also adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage (the “Bunker Convention”) to impose strict liability on ship owners (including the registered owner, bareboat charterer, manager or operator) for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the LLMC). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in ship’s bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

Ships are required to maintain a certificate attesting that they maintain adequate insurance to cover an incident. In jurisdictions, such as the United States where the CLC or the Bunker Convention has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or on a strict-liability basis.

18

Anti-Fouling Requirements

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on the Control of Harmful Anti-fouling Systems on Ships, or the “Anti-fouling Convention.” The Anti-fouling Convention, which entered into force on September 17, 2008, prohibits the use of organotin compound coatings to prevent the attachment of mollusks and other sea life to the hulls of vessels. Vessels of over 400 gross tons engaged in international voyages will also be required to undergo an initial survey before the vessel is put into service or before an International Anti-fouling System Certificate, or the “IAFS Certificate,” is issued for the first time; and subsequent surveys when the anti-fouling systems are altered or replaced. Vessels of 24 meters in length or more but less than 400 gross tonnage engaged in international voyages will have to carry a Declaration on Anti-fouling Systems signed by the owner or authorized agent.

In November 2020, MEPC 75 approved draft amendments to the Anti-fouling Convention to prohibit anti-fouling systems containing cybutryne, which would apply to ships from January 1, 2023, or, for ships already bearing such an anti-fouling system, at the next scheduled renewal of the system after that date, but no later than 60 months following the last application to the ship of such a system. In addition, the IAFS Certificate has been updated to address compliance options for anti-fouling systems to address cybutryne. Ships which are affected by this ban on cybutryne must receive an updated IAFS Certificate no later than two years after the entry into force of these amendments. Ships which are not affected (i.e. with anti-fouling systems which do not contain cybutryne) must receive an updated IAFS Certificate at the next Anti-fouling application to the vessel. These amendments were formally adopted at MEPC 76 in June 2021, and entered into force on January 1, 2023.

We have obtained Anti-fouling System Certificates for all of our vessels that are subject to the Anti-fouling Convention.

Compliance Enforcement

Noncompliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the ship owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The USCG and European Union authorities prohibit vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by applicable deadlines from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively. As of the date of this report, each of our vessels is ISM Code certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certificates will be maintained in the future. The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.

The U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act

The Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all “owners and operators” whose vessels trade or operate within the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. The United States has also enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act, or CERCLA, which applies to the discharge of hazardous substances other than oil, whether on land or at sea. OPA and CERCLA both define “owner and operator” in the case of a vessel as any person owning, operating or chartering by demise, the vessel. Both OPA and CERCLA impact the Company’s operations.

Under OPA, vessel owners and operators are “responsible parties” and are jointly, severally and strictly liable (unless the spill 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 oil from their vessels. OPA defines these other damages broadly to include:

19

•injury to, destruction or loss of, or loss of use of, natural resources and related assessment costs;

•injury to, or economic losses resulting from, the destruction of real and personal property;

•net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees or net profit revenues resulting from injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property, or natural resources;

•loss of subsistence use of natural resources that are injured, destroyed or lost;

•lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury, destruction or loss of real or personal property or natural resources; and

•net cost of increased or additional public services necessitated by removal activities following a discharge of oil, such as protection from fire, safety or health hazards, and loss of subsistence use of natural resources.

OPA contains statutory caps on liability and damages; such caps do not apply to direct cleanup costs. Effective March 23, 2023, the new adjusted limits of OPA liability for non-tank vessels, edible oil tank vessels, and any oil spill response vessels, to the greater of $1,300 per gross ton or $1,076,000 (subject to periodic adjustment for inflation).

These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was proximately caused by the violation of an applicable U.S. federal safety, construction or operating regulation by a responsible party (or its agent, employee or a person acting pursuant to a contractual relationship), or a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. The limitation on liability similarly does not apply if the responsible party fails or refuses to (i) report the incident as required by law where the responsible party knows or has reason to know of the incident; (ii) reasonably cooperate and assist as requested in connection with oil removal activities; or (iii) without sufficient cause, comply with an order issued under the Federal Water Pollution Act (Section 311 (c), (e)) or the Intervention on the High Seas Act.

CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damages for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing the same, and health assessments or health effects studies. There is no liability if the discharge of a hazardous substance results solely from the act or omission of a third party, an act of God or an act of war. Liability under CERCLA is limited to the greater of $300 per gross ton or $5.0 million for vessels carrying a hazardous substance as cargo and the greater of $300 per gross ton or $500,000 for any other vessel. These limits do not apply (rendering the responsible person liable for the total cost of response and damages) if the release or threat of release of a hazardous substance resulted from willful misconduct or negligence, or the primary cause of the release was a violation of applicable safety, construction or operating standards or regulations. The limitation on liability also does not apply if the responsible person fails or refused to provide all reasonable cooperation and assistance as requested in connection with response activities where the vessel is subject to OPA.

OPA and CERCLA each preserve the right to recover damages under existing law, including maritime tort law. OPA and CERCLA both require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the maximum amount of liability to which the particular responsible person may be subject. Vessel owners and operators may satisfy their financial responsibility obligations by providing a proof of insurance, a surety bond, qualification as a self-insurer or a guarantee.

Incidents such as the 2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico may result in additional regulatory initiatives or statutes, including the raising of liability caps under OPA (which were raised on December 31, 2015). Compliance with any new requirements of OPA may substantially impact the Company’s cost of operations or require it to incur additional expenses to comply with any new regulatory initiatives or statutes. Additional legislation or regulations applicable to the operation of its vessels that may be implemented in the future could adversely affect its business.

The Company currently maintains pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident for each of the Company’s vessels. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed the Company’s insurance coverage it could have an adverse effect on its business and results of operation.

20

OPA specifically permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to oil pollution incidents occurring within their boundaries, provided they accept, at a minimum, the levels of liability established under OPA. Some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for oil spills, and many U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. Moreover, some states have enacted legislation providing for unlimited liability for discharge of pollutants within their waters, although in some cases, states which have enacted such legislation have not yet issued implementing regulations defining vessel owners’ responsibilities under these laws. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law. The Company intends to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where its vessels call. The Company believes that it is in substantial compliance with all applicable existing state requirements. In addition, the Company intends to comply with all future applicable state regulations in the ports where its vessels call.

Other United States Environmental Initiatives

The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil, hazardous substances and ballast water in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages, and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA.

The EPA and the USCG have also enacted rules relating to ballast water discharge, compliance with which requires the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements or procedures at potentially substantial costs, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. Waters. The EPA will regulate these ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the normal operation of certain vessels within United States waters pursuant to the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act, or VIDA, which was signed into law on December 4, 2018 and replaces the 2013 Vessel General Permit, or VGP program (which authorizes discharges incidental to operations of commercial vessels and contains numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels to reduce the risk of invasive species in U.S. waters, stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers, and requirements for the use of environmentally acceptable lubricants) and current Coast Guard ballast water management regulations adopted under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, such as mid-ocean ballast exchange programs and installation of approved USCG technology for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks bound for U.S. ports or entering U.S. waters. VIDA establishes a new framework for the regulation of vessel incidental discharges under Clean Water Act, or CWA, requires the EPA to develop performance standards for those discharges within two years of enactment, and requires the U.S. Coast Guard to develop implementation, compliance, and enforcement regulations within two years of EPA’s promulgation of standards. In October 2024, the EPA finalized its rule on Vessel Incidental Discharge Standards of Performance, which means that the USCG must now develop corresponding regulations regarding ballast water within two years of that date. Under VIDA, all provisions of the 2013 VGP and USCG regulations regarding ballast water treatment remain in force and effect until the EPA and U.S. Coast Guard regulations are finalized. Non-military, non-recreational vessels greater than 79 feet in length must continue to comply with the requirements of the VGP, including submission of a Notice of Intent, or NOI or retention of a PARI form and submission of annual reports. We have submitted NOIs for our vessels where required. Compliance with the EPA, U.S. Coast Guard and state regulations could require the installation of ballast water treatment equipment on our vessels or the implementation of other port facility disposal procedures at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

European Union Regulations

In October 2009, the European Union amended a directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Aiding and abetting the discharge of a polluting substance may also lead to criminal penalties. The directive applies to all types of vessels, irrespective of their flag, but certain exceptions apply to warships or where human safety or that of the ship is in danger. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims. Regulation (EU) 2015/757 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2015 (amending EU Directive 2009/16/EC) governs the monitoring, reporting and verification of carbon dioxide emissions from maritime transport, and, subject to some exclusions, requires companies with ships over 5,000 gross tonnage to monitor and report carbon dioxide emissions annually, which may cause us to incur additional expenses.

21

The European Union has adopted several regulations and directives requiring, among other things, more frequent inspections of high-risk ships, as determined by type, age, and flag as well as the number of times the ship has been detained. The European Union also adopted and extended a ban on substandard ships and enacted a minimum ban period and a definitive ban for repeated offenses. The regulations also provided the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, by imposing more requirements on classification societies and providing for fines or penalty payments for organizations that failed to comply. Furthermore, the EU has implemented regulations requiring vessels to use reduced sulfur content fuel for their main and auxiliary engines. The EU Directive 2005/33/EC (amending Directive 1999/32/EC) introduced requirements parallel to those in Annex VI relating to the sulfur content of marine fuels. In addition, the EU imposed a 0.1% maximum sulfur requirement for fuel used by ships at berth in the Baltic, the North Sea and the English Channel (the so-called “SOx-Emission Control Area”). As of January 2020, EU member states must also ensure that ships in all EU waters, except the SOx-Emission Control Area, use fuels with a 0.5% maximum sulfur content.

On September 15, 2020, the European Parliament voted to include greenhouse gas emissions from the maritime sector in the European Union’s carbon market, the EU Emissions Trading System (“EU ETS”) as part of its “Fit-for-55” legislation to reduce net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 as compared to 1990 levels. This will require shipowners to buy permits to cover these emissions. On December 18, 2022, the Environmental Council and European Parliament agreed to include maritime shipping emissions within the scope of the EU ETS on a gradual introduction of obligations for shipping companies to surrender allowances equivalent to a portion of their carbon emissions: 40% for verified emissions from 2024, 70% for 2025 and 100% for 2026. Most large vessels will be included in the scope of the EU ETS from the start. Big offshore vessels of 5,000 gross tonnage and above will be included in the 'MRV' on the monitoring, reporting and verification of CO2 emissions from maritime transport regulation from 2025 and in the EU ETS from 2027. General cargo vessels and off-shore vessels between 400-5,000 gross tonnage will be included in the MRV regulation from 2025 and their inclusion in EU ETS will be reviewed in 2026. Furthermore, starting from January 1, 2026, the ETS regulations will expand to include emissions of two additional greenhouse gases: nitrous oxide and methane. Compliance with the Maritime EU ETS will result in additional compliance and administration costs to properly incorporate the provisions of the Directive into our business routines. A

Additionally, on July 25, 2023, the European Council of the European Union adopted the Maritime Fuel Regulation under the Fuel EU Initiative of its “Fit-for-55” package which sets limitations on the acceptable yearly greenhouse gas intensity of the energy used by covered vessels. Among other things, the Maritime Fuel Regulation requires that greenhouse gas emissions from covered vessels are reduced by 2% starting January 1, 2025, with additional reductions contemplated every five years (up to 80% from January 1, 2050).

Additional EU regulations which are part of the EU’s "Fit-for-55," could also affect our financial position in terms of compliance and administration costs when they take effect.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

Our industry currently is heavily dependent on the consumption of fossil fuels, which has been linked by certain experts to greenhouse gas emissions and the warming of the global climate system. We are committed to working to reduce our carbon footprint, including by transitioning to low-carbon fuels while continuing to deliver for our customers. Our governance, strategy, risk management and performance monitoring efforts with respect to managing this challenge continue to evolve.

Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, which entered into force in 2005 and pursuant to which adopting countries have been required to implement national programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. International negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the U.S. and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris resulted in the Paris Agreement, which entered into force on November 4, 2016 and does not directly limit greenhouse gas emissions from ships. The U.S. is not party to the Paris Agreement.

22

At MEPC 70 and MEPC 71, a draft outline of the structure of the initial strategy for developing a comprehensive IMO strategy on reduction of greenhouse gas, or GHG, emissions from ships was approved. In accordance with this roadmap, in April 2018, nations at the MEPC 72 adopted an initial strategy to reduce GHG emissions from ships. The initial strategy identifies “levels of ambition” to reduce GHG emissions, and notes that technological innovation, alternative fuels and/or energy sources for international shipping will be integral to achieve the ambitions. At MEPC 77, the Member States agreed to initiate the revision of the Initial IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG emissions from ships, recognizing the need to strengthen the “levels of ambition.” In July 2023, MEPC 80 adopted the 2023 IMO Strategy on Reduction of GHG Emissions from Ships, or the 2023 IMO Strategy, which builds upon the initial strategy’s levels of ambition. The revised levels of ambition include (1) further decreasing the carbon intensity from ships through improvement of energy efficiency; (2) reducing carbon intensity of international shipping; (3) increasing adoption of zero or near-zero emissions technologies, fuels, and energy sources; and (4) achieving net zero GHG emissions from international shipping. Furthermore, the following indicative checkpoints were adopted in order to reach net zero GHG emissions from international shipping: i) reduce the total annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 20%, striving for 30%, by 2030, compared to 2008 levels; and ii) reduce the total annual GHG emissions from international shipping by at least 70%, striving for 80%, by 2040, compared to 2008 levels. As part of the 2023 IMO Strategy, MPEC also created the IMO Net-zero Framework, which will combine mandatory emissions limits and GHG pricing across the industry. The IMO Net-zero Framework was approved at MEPC 83 (Spring 2025) for potential adoption in Spring 2026 and will eventually be included in Annex VI. Under these draft regulations, ships will be required to reduce their annual greenhouse gas fuel intensity, (“GFI”), calculated using the well-to-wake approach and ships emitting above GFI thresholds will have to acquire remedial units to balance its deficit emissions, while those using zero or near-zero GHG technologies will be eligible for financial rewards.

The EU made a unilateral commitment to reduce overall greenhouse gas emissions from its member states from 20% of 1990 levels by 2020. The EU also committed to reduce its emissions by 20% under the Kyoto Protocol’s second period from 2013 to 2020. As of January 2018, large ships over 5,000 gross tonnage calling at EU ports are required to collect and publish data on carbon dioxide emissions and other information. Under the European Climate Law, the EU committed to reduce its net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030 through its “Fit-for-55” legislation package. As part of this initiative, the European Union’s carbon market, EU ETS has been extended to cover CO2 emissions from all large ships entering EU ports starting January 2024..

In the United States, the EPA issued a finding that greenhouse gases endanger the public health and safety, adopted regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from certain mobile sources, and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. However, in March 2017, the Trump administration issued an executive order to review and possibly eliminate the EPA’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, and on August 13, 2020, the EPA released rules rolling back standards to control methane and volatile organic compound emissions from new oil and gas facilities. In early 2021, the Biden administration directed the EPA to publish a proposed rule suspending, revising, or rescinding certain of these rules, which was finalized in December 2023. However, the current administration is delaying these requirements limiting methane emissions and is considering repealing the measure altogether. Therefore, it is unclear how such environmental regulations could affect our operations.

Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, the EU, the U.S. or other countries where we operate, or any treaty adopted at the international level to succeed the Kyoto Protocol or Paris Agreement, that restricts emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures which we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Even in the absence of climate control legislation, our business may be indirectly affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or certain weather events.

International Labor Organization

The International Labour Organization, or ILO, is a specialized agency of the UN that has adopted the Maritime Labor Convention 2006, or MLC 2006. A Maritime Labor Certificate and a Declaration of Maritime Labor Compliance is required to ensure compliance with the MLC 2006 for all ships that are 500 gross tonnage or over and are either engaged in international voyages or flying the flag of a Member and operating from a port, or between ports, in another country. We believe that all of our vessels are in substantial compliance with and are certified to meet MLC 2006.

Vessel Security Regulations

23

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the United States, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security such as the U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, the USCG issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and at certain ports and facilities, some of which are regulated by the EPA.

Similarly, Chapter XI-2 of the SOLAS Convention imposes detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities and mandates compliance with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code, or the ISPS Code.. The ISPS Code is designed to enhance the security of ports and ships against terrorism. To trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate, or the ISSC, from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel’s flag state. Ships operating without a valid certificate may be detained, expelled from, or refused entry at port until they obtain an ISSC.

The USCG 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 ISSC that attests to the vessel’s compliance with the SOLAS Convention security requirements and the ISPS Code. Future security measures could have a significant financial impact on us. We intend to comply with the various security measures addressed by MTSA, the SOLAS Convention and the ISPS Code.

The cost of vessel security measures has also been affected by the escalation in the frequency of acts of piracy against ships, notably off the coast of Somalia, including the Gulf of Aden and Arabian Sea area, as well as off the coast of Western Africa. Substantial loss of revenue and other costs may be incurred as a result of detention of a vessel or additional security measures, and the risk of uninsured losses could significantly affect our business. Costs are incurred in taking additional security measures in accordance with Best Management Practices to Deter Piracy, notably those contained in the BMP5 industry standard.

Inspection by Classification Societies

Every oceangoing 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, as requested, other surveys that may be required by the vessel's flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made with the vessel owner and/or to the regulations of the country concerned.

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

•Annual Surveys: For seagoing ships, annual surveys are conducted within three months, before or after each anniversary of the class period indicated in the certificate.

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

•Class Renewal Surveys: Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull. At the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging to determine the thickness of the steel structures. If the steel thickness is found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals which require drydocking of the vessel. The classification society may grant a one-year grace period for completion of the special survey. Substantial costs may be incurred for steel renewal in order 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 was granted, a shipowner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel’s hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which case every part of the vessel would be surveyed on a continuous five-year cycle. This process is referred to as continuous class renewal.

24

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

Most vessels undergo regulatory inspection of the underwater parts every 30 to 36 months. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a recommendation which must be rectified by the ship owner within prescribed time limits.

The Company expects to perform thirteen special surveys in 2026 at an aggregate total cost of approximately $15.7 million. The Company expects to perform two intermediate surveys in 2026 at an aggregate total cost of approximately $3.0 million. The Company estimates that offhire related to the surveys and related repair work is ten to twenty days per vessel, depending on the size and condition of the vessel.

Most 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. All of the Company’s vessels are certified by Det Norske Veritas, Nippon Kaiji Kiokai or Bureau Veritas. All new and second-hand vessels that the Company purchases must be certified prior to delivery under its standard purchase contracts, referred to as the memorandum of agreement or ship building contracts. Certification of second-hand vessels must be verified by a Class Maintenance Certificate issued within 72 hours prior to delivery. If the vessel is not certified on the date of closing, the Company has the option to cancel the agreement on the basis of Seller’s default, and not take delivery of the vessel.

Risk of Loss and Insurance

General

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

The Company maintains hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance, protection and indemnity cover and freight, demurrage and defense cover for its owned fleet at amounts it believes address the normal risks of its operations. The Company may not be able to maintain this level of coverage throughout a vessel’s useful life. Furthermore, while the Company believes that its current insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that the Company will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull & Machinery and War Risks Insurance

The Company maintains marine hull and machinery and war risks insurances, which cover the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of its vessels. Vessels are insured for their fair market value, at a minimum, with a deductible of $100,000 per vessel per incident.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, which insure the Company’s third-party liabilities in connection with its shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses resulting from the injury, illness or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, the loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Subject to the “capping” discussed below, the Company’s coverage, except for pollution, is unlimited.

The Company’s current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. The 12 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, the Company is subject to calls payable to the associations based on the group’s claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

25

Exchange Controls

The Company is an exempted company organized under the Bermuda Companies Act. The Bermuda Companies Act differs in some material respects from laws generally applicable to United States companies and their stockholders. However, a general permission issued by the Bermuda Monetary Authority, or BMA, results in the Company’s common shares being freely transferable among persons who are residents and non-residents of Bermuda. Each shareholder, whether a resident or non-resident of Bermuda, is entitled to one vote for each share of stock held by the shareholder.

Although the Company is incorporated in Bermuda, the Company is classified as a non-resident of Bermuda for exchange control purposes by the BMA. Other than transferring Bermuda Dollars out of Bermuda, there are no restrictions on its ability to transfer funds into and out of Bermuda or to pay dividends in currency other than Bermuda Dollars to U.S. residents (or other non-residents of Bermuda) who are holders of its common shares.

In accordance with Bermuda law, share certificates may be issued only in the names of corporations, individuals or legal persons. In the case of an applicant acting in a special capacity (for example, as an executor or trustee), certificates may, at the request of the applicant, record the capacity in which the applicant is acting. Notwithstanding the recording of any such special capacity, the Company is not bound to investigate or incur any responsibility in respect of the proper administration of any such estate or trust.

The Company will take no notice of any trust applicable to any of its shares or other securities whether or not the Company had notice of such trust.

INDUSTRY AND MARKET CONDITIONS

Market Overview

Ocean going vessels represent the most efficient and often the only means of transporting large volumes of dry cargo over long distances. Dry bulk cargo includes both major and minor commodities such as coal, iron ore, grain, bauxite, cement clinker, and limestone. Dry bulk trade is influenced by the underlying demand for the dry bulk commodities which in turn is influenced by the level of global economic activity.

The world’s fleet of vessels dedicated to carrying dry bulk cargoes is traditionally divided into six major categories, based on a vessel’s cargo carrying capacity. These categories are: Handysize, Supramax, Ultramax, Panamax, Capesize and Very Large Ore Carrier. Certain routes and geographies are less accessible to certain vessel sizes. For example, Panamax and Supramax vessels are the main dry bulk vessel types deployed in the Baltic due to draft restrictions.

Dry bulk vessels are employed through a number of different chartering options. The most common are time charters, spot charters, and voyage charters. Historically, charter rates have been volatile as they are driven by the underlying balance between vessel supply and demand. Ice class vessels, when operating in ice-bound areas, usually command a rate premium to conventional trades.

Dry Bulk Shipping — the Main Participants

In the dry bulk shipping industry there are multiple functions, with individual parties carrying out one or more of such functions. In general, the principal functions within dry bulk shipping are as follows:

•Ship Owner or Registered Owner — Generally, this is an entity retaining the legal title of ownership over a vessel.

•Ship Operator — Generally, this is an entity seeking to generate profit either through the chartering of ships (owned or chartered-in) to others, or from the transportation of cargoes. Entities focusing on the transportation of cargoes may engage in chartering of ships to other entities, but those companies focusing on chartering ships to other entities rarely act to carry cargoes for customers.

•Shipmanager/Commercial Manager — This is an entity designated to be responsible for the day to day commercial management of the ship and the best contact for the ship regarding commercial matters, including post fixture responsibilities, such as laytime, demurrage, insurance and charter clauses. These companies undertake the activities of ship operators but, unlike a ship operator, they do not own or charter-in the vessels at their own risk.

26

•Technical Manager — This is an entity specifically responsible for the technical operation and technical superintendence of a ship. This company may also be responsible for hiring, training and supervising ship officers and crew, and for all aspects of the day to day operation of the fleet, including repair work, spare parts inventory, re-engineering, surveys and dry-docking.

•Cargo Owner — This is normally a producer (e.g., a miner), consumer (e.g., a steel mill) or trading house who requires transportation of cargo by a cargo focused ship operator.

The Company participates in each of these capacities with the exception of cargo owner, although at rare opportunistic times the Company may purchase cargo for resale after completion of a voyage.

The Freight Market

Dry bulk vessels are employed in the market through a number of different chartering options. The general terms typically found in these types of contracts are described below.

•Time Charter. A charter under which the vessel owner or operator is paid charterhire on a per-day basis for a specified period of time. Typically, the shipowner receives semi-monthly charterhire payments on a U.S. dollar-per-day basis and is responsible for providing the crew and paying vessel operating expenses, while the charterer is responsible for paying the voyage expenses and additional voyage insurance. The ship owner is also responsible for the vessel’s intermediate and special survey (heavy mandatory maintenance) costs. Under time charters, including trip charters, the charterer pays all voyage expenses including port, canal and bunker (fuel) costs.

•Trip Charter. A time charter for a trip to carry a specific cargo from a load port to a discharge port at a set daily rate.

•Voyage Charter. A charter to carry a specific amount and type of cargo on a load-port to discharge-port basis, subject to various cargo handling terms. Most of these charters are of a single voyage nature, as trading patterns do not encourage round trip voyage trading. The ship operator receives payment based on a price per ton of cargo loaded on board the vessel. The ship operator is responsible for the payment of all voyage expenses, as well as the costs of owning or hiring the vessel.

•Contract of Affreightment. A contract of affreightment, or COA, relates to the carriage of multiple cargoes over the same route and enables the service provider to nominate different vessels to perform the individual voyages. Essentially, it constitutes a series of voyage charters to carry a specified amount of cargo during the term of the COA, which usually spans a number of months or years. Freight normally is agreed on a U.S. dollar-per-ton carried basis with bunker cost escalation or de-escalation adjustments.

•Bareboat Charter. A bareboat charter involves the use of a vessel, usually over longer periods of time (several years). In this case, all voyage expenses and vessel operating expenses, including maintenance, crewing and insurance, are paid for by the charterer. The owner of the vessel receives monthly charterhire payments on a U.S. dollar per day basis and is responsible only for the payment of capital costs related to the vessel. A bareboat charter is also known as a “demise charter” or a “time charter by demise.”

The Company primarily employs its vessels under voyage charters together with COAs and time charters.

Rates

In the time charter (period) market, rates vary depending on the length of the charter period and vessel specific factors such as age, speed, size and fuel consumption. In the voyage charter market, rates are influenced by cargo size, commodity, port dues, bunker prices, and canal transit fees, as well as delivery and redelivery regions. In general, a larger cargo size is quoted at a lower rate per ton than a smaller cargo size. Routes with costly ports or canals generally command higher rates. Voyages loading from a port where vessels usually discharge cargo, or discharging at a port where vessels usually load cargo, are generally quoted at lower rates. These voyages are known as “backhaul” voyages.

In some cases, charters will include an additional payment known as a ballast bonus. A ballast bonus is a lump sum payment made to a shipowner or operator (by the charterer) as compensation for delivering a ship in a particular loading region of the world. For a ship to enter a loading region, an empty (ballast) leg may be required because there are no inbound cargoes. The ballast bonus should reflect the cost of the empty ballast in terms of time and fuel. A typical fixture that involves a ballast bonus might be expressed as “freight hire of $10,000 per day, plus a ballast bonus of $100,000 lump sum”.

27

Within the dry bulk shipping industry, the freight rate indices issued by the Baltic Exchange in London are the references most likely to be monitored. These references are based on actual charter hire rates under charters entered into by market participants as well as daily assessments provided to the Baltic Exchange by a panel of major shipbrokers. The Baltic Exchange, an independent organization comprised of shipbrokers, shipping companies and other shipping players, provides daily independent shipping market information and has created freight rate indices reflecting the average freight rates for the major bulk vessel trading routes. The Baltic Dry Index, or BDI, is a composite of the Capesize, Panamax and Supramax timecharter averages. It is considered a proxy for dry bulk shipping stocks as well as a general shipping market bellwether.

Dry Bulk Trades Requiring Ice Class Tonnage

Ice class vessels are required to serve ports accessed by routes crossing seasonal or year-round ice-covered oceans, lakes, seas or rivers. Ice class vessels are mainly deployed in the Baltic Sea, the Northern Sea Route (NSR) and the Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Seaway. These regions have experienced strong trade growth in dry bulk cargoes, driven in particular by increased mining activities supported by strong commodity demand in Asia, decreased level of ice, and technology advancement in shipping. The Company's ice class vessels also serve a long-term customers requirement in the Canadian Arctic.

TAXATION

U.S. Taxation

The following discussion is based upon the provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, existing and proposed U.S. Treasury Department regulations, or the Treasury Regulations, administrative rulings and pronouncements and judicial decisions, all as of the date of this annual report. Unless otherwise noted, references to the “Company” include the Company’s Subsidiaries. This discussion assumes that we do not have an office or other fixed place of business in the United States.

Taxation of the Company’s Shipping Income: In General

The Company anticipates that it will derive a significant portion of its gross income from the use and operation of vessels in international commerce and that this income will principally consist of freights from the transportation of cargoes, hire or lease from time or voyage charters and the performance of services directly related thereto, which the Company refers to as “shipping income”. Shipping income that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States will be considered to be 50% derived from sources within the United States. Shipping income attributable to transportation that both begins and ends in the United States will be considered to be 100% derived from sources within the United States. The Company is not permitted by law to engage in transportation that gives rise to 100% U.S. source income.

Shipping income attributable to transportation exclusively between non-U.S. ports will be considered to be 100% derived from sources outside the United States. Shipping income derived from sources outside the United States will not be subject to U.S. federal income tax.

Based upon the Company’s anticipated shipping operations, the Company’s vessels will operate in various parts of the world, including to or from U.S. ports. Unless exempt from U.S. federal income taxation under Section 883 of the Code, the Company will be subject to U.S. federal income taxation, in the manner discussed below, to the extent its shipping income is considered derived from sources within the United States.

Application of Section 883 of the Code

Under the relevant provisions of Section 883 of the Code, or Section 883, the Company will be exempt from U.S. federal income taxation on its U.S. source shipping income if:

(i) It is organized in a “qualified foreign country,” which is one that grants an equivalent exemption from tax to corporations organized in the United States in respect of the shipping income for which exemption is being claimed under Section 883, and which the Company refers to as the Country of Organization Requirement; and

(ii) It can satisfy any one of the following two stock ownership requirements for more than half the days during the taxable year:

•the Company’s stock is “primarily and regularly traded on an established securities market” located in the United States or a “qualified foreign country,” which the Company refers to as the Publicly-Traded Test; or

28

•more than 50% of the Company’s stock, in terms of value, is beneficially owned by any combination of one or more individuals who are residents of a “qualified foreign country” or foreign corporations that satisfy the Country of Organization Requirement and the Publicly-Traded Test, which the Company refers to as the 50% Ownership Test.

The U.S. Treasury Department has recognized Bermuda, the country of incorporation of the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, as a “qualified foreign country”. In addition, the U.S. Treasury Department has recognized Denmark, Canada, Greece, the Marshall Islands, Singapore, British Virgin Islands and Cyprus, the countries of incorporation of certain of the Company’s vessel-owning subsidiaries, as “qualified foreign countries”. Accordingly, the Company and its vessel-owning subsidiaries satisfy the Country of Organization Requirement. Therefore, the Company’s eligibility to qualify for exemption under Section 883 is wholly dependent upon being able to satisfy one of the stock ownership requirements.

As discussed below, for the 2025 taxable year we believe the Company satisfied the Publicly-Traded Test, since on more than half the days in the taxable year we believe the Company’s common shares were primarily and regularly traded on Nasdaq, an established securities market in the United States.

As to the Publicly-Traded Test, the Treasury Regulations under Section 883 provide, in pertinent part, that stock of a foreign corporation will be considered to be “primarily traded” on an established securities market in a country if the number of shares of each class of stock that is traded during any taxable year on all established securities markets in that country exceeds the number of shares in each such class that is traded during that year on established securities markets in any other single country.

The Publicly-Traded Test also requires our common shares be “regularly traded” on an established securities market. Under the Treasury Regulations, our common shares are considered to be “regularly traded” on an established securities market if shares representing more than 50% of our outstanding common shares, by both total combined voting power of all classes of stock entitled to vote and total value, are listed on the market, referred to as the “listing threshold”. The Treasury Regulations further require that with respect to each class of stock relied upon to meet the listing threshold (i) such class of stock is traded on the market, other than in minimal quantities, on at least 60 days during the taxable year or 1/6 of the days in a short taxable year, which is referred to as the “trading frequency test”, and (ii) the aggregate number of shares of such class of stock traded on such market during the taxable year is at least 10% of the average number of shares of such class of stock outstanding during such year (as appropriately adjusted in the case of a short taxable year), which is referred to as the “trading volume test”. Even if we do not satisfy both the trading frequency and trading volume tests, the Treasury Regulations provide that the trading frequency and trading volume tests will be deemed satisfied if our common shares are traded on an established securities market in the United States and such stock is regularly quoted by dealers making a market in our common shares, such the Nasdaq Capital Market, on which our common shares are listed.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, our common shares will not be considered to be regularly traded on an established securities market for any taxable year in which 50% or more of the vote and value of the outstanding common shares are owned, actually or constructively under certain stock attribution rules, on more than half the days during the taxable year by persons who each own 5% or more of the value of our common shares, which we refer to as the 5 Percent Override Rule.

In order to determine the persons who actually or constructively own 5% or more of our common shares, or 5% Shareholders, we are permitted to rely on those persons that are identified on Schedule 13G and Schedule 13D filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission as having a 5% or more beneficial interest in our common shares. In addition, an investment company identified on a Schedule 13G or Schedule 13D filing which is registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended, will not be treated as a 5% Shareholder for such purposes.

For our 2025 taxable year, we do not believe that we were subject to the 5 Percent Override Rule and, therefore, we believe that we satisfied the Publicly-Traded Test. There are, however, factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause the Company to lose the benefit of the Section 883 exemption and thereby become subject to U.S. federal income tax on its U.S. source shipping income. There is, therefore, a risk that the Company could no longer qualify for exemption under Section 883 for a particular taxable year if 5% Shareholders were to own 50% or more of the outstanding common shares of the Company on more than half the days during the taxable year. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, there can be no assurances as to the tax-exempt status of the Company or any of its subsidiaries.

In the event the 5 Percent Override Rule is triggered, the 5 Percent Override Rule will nevertheless not apply if we can establish that among the closely-held group of 5% Shareholders, there are sufficient 5% Shareholders that are considered to be “qualified shareholders” for purposes of Section 883 to preclude non-qualified 5% Shareholders in the closely-held group from owning 50% or more of our common shares for more than half the number of days during the taxable year.

29

In any year that the 5 Percent Override Rule is triggered with respect to us, we are eligible for the exemption from tax under Section 883 only if we can nevertheless satisfy the Publicly-Traded Test (which requires, among other things, showing that the exception to the 5 Percent Override Rule applies) or if we can satisfy the 50% Ownership Test. In either case, certain substantiation and reporting requirements regarding the identity of our shareholders must be satisfied in order to qualify for the Section 883 exemption. These requirements are onerous and there is no assurance that we would be able to satisfy them.

Taxation in Absence of the Section 883 Exemption To the extent the benefits of Section 883 are unavailable with respect to any item of U.S. source income, the Company’s U.S. source shipping income, to the extent not considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, as described below, would be subject to a 4% tax imposed by Section 887 of the Code on a gross basis, without the benefit of deductions, which we refer to as the “4% gross basis tax regime”. Since, under the sourcing rules described above, no more than 50% of the Company’s shipping income would be treated as being derived from U.S. sources, the maximum effective rate of U.S. federal income tax on the Company’s shipping income, to the extent not considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, would never exceed 2% under the 4% gross basis tax regime.

To the extent the benefits of the Section 883 exemption are unavailable and our U.S. source shipping income is considered to be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business, as described below, any such “effectively connected” U.S. source shipping income, net of applicable deductions, would be subject to the U.S. federal corporate income tax imposed at rate of 21%. In addition, we may be subject to the 30% “branch profits” tax on earnings “effectively connected” with the conduct of such U.S. trade or business, as determined after allowance for certain adjustments, and on certain interest paid or deemed paid attributable to the conduct of such U.S. trade or business. Our U.S. source shipping income would be considered “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business only if:

•we have, or are considered to have, a fixed place of business in the United States involved in the earning of U.S. source shipping income; and

•substantially all of our U.S. source shipping income were attributable to regularly scheduled transportation, such as the operation of a vessel that followed a published schedule with repeated sailings at regular intervals between the same points for voyages that begin or end in the United States, or, in the case of income from the chartering of a vessel, were attributable to a fixed place of business in the United States.

We do not have, nor will we permit circumstances that would result in having, any vessel sailing to or from the United States on a regularly scheduled basis. Based on the foregoing and on the expected mode of our shipping operations and other activities, we believe that none of our U.S. source shipping income is or will be “effectively connected” with the conduct of a U.S. trade or business.

Gain on Sale of Vessels

Regardless of whether we qualify for exemption under Section 883, we will not be subject to U.S. federal income taxation with respect to gain realized on a sale of a vessel, provided the sale is considered to occur outside of the United States under U.S. federal income tax principles. In general, a sale of a vessel will be considered to occur outside of the United States for this purpose if title to the vessel, and risk of loss with respect to the vessel, pass to the buyer outside of the United States. It is expected that any sale of a vessel by us will be considered to occur outside of the United States.

Taxation of U.S. Holders

The following is a discussion of the material U.S. federal income tax considerations relevant to an investment decision by a U.S. Holder, as defined below, with respect to our common shares. This discussion does not purport to deal with the tax consequences of owning our common shares to all categories of investors, some of which may be subject to special rules. You are encouraged to consult your own tax advisors concerning the overall tax consequences arising in your own particular situation under U.S. federal, state, local or foreign law of the ownership of our common shares.

As used herein, the term U.S. Holder means a beneficial owner of our common shares that (i) is a U.S. citizen or resident, a U.S. corporation or other U.S. entity taxable as a corporation, an estate, the income of which is subject to U.S. federal income taxation regardless of its source, or a trust if (a) a court within the United States is able to exercise primary jurisdiction over the administration of the trust and one or more U.S. persons have the authority to control all substantial decisions of the trust or (b) the trust has in effect a valid election to be treated as a United States person for U.S. federal income tax purposes, (ii) owns our common shares as a capital asset, generally, for investment purposes, and (iii) owns less than 10% of our common shares for U.S. federal income tax purposes.

30

If a partnership holds our common shares, the tax treatment of a partner will generally depend upon the status of the partner and upon the activities of the partnership. If you are a partner in a partnership holding our common shares, you are encouraged to consult your own tax advisor regarding this issue.

Distributions

Subject to the discussion below of passive foreign investment companies, or PFICs, any distributions made by us with respect to our common shares to a U.S. Holder will generally constitute dividends, which may be taxable as ordinary income or “qualified dividend income” as described in more detail below, to the extent of our current or accumulated earnings and profits, as determined under U.S. federal income tax principles. Distributions in excess of our earnings and profits will be treated first as a nontaxable return of capital to the extent of the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in his common shares on a dollar-for-dollar basis and thereafter as capital gain. Because we are not a U.S. corporation, U.S. Holders that are corporations will generally not be entitled to claim a dividends-received deduction with respect to any distributions they receive from us.

Dividends paid on our common shares to a U.S. Holder who is an individual, trust or estate, which we refer to as a U.S. Individual Holder, will generally be treated as “qualified dividend income” that is taxable to such U.S. Individual Holders at preferential tax rates provided that (1) the common shares are readily tradable on an established securities market in the United States (such as the Nasdaq Capital Market, on which our common shares are listed); (2) we are not a PFIC for the taxable year during which the dividend is paid or the immediately preceding taxable year (see discussion below); and (3) the U.S. Individual Holder has owned the common shares for more than 60 days in the 121-day period beginning 60 days before the date on which the common shares become ex-dividend.

There is no assurance that any dividends paid on our common shares will be eligible for these preferential rates in the hands of a U.S. Individual Holder. Any dividends paid by the Company which are not eligible for these preferential rates will be taxed as ordinary income to a U.S. Individual Holder.

Sale, Exchange or other Disposition of Common Shares

Assuming we do not constitute a PFIC for any taxable year, a U.S. Holder generally will recognize taxable gain or loss upon a sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares in an amount equal to the difference between the amount realized by the U.S. Holder from such sale, exchange or other disposition and the U.S. Holder’s tax basis in such common shares. Such gain or loss will be treated as long-term capital gain or loss if the U.S. Holder’s holding period in the common shares is greater than one year at the time of the sale, exchange or other disposition. Otherwise, it will be treated as short-term capital gain or loss. A U.S. Holder’s ability to deduct capital losses is subject to certain limitations.

Passive Foreign Investment Company Status and Significant Tax Consequences

Special U.S. federal income tax rules apply to a U.S. Holder that holds stock in a foreign corporation classified as a PFIC for U.S. federal income tax purposes. In general, we will be treated as a PFIC with respect to a U.S. Holder if, for any taxable year in which such holder held our common shares, either at least 75% of our gross income for such taxable year consists of “passive income” (e.g., dividends, interest, capital gains and rents derived other than in the active conduct of a rental business), or at least 50% of the average value of the assets held by the corporation during such taxable year produce, or are held for the production of, “passive income”. For purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, we will be treated as earning and owning our proportionate share of the income and assets, respectively, of any of our subsidiary corporations in which we own at least 25% of the value of the subsidiary’s stock. Income earned, or deemed earned, by us in connection with the performance of services would not constitute passive income. By contrast, rental income would generally constitute “passive income” unless we were treated under specific rules as deriving our rental income in the active conduct of a trade or business.

31

Although there is no legal authority directly on point, we believe that, for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC, the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from the time chartering activities of our wholly-owned subsidiaries more likely than not constitutes services income, rather than rental income. Correspondingly, we believe that such income does not constitute “passive income”, and the assets that we or our wholly-owned subsidiaries own and operate in connection with the production of such income, in particular, the vessels, do not constitute passive assets for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. We believe there is substantial legal authority supporting our position consisting of case law and Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. This position is principally based upon the positions that our time charter income will constitute services income, rather than rental income for other tax purposes. Based on our current and anticipated chartering activities, we do not believe that we will be treated as a PFIC for the current or future taxable years, although no assurance can be given in this regard. We intend to take the position that we were not treated as a PFIC for our 2025 taxable year.

We note that there is no direct legal authority under the PFIC rules addressing our current and proposed method of operation. In addition, although we intend to conduct our affairs in a manner to avoid being classified as a PFIC with respect to any taxable year, we cannot assure you that the nature of our operations will not change in the future. Accordingly, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept our position, and there is a significant risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC.

As discussed more fully below, if we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year, a U.S. Holder would be subject to different taxation rules depending on whether the U.S. Holder makes an election to treat us as a “Qualified Electing Fund”, which election we refer to as a QEF Election. As an alternative to making a QEF election, a U.S. Holder should be able to make a “mark-to-market” election with respect to our common shares, as discussed below, and which election we refer to as a Mark-to-Market Election.

Taxation of U.S. Holders Making a Timely QEF Election

If we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year and a U.S. Holder makes a timely QEF Election, which U.S. Holder we refer to as an Electing Holder, the Electing Holder must report each year for U.S. federal income tax purposes its pro rata share of our ordinary earnings and our net capital gain, if any, for our taxable year that ends with or within the taxable year of the Electing Holder, regardless of whether or not distributions were received from us by the Electing Holder. The Electing Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the common shares will be increased to reflect taxed but undistributed earnings and profits. Distributions of earnings and profits that had been previously taxed will result in a corresponding reduction in the adjusted tax basis in the common shares and will not be taxed again once distributed. A U.S. Holder would make a QEF Election with respect to any taxable year that we are a PFIC by filing one copy of IRS Form 8621 with its U.S. federal income tax return. To make a QEF Election, a U.S. Holder must receive annually certain tax information from us. There can be no assurances that we will be able to provide such information annually. An Electing Holder would generally recognize capital gain or loss on the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares.

Taxation of U.S. Holders Making a Mark-to-Market Election

Alternatively, if we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year and, as we anticipate, our common shares are treated as “marketable stock”, a U.S. Holder would be permitted to make a Mark-to-Market Election with respect to our common shares, provided the U.S. Holder completes and files IRS Form 8621 in accordance with the relevant instructions and related Treasury Regulations. If that election is made, the U.S. Holder generally would include as ordinary income in each taxable year the excess, if any, of the fair market value of the common shares at the end of the taxable year over such holder’s adjusted tax basis in the common shares. The U.S. Holder would also be permitted an ordinary loss in respect of the excess, if any, of the U.S. Holder’s adjusted tax basis in the common shares over its fair market value at the end of the taxable year, but only to the extent of the net amount previously included in income as a result of the Mark-to-Market Election. A U.S. Holder’s tax basis in its common shares would be adjusted to reflect any such income or loss amount. Gain realized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares would be treated as ordinary income, and any loss realized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of the common shares would be treated as ordinary loss to the extent that such loss does not exceed the net mark-to-market gains previously included in income by the U.S. Holder.

Taxation of U.S. Holders Not Making a Timely QEF or Mark-to-Market Election

32

Finally, if we were to be treated as a PFIC for any taxable year, a U.S. Holder who does not make either a QEF Election or a Mark-to-Market Election for that year, whom we refer to as a Non-Electing Holder, would be subject to special rules with respect to (1) any excess distribution (i.e., the portion of any distributions received by the Non-Electing Holder on our common shares in a taxable year in excess of 125% of the average annual distributions received by the Non-Electing Holder in the three preceding taxable years, or, if shorter, the Non-Electing Holder’s holding period for the common shares), and (2) any gain realized on the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares. Under these special rules:

•the excess distribution or gain would be allocated ratably over the Non-Electing Holders’ aggregate holding period for the common shares;

•the amount allocated to the current taxable year and any taxable years before the Company became a PFIC would be taxed as ordinary income; and

•the amount allocated to each of the other taxable years would be subject to tax at the highest rate of tax in effect for the applicable class of taxpayer for that year, and an interest charge for the deemed deferral benefit would be imposed with respect to the resulting tax attributable to each such other taxable year.

These penalties would not apply to a pension or profit-sharing trust or other tax-exempt organization that did not borrow funds or otherwise utilize leverage in connection with its acquisition of our common shares. If we were a PFIC, and a Non-Electing Holder who is an individual died while owning our common shares, such holder’s successor generally would not receive a step-up in tax basis with respect to such common shares.

Taxation of Non-U.S. Holders

A beneficial owner of common shares (other than a partnership) that is not a U.S. Holder is referred to herein as a Non-U.S. Holder.

Dividends on Common Shares

Non-U.S. Holders generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax on dividends received from us with respect to our common shares, unless that dividend is effectively connected with the Non-U.S. Holder’s conduct of a trade or business in the United States. If the Non-U.S. Holder is entitled to the benefits of a U.S. income tax treaty with respect to those dividends, that income is taxable, or taxable at the full rate, only if it is attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the Non-U.S. Holder in the United States.

Sale, Exchange or Other Disposition of Common Shares

Non-U.S. Holders generally will not be subject to U.S. federal income or withholding tax on any gain realized upon the sale, exchange or other disposition of our common shares, unless:

•the gain is effectively connected with the Non-U.S. Holder’s conduct of a trade or business in the United States (and, if the Non-U.S. Holder is entitled to the benefits of an income tax treaty with respect to that gain, that gain is attributable to a permanent establishment maintained by the Non-U.S. Holder in the United States); or

•the Non-U.S. Holder is an individual who is present in the United States for 183 days or more during the taxable year of disposition and other conditions are met.

If the Non-U.S. Holder is engaged in a U.S. trade or business for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the income from the common shares, including dividends and the gain from the sale, exchange or other disposition of the common shares, that is effectively connected with the conduct of that trade or business will generally be subject to regular U.S. federal income tax in the same manner as discussed in the previous section relating to the taxation of U.S. Holders. In addition, if you are a corporate Non-U.S. Holder, your earnings and profits that are attributable to the effectively connected income, subject to certain adjustments, may be subject to an additional branch profits tax at a rate of 30%, or at a lower rate as may be specified by an applicable income tax treaty.

Backup Withholding and Information Reporting

33

In general, dividend payments, or other taxable distributions, made within the United States to you will be subject to information reporting requirements. Such payments will also be subject to “backup withholding” if you are a non-corporate U.S. Holder and you:

•fail to provide an accurate taxpayer identification number;

•are notified by the IRS that you have failed to report all interest or dividends required to be shown on your

U.S. federal income tax returns; or

•in certain circumstances, fail to comply with applicable certification requirements.

•Non-U.S. Holders may be required to establish their exemption from information reporting and backup

withholding by certifying their status on an applicable IRS Form W-8.

If you are a Non-U.S. Holder and you sell your common shares to or through a U.S. office of a broker, the payment of the proceeds is subject to both U.S. backup withholding and information reporting unless you certify that you are a non-U.S. person, under penalties of perjury, or otherwise establish an exemption. If you sell your common shares through a non-U.S. office of a non-U.S. broker and the sales proceeds are paid to you outside the United States, then information reporting and backup withholding generally will not apply to that payment. However, U.S. information reporting, but not backup withholding, will apply to a payment of sales proceeds, including a payment made to you outside the United States, if you sell your common shares through a non-U.S. office of a broker that is a U.S. person or has some other contacts with the United States. Such information reporting requirements will not apply, however, if the broker has documentary evidence that you are a non-U.S. person and certain other conditions are met, or you otherwise establish an exemption.

Backup withholding is not an additional tax. Rather, you generally may obtain a refund of any amounts withheld under backup withholding rules that exceed your income tax liability by filing a refund claim with the IRS.

Other U.S. Information Reporting Obligations

Individuals who are U.S. Holders (and to the extent specified in applicable Treasury regulations, certain individuals who are Non-U.S. Holders and certain U.S. entities) who hold “specified foreign financial assets” (as defined in Section 6038D of the Code) are required to file IRS Form 8938 with information relating to the asset for each taxable year in which the aggregate value of all such assets exceeds $75,000 at any time during the taxable year or $50,000 on the last day of the taxable year (or such higher dollar amount as prescribed by applicable Treasury regulations). Specified foreign financial assets would include, among other assets, our common shares, unless the shares are held through an account maintained with a U.S. financial institution. Substantial penalties apply to any failure to timely file IRS Form 8938, unless the failure is shown to be due to reasonable cause and not due to willful neglect. Additionally, in the event an individual U.S. Holder (and to the extent specified in applicable Treasury regulations, an individual Non-U.S. Holder or a U.S. entity) that is required to file IRS Form 8938 does not file such form, the statute of limitations on the assessment and collection of U.S. federal income taxes of such holder for the related tax year may not close until three years after the date that the required information is filed. U.S. Holders (including U.S. entities) and Non-U.S. Holders are encouraged to consult their own tax advisors regarding their reporting obligations under this legislation.

Changes in Global Tax Laws

Long-standing international tax initiatives that determine each country’s jurisdiction to tax cross-border international trade and profits are evolving as a result of, among other things, initiatives such as the Anti-Tax Avoidance Directives, as well as the Base Erosion and Profit Shifting reporting requirements, mandated and/or recommended by the EU, G8, G20 and Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, including the imposition of a minimum global effective tax rate for multinational businesses regardless of the jurisdiction of operation and where profits are generated (Pillar Two). As these and other tax laws and related regulations change (including changes in the interpretation, approach and guidance of tax authorities), our financial results could be materially impacted. Given the unpredictability of these possible changes and their potential interdependency, it is difficult to assess whether the overall effect of such potential tax changes would be cumulatively positive or negative for our earnings and cash flow, but such changes could adversely affect our financial results.

On December 12, 2022, the European Union member states agreed to implement the OECD’s Pillar Two global corporate minimum tax rate of 15% on companies with revenues of at least €750 million effective from 2024. Various countries have either adopted implementing legislation or are in the process of drafting such legislation. Any new tax law in a jurisdiction where we conduct business or pay tax could have a negative effect on our company.