GASS StealthGas Inc

Part I

StealthGas Inc. is a Marshall Islands company that is referred to in this Annual Report on Form 20-F, together with its subsidiaries, as “StealthGas,” the “Company,” “we,” “us,” or “our.” This Annual Report should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements and the accompanying notes thereto, which are included in Item 18 to this Annual Report.

We use the term cubic meters, or “cbm,” in describing the size of our liquefied petroleum gas (“LPG”) carriers and the term deadweight tons, or “dwt,” in describing the size of our product carriers and crude oil tanker. We use the term “small” to describe LPG carriers of between 3,000 and 8,000 cbm in capacity. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to currency amounts in this annual report are in U.S. dollars.

Our audited consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive loss, stockholder’s equity and cash flows for the years ended December 31, 2016, 2017, and 2018 and the audited consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2017 and 2018, together with the notes thereto, are included in “Item 18. Financial Statements” and should be read in their entirety. The selected consolidated income statement data for the years ended December 31, 2014 and 2015 and the selected balance sheet data as of December 31, 2014, 2015 and 2016 have been derived from our audited consolidated financial statements which are not included in “Item 18. Financial Statements”.

3

4

5

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not applicable

C. Reasons For the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not Applicable.

D. Risk Factors

Risks Related To Our Industry

The cyclical nature of the demand for LPG transportation may lead to significant changes in our chartering and vessel utilization, which may adversely affect our revenues, profitability and financial position.

Historically, the international LPG carrier market has been cyclical with attendant volatility in profitability, charter rates and vessel values. The degree of charter rate volatility among different types of gas carriers has varied widely. Because many factors influencing the supply of and demand for vessel capacity are unpredictable, the timing, direction and degree of changes in the international gas carrier market are also not predictable. Charter rates for small LPG carriers have generally improved from the second half of 2017 through early 2019. If charter rates do not continue to improve or again decline significantly, as they did beginning in late 2014 to the first half of 2017 largely as a result of low oil prices, our earnings may decrease, particularly with respect to our vessels deployed in the spot market, or those vessels whose charters will be subject to renewal during 2019, as they may not be extended or renewed on favorable terms when compared to the terms of the expiring charters. As of April 1, 2019, of our 44 operating LPG carriers, including two vessels that are chartered in and four vessels in which we own a 50.1% equity interest pursuant to a joint venture agreement with a financial investor (the “JV Vessels”), 7 were deployed in the spot market while another 20 were scheduled to complete their existing charters (bareboat and time charters) during 2019. Any of the foregoing factors could have an adverse effect on our revenues, profitability, liquidity, cash flow and financial position.

Future growth in the demand for LPG carriers and charter rates, including for the vessel size segments comprising our fleet, will depend on economic growth in the world economy and demand for LPG product transportation that exceeds the capacity of the growing worldwide LPG carrier fleet’s ability to match it. We believe that the future growth in demand for LPG carriers and the charter rate levels for LPG carriers will depend primarily upon the supply and demand for LPG, particularly in the economies of China, Japan, India and Southeast Asia, as well as U.S. shale production, and upon seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet. The capacity of the world shipping fleet appears likely to increase in the near term, although growth in the 3,000 to 8,000 cbm segment of small LPG carriers is expected to be limited in the period 2019-2020. Oil prices may remain relatively low and economic growth may be limited in the near term, and possibly for an extended period, which could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The factors affecting the supply and demand for LPG carriers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

The factors that influence demand for our vessels include:

6

The factors that influence the supply of vessel capacity include:

A significant decline in demand for the seaborne transport of LPG or a significant increase in the supply of LPG carrier capacity without a corresponding growth in LPG carrier demand could cause a significant decline in prevailing charter rates, which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and operating results and cash flow.

Various economic and political factors, including increased trade protectionism and tariffs, could materially adversely affect our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects.

Our business and operating results have been, and will continue to be, affected by global and regional economic conditions. The recovery of the global economy from the severe decline in prior years remains subject to downside risks. More specifically, some LPG products we carry are used in cyclical businesses, such as the manufacturing of plastics and in the chemical industry, and, accordingly, weakness and reduction in demand in those industries could adversely affect the LPG carrier industry. In particular, an adverse change in economic conditions affecting China, Japan, India or Southeast Asia generally could have a negative effect on the demand for LPG products, thereby adversely affecting our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects. In recent years China and India have been among the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product, and any economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region particularly in China or India may adversely affect LPG demand and our results of operations. Moreover, any deterioration in the economy of the United States or the European Union, may further adversely affect economic growth in Asia. In addition, although to date, the continuing adverse economic conditions in Greece have not had an adverse effect on our or our managers’ operations, the slow recovery of, and any renewed deterioration in, the Greek economy and the continuation, albeit with reduced severity, of capital controls imposed by the Greek government in June 2015, may result in the imposition of new regulations that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Greek government new taxes or other fees. Our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, could likely be materially and adversely affected by adverse economic conditions in any of these countries or regions.

The imposition by the U.S., China or other governments of protectionist trade measures, including tariffs and other trade restrictions, the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union, the continuing war in Syria, renewed terrorist attacks around the world and the refugee crisis could also adversely affect global economic conditions and the world LPG, oil and petroleum markets and in turn the demand for seaborne transportation of these commodities. The tariffs imposed, and threatened, by the U.S. and China have led to concerns regarding a potentially protracted trade war that may continue to negatively affect LPG shipping markets in Asia, which were weak in the fourth quarter of 2018.

7

If the demand for LPG products and LPG shipping does not grow, or decreases, our business, results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our growth, which depends on growth in the supply and demand for LPG products and LPG shipping, was adversely affected by the sharp decrease in world trade and the global economy experienced in the latter part of 2008 and in 2009 and the decline in oil prices beginning in the third quarter of 2014. Although the global economy has recovered, economic conditions and oil prices remain below the levels reached before the economic downturn. World and regional demand for LPG products and LPG shipping can be adversely affected by a number of factors, such as:

Reduced demand for LPG products and LPG shipping would have an adverse effect on our future growth and would harm our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Our operating results are subject to seasonal fluctuations, which could affect our operating results and the amount of available cash with which we can pay dividends.

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter hire rates. This seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results. The LPG carrier market is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of propane and butane for heating during the winter months. Tanker markets are also typically stronger in the winter months as a result of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere, but weaker in the summer months as a result of lower oil consumption in the northern hemisphere and refinery maintenance. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. As a result, our revenues may be stronger in fiscal quarters ended December 31 and March 31, although the fourth quarter of 2018 did not exhibit this traditional strength as a result of a weak LPG shipping market in Asia, and conversely, our revenues may be weaker during the fiscal quarters ended June 30 and September 30. This seasonality could materially affect our quarterly operating results.

Our revenues, operations and future growth could be adversely affected by a decrease in supply of liquefied natural gas, or natural gas.

In recent years, there has been a strong supply of natural gas and an increase in the construction of plants and projects involving natural gas, of which LPG is a byproduct. Several of these projects, however, have experienced delays in their completion for various reasons and thus the expected increase in the supply of LPG from these projects may be delayed significantly. The declines in the price of oil and natural gas, if renewed or if prices do not continue to recover, could exacerbate these dynamics. If the supply of natural gas decreases, we may see a concurrent reduction in the production of LPG, resulting in lesser demand and lower charter rates for our vessels, which could ultimately have a material adverse impact on our revenues, operations and future growth.

8

The product carrier and crude oil tanker shipping sectors are cyclical, which may lead to lower charter rates and lower vessel values.

The medium range type product carrier and crude oil tanker shipping sectors are cyclical with attendant volatility in charter rates and vessel values. One of our three product carriers is currently operating on a time charter scheduled to expire in May 2020 while the remaining two are under bareboat charter arrangements scheduled to expire in April 2019 and September 2020, respectively. The bareboat charter for our crude oil tanker is scheduled to expire in March 2020. If prevailing market conditions in these sectors, which have declined sharply since mid-2016, are depressed at such times as these charters expire or otherwise are terminated, we may not be able to renew or replace existing charters for these vessels at the same or similar rates. If we were required to enter into a charter when charter hire rates are low, our results of operations could be adversely affected.

An over-supply of ships may lead to a reduction in charter rates, vessel values and profitability.

The market supply of LPG carriers and tankers is affected by a number of factors, such as supply and demand for LPG, natural gas and other energy resources, including oil and petroleum products, supply and demand for seaborne transportation of such energy resources, and the current and expected purchase orders for newbuildings. If the capacity of new LPG carriers and tankers delivered exceeds the capacity of such vessel types being scrapped and converted to non-trading vessels, global fleet capacity will increase. If the supply of LPG carrier or tanker capacity, for the vessel class sizes comprising our fleet in particular, increases, and if the demand for the capacity of such vessel types decreases, or does not increase correspondingly, charter rates could materially decline. A reduction in charter rates and the value of our vessels may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

The market values of our vessels may remain at relatively low levels for a prolonged period and over time may fluctuate significantly. When the market values of our vessels are low, we may incur a loss on sale of a vessel or record an impairment charge, as we did in each of the last five fiscal years, which may adversely affect our earnings and possibly lead to defaults under our loan agreements.

The market value of our vessels may fluctuate significantly, and these experienced significant declines during the economic crisis. Small LPG carrier and tanker values are currently at relatively low levels despite some improvement since late 2017, and remain well below the highs reached in 2007 and 2008. The market values of our vessels are subject to potential significant fluctuations depending on a number of factors including:

In 2018, we recognized an impairment loss of $ 11.4  million relating to eleven of our vessels, five of which were sold and delivered to their new owners in 2018, and six of which were classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2018. In 2017, we recognized an impairment loss of $6.5 million relating to seven of our oldest vessels, four of which were sold in 2017. In 2016, we recognized an impairment loss of $5.7 million relating to

9

six of our oldest vessels. If we sell vessels at a time when vessel prices have fallen, the sale may be for less than the vessel’s carrying value in our financial statements, resulting in a loss and reduction in earnings. Furthermore, if vessel values experience significant declines, we may have to record an impairment adjustment in our financial statements, which would also result in a reduction in our profits. If the market value of our fleet declines, we may not be in compliance with certain provisions of our existing loan agreements and we may not be able to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing or, if reinstated, pay dividends. If we are unable to pledge additional collateral, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on our fleet. The loss of our vessels would mean we could not run our business.

Technological innovation could reduce our charter hire income and the value of our vessels.

The charter hire rates and the value and operational life of a vessel are determined by a number of factors including the vessel’s efficiency, operational flexibility and physical life. Efficiency includes speed, fuel economy and the ability to load and discharge cargo quickly. Flexibility includes the ability to enter harbors, utilize related docking facilities and pass through canals and straits. The length of a vessel’s physical life is related to its original design and construction, its maintenance and the impact of the stress of operations. If new LPG carriers or tankers are built that are more efficient or more flexible or have longer physical lives than our vessels, competition from these more technologically advanced vessels could adversely affect the amount of charter hire payments we receive for our vessels, and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. Consequently, our results of operations and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Changes in fuel, or bunker, prices may adversely affect profits.

While we do not bear the cost of fuel or bunkers under time and bareboat charters, fuel is a significant expense in our shipping operations when vessels are deployed under spot charters. Changes in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability. The price and supply of fuel is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including geopolitical developments, supply and demand for oil and gas, actions by the OPEC (“Organization Of Petroleum Exporting Countries”) and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Furthermore fuel, which became less expensive with the decline of the price of oil beginning in the third quarter of 2014, has increased in price to since 2017 with increasing oil prices, and may become significantly more expensive in the future, which may reduce our profitability. In addition, the pending entry into force on January 1, 2020 of the 0.5% global sulphur cap in marine fuels under the International Convention for Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”) Annex VI may lead to changes in the production quantities and prices of different grades of marine fuel by refineries and introduces an additional element of uncertainty in fuel markets, which could result in additional costs and adversely affect our cash flows, earnings and results from operations.

We are subject to regulation and liability under environmental laws that could require significant expenditures and affect our financial conditions and results of operations.

Our business and the operation of our vessels are materially affected by government regulation in the form of international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which the vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. These regulations include, but are not limited to the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, that establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills and applies to any discharges of oil from a vessel, including discharges of fuel oil (bunkers) and lubricants, the U.S. Clean Air Act, U.S. Clean Water Act and the U.S. Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002, and regulations of the International Maritime Organization, or the IMO, including the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1975, the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of 1973, and the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974. To comply with these and other regulations, including the new MARPOL Annex VI sulfur emission requirements instituting a global 0.5% (lowered from 3.5%) sulphur cap on marine fuels from January 1, 2020 and the IMO ballast water management (“BWM”) convention, which requires

10

vessels to install expensive ballast water treatment systems (“BWTS”), we may be required to incur additional costs to meet new maintenance and inspection requirements, develop contingency plans for potential spills, and obtain insurance coverage. Those laws and regulations are often revised, and we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with them, or the impact they may have on the resale prices or useful lives of our vessels. However, a failure to comply with applicable laws and regulations may result in administrative and civil penalties, criminal sanctions or the suspension or termination of our operations. Additional laws and regulations may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business and which could materially adversely affect our operations. We are also required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances with respect to our operations. These permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances may be issued or renewed with terms that could materially and adversely affect our operations.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention (“ISM Code”). The ISM Code requires ship owners and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive “Safety Management System” (“SMS”) that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. The failure of a ship owner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject the owner or charterer to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels, may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports or may result in breach of our bank covenants. Currently, each of the vessels in our fleet is ISM Code-certified. Because these certifications are critical to our business, we place a high priority on maintaining them. Nonetheless, there is the possibility that such certifications may not be renewed.

We currently maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability insurance coverage in the amount of $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. In addition, we carry hull and machinery and protection and indemnity insurance to cover the risks of fire and explosion. Under certain circumstances, fire and explosion could result in a catastrophic loss. We believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, but not all risks can be insured, and there is the possibility that any specific claim may not be paid, or that we will not always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates. If the damages from a catastrophic spill exceeded our insurance coverage, the effect on our business would be severe and could possibly result in our insolvency.

We believe that regulation of the shipping industry will continue to become more stringent and compliance with such new regulations will be more expensive for us and our competitors. Substantial violations of applicable requirements or a catastrophic release from one of our vessels could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Climate change and greenhouse gas restrictions may adversely impact our operations and markets.

Due to concern over the risks of climate change, a number of countries and the International Maritime Organization, or “IMO”, have adopted, or are considering the adoption of, regulatory frameworks to reduce greenhouse gas emission from ships. These regulatory measures may include adoption of cap and trade regimes, carbon taxes, increased efficiency standards and incentives or mandates for renewable energy. Emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping currently are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or the “Kyoto Protocol”, or any amendments or successor agreements, including the Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, which contemplates commitments from each nation party thereto to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit increases in global temperatures but did not include any restrictions or other measures specific to shipping emissions. However, restrictions on shipping emissions are likely to continue to be considered, and a new treaty may be adopted in the future that includes additional restrictions on shipping emissions to those already adopted under the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution from Ships, or the “MARPOL Convention”. Compliance with future changes in laws and regulations relating to climate change could increase the costs of operating and maintaining our ships and could require us to install new

11

emission controls, as well as acquire allowances, pay taxes related to our greenhouse gas emissions or administer and manage a greenhouse gas emissions program.

Adverse effects upon the oil and gas industry relating to climate change, including growing public concern about the environmental impact of climate change, may also have an effect on demand for our services. For example, increased regulation of greenhouse gases or other concerns relating to climate change may reduce the demand for oil, refined petroleum products, liquefied natural gas or liquefied petroleum gas in the future or create greater incentives for use of alternative energy sources. Any long-term material adverse effect on the oil and gas industry could have significant financial and operational adverse impacts on our business that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Our vessels are subject to periodic inspections by a classification society.

The hull and machinery of every commercial vessel must be classed by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that a vessel is safe and seaworthy in accordance with the applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the Safety of Life at Sea Convention. Our fleet is currently classed with Lloyds Register of Shipping, Nippon Kaiji Kyokai, or NKK, the American Bureau of Shipping, DNV and Bureau Veritas.

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys and special surveys. In lieu of a special survey, a vessel’s machinery may be on a continuous survey cycle, under which the machinery would be surveyed periodically over a five-year period. Our vessels are on special survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be dry docked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel. However, for vessels not exceeding 15 years that have means to facilitate underwater inspection in lieu of dry docking, the dry docking can be skipped and be conducted concurrently with the special survey.

If a vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey or special survey, the vessel will be unable to trade between ports and will be unemployable and we could be in violation of covenants in our loan agreements and insurance contracts or other financing arrangements. This would adversely impact our operations and revenues.

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

Crew members, suppliers of goods and services to a vessel, shippers of cargo and others may be entitled to a maritime lien against that vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of funds to have the arrest lifted.

In addition, in some jurisdictions, such as South Africa, under the “sister ship” theory of liability, a claimant may arrest both the vessel which is subject to the claimant’s maritime lien and any “associated” vessel, which is any vessel owned or controlled by the same owner. Claimants could try to assert “sister ship” liability against one vessel in our fleet for claims relating to another of our ships or, possibly, another vessel managed by Stealth Maritime, as was the case with the arrest of one of our vessels in August 2015.

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

A government could requisition for title or seize our vessels. Requisition for title occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and becomes the owner. Also, a government could requisition our vessels for hire. Requisition for hire occurs when a government takes control of a vessel and effectively becomes the charterer at dictated charter rates. Generally, requisitions occur during a period of war or emergency. Government requisition of one or more of our vessels would adversely impact our operations and revenues, thereby resulting in loss of revenues.

12

Risks involved with operating ocean-going vessels could affect our business and reputation, which would adversely affect our revenues and stock price.

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

Any of these circumstances or events could increase our costs or lower our revenues. The involvement of our vessels in a serious accident could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel operator and lead to a loss of business.

Our vessels may suffer damage and we may face unexpected repair costs, which could affect our cash flow and financial condition.

If our vessels suffer damages, they may need to be repaired at a shipyard facility. The costs of repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. We may have to pay repair costs that our insurance does not cover. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, would have an adverse effect on our cash flow and financial condition. We do not intend to carry business interruption insurance.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels could adversely affect our business.

Acts of piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea, the Indian Ocean and in the Gulf of Aden, off the coast of Somalia. Although the frequency of sea piracy worldwide leveled off somewhat in recent years, sea piracy incidents continue to occur, particularly in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia and in the Gulf of Guinea. If these piracy attacks occur in regions in which our vessels are deployed and are characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones, as the Gulf of Aden continues to be, or Joint War Committee (JWC) “war and strikes” listed areas, premiums payable for such coverage, for which we are responsible with respect to vessels employed on spot charters, but not vessels employed on bareboat or time charters, could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. In addition, crew costs, including employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. We usually employ armed guards on board the vessels on time and spot charters that transit areas where Somali pirates operate. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. In addition, detention hijacking as a result of an act of piracy against our vessels, or an increase in cost, or unavailability of insurance for our vessels, could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our operations outside the United States expose us to global risks, such as political conflict and terrorism that may interfere with the operation of our vessels.

We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside the United States. Changing economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we are engaged in business or where our

13

vessels are registered affect us. In the past, political conflicts, particularly in the Arabian Gulf, resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt shipping in the area. Acts of terrorism may increase with the continuing conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa, and therefore our vessels may face higher risks of being attacked. In addition, future hostilities or other political instability in regions where our vessels trade could affect our trade patterns and adversely affect our operations and performance. If certain shipping lanes were to close, such as Iran’s past threat to close the Straits of Hormuz, it could adversely affect the availability of, and the demand for crude oil and petroleum products, as well as LPG. This would negatively affect our business and our customers’ investment decisions over an extended period of time. In addition, sanctions against oil exporting countries such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela, and the events in Ukraine and related sanctions against Russia, may also impact the availability of crude oil, petroleum products and LPG and which would increase the availability of applicable vessels, thereby impacting negatively charter rates. In addition, any charters that we enter into with Chinese customers may be subject to new regulations in China that may require us to incur new or additional compliance or other administrative costs and may require that we pay to the Chinese government new taxes or other fees. Changes in laws and regulations, including with regards to tax matters, and their implementation by local authorities could affect our vessels chartered to Chinese customers, as well as our vessels calling to Chinese ports, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition.

Terrorist attacks, or the perception that LPG or natural gas facilities or oil refineries and LPG carriers, natural gas carriers or product carriers are potential terrorist targets, could materially and adversely affect the continued supply of LPG, natural gas and refined petroleum products to the United States and to other countries. Concern that LPG and natural gas facilities may be targeted for attack by terrorists has contributed to a significant community and environmental resistance to the construction of a number of natural gas facilities, primarily in North America. If a terrorist incident involving a gas facility or gas carrier did occur, the incident may adversely affect necessary LPG facilities or natural gas facilities currently in operation. Furthermore, future terrorist attacks could result in increased volatility of the financial markets in the United States and globally and could result in an economic recession in the United States or the world. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our operating results, revenues and costs.

Our vessels may call on ports located in countries that are subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. or other governments, which could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our common stock.

From time to time on charterers’ instructions, our vessels have called and may again call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the United States government and countries identified by the United States government as state sponsors of terrorism, such as Iran, Syria and North Korea. The U.S. sanctions and embargo laws and regulations vary in their application, as they do not all apply to the same covered persons or proscribe the same activities, and such sanctions and embargo laws and regulations may be amended or strengthened over time. On January 16, 2016, “Implementation Day” for the Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the United States lifted its nuclear-related secondary sanctions against Iran which prohibited certain conduct by non-U.S. companies and individuals that occurred entirely outside of U.S. jurisdiction involving specified industry sectors in Iran, including the energy, petrochemical, automotive, financial, banking, mining, shipbuilding and shipping sectors. By lifting the secondary sanctions against Iran, the U.S. government effectively removed U.S. imposed restraints on dealings by non-U.S. companies, such as our Company, and individuals with these formerly targeted Iranian business sectors. Non-U.S. companies continued to be prohibited under U.S. sanctions from (i) knowingly engaging in conduct that seeks to evade U.S. restrictions on transactions or dealings with Iran or that causes the export of goods or services from the United States to Iran, (ii) exporting, re-exporting or transferring to Iran any goods, technology, or services originally exported from the U.S. and / or subject to U.S. export jurisdiction and (iii) conducting transactions with of the Iranian or Iran-related individuals and entities that remain or are placed in the future on OFAC’s list of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List), notwithstanding the lifting of secondary sanctions. However, on August 6, 2018, the U.S. re-imposed an initial round of secondary sanctions and as of November 5, 2018, all of the secondary sanctions the U.S. had suspended under the JCPOA have been re-imposed.

14

The U.S. government’s primary Iran sanctions have remained largely unchanged, including during the period from the JCPOA Implementation Day to the re-imposition of secondary sanctions in 2018, and as a consequence, U.S. persons also continue to be broadly prohibited from engaging in transactions or dealings with the Government of Iran and Iranian financial institutions, which effectively impacts the transfer of funds to, from, or through the U.S. financial system whether denominated in US dollars or any other currency.

None of our vessels called in any ports in Cuba, North Korea, Syria or Iran in 2014 or 2015. In 2016, two of our vessels made a total of two port calls to Iran, representing less than 0.1% of the 2,412 total port calls made by all the vessels owned by us in 2016 and in 2017 six of our vessels made a total of 82 port calls to Iran which represents 2.67% of the 3,074 port calls made by all of our operating fleet within the stated year. In 2018, 4 of our vessels made a total of 12 port calls to Iran, all prior to November 5, 2018, representing 0.5% of the 2,653 port calls made by all of the vessels in our operating fleet in 2018. We believe all such port calls were made in full compliance with applicable economic sanctions laws and regulations, including those of the United States, the European Union and other relevant jurisdictions. See also “Item 4B: Business Overview—Disclosure of activities pursuant to Section 13(r) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934” for information on the port calls made to Iran. Our charter agreements include provisions that restrict trades of our vessels to countries targeted by economic sanctions unless such transportation activities involving sanctioned countries are permitted under applicable economic sanctions and embargo regimes. Our ordinary chartering policy is to seek to include similar provisions in all of our period charters. Prior to agreeing to waive existing charter party restrictions on carrying cargoes to or from ports that may implicate sanctions risks, we ensure that the charterers have proof of compliance with international and U.S. sanctions requirements, or applicable licenses or other exemptions.

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

Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and other anti-bribery legislation in other jurisdictions could result in fines, criminal penalties, contract terminations and an adverse effect on our business.

We may operate in a number of countries through the world, including countries known to have a reputation for corruption. We are committed to doing business in accordance with applicable anti-corruption laws and have adopted a code of business conduct and ethics which is consistent and in full compliance with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 (the “FCPA”). We are subject, however, to the risk that we, our affiliated entities or our or their respective officers, directors, employees and agents may take actions determined to be in violation of such anti-corruption laws, including the FCPA. Any such violation could result in substantial fines, sanctions, civil and/or criminal penalties, curtailment of operations in certain jurisdictions, and might adversely affect our business, results of operations or financial condition. In addition, actual or alleged violations could damage our reputation and ability to do business. Furthermore, detecting, investigating, and resolving actual or alleged violations is expensive and can consume significant time and attention of our senior management.

15

A cyber-attack could materially disrupt our business.

Our business operations could be targeted by individuals or groups seeking to sabotage or disrupt our information technology systems and networks, or to steal data. A successful cyber-attack could materially disrupt our operations, including the safety of our operations, or lead to unauthorized release of information or alteration of information on our systems. Any such attack or other breach of our information technology systems could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

Risks Related To Our Business

We are dependent on the ability and willingness of our charterers to honor their commitments to us for all our revenues.

We derive all our revenues from the payment of charter hire by charterers of our vessels. The ability and willingness of each of our counterparties to perform their obligations under charter agreements with us will depend on a number of factors that are beyond our control and may include, among other things, general economic conditions, the condition of the LPG carrier sector, or in the case of our product carriers the refined petroleum product carrier sector and in the case of our crude oil tanker the crude oil tanker sector, of the shipping industry and the overall financial condition of the counterparties. In addition, in depressed market conditions, charterers may seek to renegotiate their charters or may default on their obligations under charters and our charterers may fail to pay charter hire or attempt to renegotiate charter rates. Should a counterparty fail to honor its obligations under agreements with us, it may be difficult to secure substitute employment for such vessel, and any new charter arrangements we secure in the spot market or on bareboat or time charters could be at lower rates. If we lose a charter, we may be unable to re-deploy the related vessel on terms as favorable to us. We would not receive any revenues from such a vessel while it remained unchartered, but we may be required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition, insure it and service any indebtedness secured by such vessel. The failure by charterers to meet their obligations to us or an attempt by charterers to renegotiate our charter agreements could have a material adverse effect on our revenues, results of operations and financial condition.

We are exposed to the volatile spot market and charters at attractive rates may not be available when the charters for our vessels expire which would have an adverse impact on our revenues and financial condition.

As of April 1, 2019, of our 48 vessels, including two chartered in vessels and four vessels in which we own a 50.1% equity interest pursuant to a joint venture agreement, 41 were under period charters (bareboat charters and time charters), while 7 were deployed in the spot market. As of April 1, 2019, 68% of our anticipated fleet days were covered by period charter contracts for the remainder of 2019 and 28% for 2020, with period charters for 20 of our vessels scheduled to expire in 2019 and 11 of our period charters scheduled to expire in 2020.

We are exposed to fluctuations in the charter market for the remaining anticipated voyage days that are not covered by fixed-rate contracts, and to the extent the counterparties to our fixed-rate charter contracts fail to honor their obligations to us. The successful operation of our vessels in the competitive and highly volatile spot charter market depends on, among other things, obtaining profitable spot charters, which depends greatly on vessel supply and demand, and minimizing, to the extent possible, time spent waiting for charters and time spent traveling unloaded to pick up cargo. When the current charters for our fleet expire or are terminated, it may not be possible to re-charter these vessels at similar rates, or at all, or to secure charters for any additional LPG carrier acquisitions at similarly profitable rates, or at all. As a result, we may have to accept lower rates or experience off hire time for our vessels, which would adversely impact our revenues, results of operations and financial condition.

16

We depend upon a few significant customers for a large part of our revenues. The loss of one or more of these customers could adversely affect our financial performance.

In our operating history we have derived a significant part of our revenue from a small number of charterers. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2017 and 2018 we had no customers from which we derived more than 10% of our revenues. For the year ended December 31, 2018, our three largest customers accounted for 25% of our revenues. Overall, we anticipate a limited number of customers will continue to represent significant amounts of our revenue. If these customers cease doing business or do not fulfill their obligations under the charters for our vessels, our results of operations and cash flows could be adversely affected. Further, if we encounter any difficulties in our relationships with these charterers, our results of operations, cash flows and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Our loan agreements or other financing arrangements contain restrictive covenants that may limit our liquidity and corporate activities.

Our loan agreements impose, and our future financing arrangements may impose, operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability to:

Our loan agreements require us to maintain specified financial ratios, satisfy financial covenants and contain cross-default clauses.

They also require that our Chief Executive Officer, Harry Vafias, together with his immediate family, at all times own at least 10% of our outstanding capital stock and certain of our loan agreements provide that it would be an event of default if Harry Vafias ceased to serve as an executive officer or director of our company, Harry Vafias together with his immediate family, ceased to control our company or any other person or group controlled 25% or more of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. In addition, our loan agreements include restrictions on the payment of dividends in amounts exceeding 50% of our free cash flow in any rolling 12-month period. As of December 31, 2018, we were in compliance with the covenants in our loan agreements.

As a result of the restrictions in our loan agreements, or similar restrictions in our future financing arrangements with respect to future vessels which we have yet to identify, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. Our lenders’ interests may be different from ours, and we may not be able to obtain their permission when needed. This may prevent us from taking actions that we believe are in our best interest which may adversely impact our revenues, results of operations and financial condition.

A failure by us to meet our payment and other obligations, including our financial covenants and security coverage requirement, could lead to defaults under our secured loan agreements. Our lenders could then accelerate our indebtedness and foreclose on our fleet. The loss of our vessels would mean we could not run our business.

17

The market values of our vessels may decrease, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit and loan facilities, and could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

Our loan agreements, which are secured by liens on our vessels, contain various financial covenants, including requirements that relate to our financial condition, operating performance and liquidity. For example, we are required to maintain a maximum consolidated leverage ratio that is based, in part, upon the market value of the vessels securing the applicable loan, as well as a minimum ratio of the market value of vessels securing a loan to the principal amount outstanding under such loan. The market value of LPG carriers, product carriers and crude oil tankers is sensitive to, among other things, changes in the LPG carrier, product carrier and crude oil tanker charter markets, respectively, with vessel values deteriorating in times when LPG carrier, product carrier and tanker charter rates, as applicable, are falling and improving when charter rates are anticipated to rise. Lower charter rates in the LPG carrier, product carrier and crude oil tanker markets coupled with the difficulty in obtaining financing for vessel purchases have adversely affected product carrier and Aframax tanker values, and the impact of the dramatic decline in oil prices on demand for LPG has adversely affected LPG carrier values since the fourth quarter of 2014, with some improvement alongside increasing oil prices in the second half of 2017 and 2018. A continuation or worsening of these conditions would lead to a significant decline in the fair market values of our vessels, which may result in our not being in compliance with these loan covenants. If the value of our vessels deteriorates, we may have to record an impairment adjustment in our financial statements as we did in each of our last five fiscal years which would adversely affect our financial results and could further hinder our ability to raise capital.

A failure to comply with our covenants and/or obtain covenant waivers or modifications could result in our lenders requiring us to post additional collateral, enhance our equity and liquidity, increase our interest payments or pay down our indebtedness to a level where we are in compliance with our loan covenants, sell vessels in our fleet or accelerate our indebtedness, which would impair our ability to continue to conduct our business. If our indebtedness is accelerated, we may not be able to refinance our debt or obtain additional financing and could lose our vessels if our lenders foreclose their liens. In addition, if we find it necessary to sell our vessels at a time when vessel prices are low, we will recognize losses and a reduction in our earnings, which could affect our ability to raise additional capital necessary for us to comply with our loan agreements.

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

Global economic conditions and financial markets have been volatile in recent years and remain subject to significant vulnerabilities, such as the, continued deleveraging and contraction in the banking sector and limited supply of credit to the shipping industry. These issues, along with the re-pricing of credit risk and the difficulties currently experienced by financial institutions, have made, and will likely continue to make, it difficult to obtain financing. As a result of the disruptions in the credit markets and higher capital requirements, many lenders have increased margins on lending rates, enacted tighter lending standards, required more restrictive terms (including higher collateral ratios for advances, shorter maturities and smaller loan amounts), or refused to refinance existing debt on terms similar to our current debt or at all. Furthermore, certain banks that have historically been significant lenders to the shipping industry have reduced or ceased lending activities in the shipping industry. New banking regulations, including tightening of capital requirements and the resulting policies adopted by lenders, could further reduce lending activities. We may experience difficulties in obtaining financing commitments, or be unable to fully draw on the capacity under our committed credit facilities in the future, or refinance our credit facilities when our current facilities mature if our lenders are unwilling to extend financing to us or unable to meet their funding obligations due to their own liquidity, capital or solvency issues. We cannot be certain that financing will be available on acceptable terms or at all. In the absence of available financing, we also may be unable to take advantage of business opportunities or respond to competitive pressures.

18

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

The actual or perceived credit quality of our charterers, and any defaults by them, may materially affect our ability to obtain the additional capital resources that we will require in order to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such capital. Our inability to obtain additional financing at a higher than anticipated cost or at all may materially affect our results of operation and our ability to implement our business strategy.

A significant increase in our debt levels may adversely affect us and our cash flows.

As of December 31, 2018 we had outstanding indebtedness, net of deferred arrangement fees, of $443.3 million. We would expect to incur further indebtedness in connection with any further expansion of our fleet. This increase in the level of indebtedness and the need to service the indebtedness may impact our profitability and cash available for growth of our fleet, working capital and dividends if any. Additionally, further increases in interest rate levels, which have started to increase in the last few years from historically low levels, may increase the cost of servicing our indebtedness with similar results.

To finance our future fleet expansion program beyond our current fleet, we expect to incur additional secured debt. We have to dedicate a portion of our cash flow from operations to pay the principal and interest on our debt. These payments limit funds otherwise available for working capital, capital expenditures, and other purposes, including any distributions of cash to our stockholders, and our inability to service our debt could lead to acceleration of our debt and foreclosure on our fleet.

Moreover, carrying secured indebtedness exposes us to increased risks if the demand for LPG, oil or oil-related marine transportation decreases and charter rates and vessel values are adversely affected.

We are exposed to volatility in the London Interbank Offered Rate (“LIBOR”).

The amounts outstanding under our senior secured credit facilities have been, and we expect borrowings under additional credit facilities we have entered into and may enter into in the future will generally be, advanced at a floating rate based on LIBOR, which has increased in the last few years after a period of stability at low levels, and was volatile in prior years, which can affect the amount of interest payable on our debt, and which, in turn, could have an adverse effect on our earnings and cash flow. In addition, LIBOR, which was at low levels for an extended period of time, increased in 2017 and 2018 and may continue to increase from these levels. Our financial condition could be materially adversely affected at any time that we have not entered into interest rate hedging arrangements to hedge our exposure to the interest rates applicable to our credit facilities and any other financing arrangements we may enter into in the future, including those we enter into to finance a portion of the amounts payable with respect to newbuildings. As of December 31, 2018, we had approximately 25% of our loan exposure under interest rate swap arrangements. Even if we have entered into interest rate swaps or other derivative instruments for purposes of managing our interest rate exposure, our hedging strategies may not be effective and we may incur substantial losses.

Increased regulatory oversight, uncertainty relating to the LIBOR calculation process and potential phasing out of LIBOR after 2021 may adversely affect the amounts of interest we pay under our debt arrangements and our results of operations.

Regulators and law enforcement agencies in the United Kingdom and elsewhere are conducting civil and criminal investigations into whether the banks that contribute to the British Bankers’ Association (the “BBA”) in connection with the calculation of daily LIBOR may have been under-reporting or otherwise manipulating or attempting to manipulate LIBOR. A number of BBA member banks have entered into settlements with their regulators and law enforcement agencies with respect to this alleged manipulation of LIBOR.

19

On July 27, 2017, the United Kingdom Financial Conduct Authority (“FCA”), which regulates LIBOR, announced that it intends to stop persuading or compelling banks to submit rates for the calculation of LIBOR to the administrator of LIBOR after 2021 (the “FCA Announcement”). The FCA Announcement indicates that the continuation of LIBOR on the current basis is not guaranteed after 2021. The Secured Overnight Financing Rate, or “SOFR”, has been proposed by the Alternative Reference Rate Committee, a committee convened by the U.S. Federal Reserve that includes major market participants and on which regulators participate, as an alternative rate to replace U.S. Dollar LIBOR. It is not possible to predict the effect of the FCA Announcement, including any discontinuation or change in the method by which LIBOR rates are determined, or how any such changes or alternative methods for calculating benchmark interest rates would be applied to any particular existing agreement containing terms based on LIBOR, such as our existing loan agreements. Any such changes or developments in the method pursuant to which LIBOR rates are determined may result in an increase in reported LIBOR rates or any alternative rates. If that were to occur, the amount of interest we pay under our credit facilities and any other financing arrangements may be adversely affected which may adversely affect our results of operations.

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

We have entered into interest rate swaps for purposes of managing our exposure to fluctuations in interest rates applicable to indebtedness under our credit facilities which were advanced at floating rates based on LIBOR. Our hedging strategies, however, may not be effective and we may incur substantial losses if interest rates or currencies move materially differently from our expectations.

To the extent our interest rate swaps do not qualify for treatment as hedges for accounting purposes, we recognize fluctuations in the fair value of such contracts in our statement of operations. In addition, changes in the fair value of any derivative contracts that do qualify for treatment as hedges, are recognized in “Accumulated other comprehensive income” on our balance sheet. Our financial condition could also be materially adversely affected to the extent we do not hedge our exposure to interest rate fluctuations under our financing arrangements under which loans have been advanced at a floating rate based on LIBOR.

In addition, we had entered in the past and may enter in the future into foreign currency derivative contracts in order to hedge an exposure to foreign currencies related to shipbuilding contracts.

Any hedging activities we engage in may not effectively manage our interest rate and foreign exchange exposure or have the desired impact on our financial condition or results of operations.

Because we generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could adversely affect our results of operations.

We generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars and the majority of our expenses are also in U.S. dollars. However, a relatively small portion of our overall expenses, mainly executive compensation, is incurred in Euros. This could lead to fluctuations in net income due to changes in the value of the U.S. dollar relative to the other currencies, in particular the Euro. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value can thereby increase, decreasing our net income.

We are dependent on our relationship with Stealth Maritime Corporation S.A.

As of April 1, 2019, Stealth Maritime Corporation S.A. (“Stealth Maritime”) served as commercial manager for all 48 operating vessels in our fleet and technical manager for 33 of the 36 operating vessels in our fleet not deployed on bareboat charters, while subcontracting the technical management of two of the remaining vessels in our fleet not deployed on bareboat charters to Brave Maritime, which is affiliated with Stealth Maritime, and one to an unaffiliated third party.

20

We are accordingly dependent upon our fleet manager, Stealth Maritime, for:

The loss of Stealth Maritime’s services or its failure to perform its obligations to us properly for financial or other reasons could materially and adversely affect our business and the results of our operations. Although we may have rights against Stealth Maritime if it defaults on its obligations to us, you would have no recourse against Stealth Maritime. In addition, we might not be able to find a replacement manager on terms as favorable as those currently in place with Stealth Maritime. Further, we expect that we will need to seek approval from our lenders to change our manager. In addition, if Stealth Maritime or Brave Maritime suffers material damage to its reputation or relationships, including as a result of a spill or other environmental incident or an accident, or any violation or alleged violation of U.S., EU or other sanctions, involving ships managed by Stealth Maritime or Brave Maritime whether or not owned by us, it may harm the ability of us or our subsidiaries to successfully compete in our industry.

We depend on third party managers to manage part of our fleet.

Stealth Maritime subcontracts the management for some of our vessels to third parties, including technical support, crewing, operation, maintenance and repair. The loss of their services or their failure to perform their obligations could materially and adversely affect the results of our operations. Although we may have rights against these managers if they default on their obligations, you would have no recourse against these parties. In addition, we might not be able to find replacement technical managers on terms as favorable as those currently in place.

We may enter into certain significant transactions with companies affiliated with members of the Vafias family which may result in conflicts of interests.

In addition to our management contract with Stealth Maritime, a company controlled by members of the Vafias family other than our Chief Executive Officer, from time to time we may enter into other transactions with companies affiliated with members of the Vafias family such as the two charters we entered into in April 2012 and the agreements for the acquisition of four newbuilding LPG carriers in September 2012. Stealth Maritime also contracts for the crewing of vessels in our fleet with Navis Maritime Services Inc., which is 25% owned by Stealth Maritime. Such transactions could create conflicts of interest that could adversely affect our business or your interests as holders of our common stock, as well as our financial position, results of operations and our future prospects.

Our directors and officers may in the future hold direct or indirect interests in companies that compete with us.

Our directors and officers each have a history of involvement in the shipping industry and may in the future, directly or indirectly, hold investments in companies that compete with us. In that case, they may face conflicts between their own interests and their obligations to us.

Companies affiliated with us, including Stealth Maritime and Brave Maritime, may manage or acquire vessels that compete with our fleet.

It is possible that Stealth Maritime or companies affiliated with Stealth Maritime, including Brave Maritime, could, in the future, agree to manage vessels that compete directly with ours. As long as Stealth Maritime (or an

21

entity with respect to which Harry N. Vafias is an executive officer, director or the principal shareholder) is our fleet manager or Harry Vafias is an executive officer or director of the Company, Stealth Maritime has granted us a right of first refusal to acquire any LPG carrier, which Stealth Maritime may acquire in the future. In addition, Stealth Maritime has agreed that it will not charter-in any LPG carrier without first offering the opportunity to charter-in such vessel to us. Our President and Chief Executive Officer, Harry N. Vafias, has granted us an equivalent right with respect to any entity that he is an executive officer, director or principal shareholder of, so long as he is an executive officer or a director of our company. Were we, however, to decline any such opportunity offered to us or if we do not have the resources or desire to accept any such opportunity, Stealth Maritime or the entity controlled by Mr. Vafias could retain and manage the vessel. This right of first refusal does not cover product carriers or crude oil tankers. In addition, these restrictions, including the right of first refusal, do not apply to Brave Maritime. Furthermore, this right of first refusal does not prohibit Stealth Maritime from managing vessels owned by unaffiliated third parties in competition with us. In such cases, they could compete with our fleet and may face conflicts between their own interests and their obligations to us. In the future, we may also consider further diversifying into wet, dry or other gas shipping sectors, which, like product carriers and crude oil tankers, are not covered by this right of first refusal agreement. Any such vessels would be in competition with Stealth Maritime and companies affiliated with Stealth Maritime. Stealth Maritime might be faced with conflicts of interest with respect to their own interests and their obligations to us that could adversely affect our business and your interests as stockholders.

As our fleet has grown in size, we have needed to improve our operations and financial systems, staff and crew; if we cannot maintain these systems or continue to recruit suitable employees, our business and results of operations may be adversely affected.

We have significantly expanded our fleet since our initial public offering in October 2005, and as a consequence of this, Stealth Maritime has invested considerable sums in upgrading its operating and financial systems, as well as hiring additional well-qualified personnel to manage the vessels now managed by Stealth Maritime. In addition, as we have expanded our fleet, we have had to rely on our technical managers to recruit suitable additional seafarers and ashore administrative and management personnel. Stealth Maritime and those technical managers may not be able to continue to hire suitable employees to the extent we continue to expand our fleet. Our vessels, in particular our LPG carriers, require a technically skilled staff with specialized training. If the technical managers’ crewing agents are unable to employ such technically skilled staff, they may not be able to adequately staff our vessels. If Stealth Maritime is unable to operate our financial and operations systems effectively or our technical managers are unable to recruit suitable employees as we expand our fleet, our results of operation and our ability to expand our fleet may be adversely affected.

Delays in the delivery of any newbuilding or secondhand LPG carriers we agree to acquire could harm our operating results.

As of April 1, 2019, we had completed our newbuilding program and had no agreements to acquire any additional vessels. However, delays in the delivery of any additional newbuilding or secondhand vessels we may agree to acquire in the future, would delay our receipt of revenues generated by these vessels and, to the extent we have arranged charter employment for these vessels, could possibly result in the cancellation of those charters, and therefore adversely affect our anticipated results of operations. Although this would delay our funding requirements for the installment payments to purchase these vessels, it would also delay our receipt of revenues under any charters we arrange for such vessels. The delivery of newbuilding vessels could be delayed, other than at our request, because of, among other things, work stoppages or other labor disturbances; bankruptcy or other financial crisis of the shipyard building the vessel; hostilities or political or economic disturbances in the countries where the vessels are being built, including any escalation of recent tensions involving North Korea; weather interference or catastrophic event, such as a major earthquake, tsunami or fire; our requests for changes to the original vessel specifications; requests from our customers, with whom we have arranged any charters for such vessels, to delay construction and delivery of such vessels due to weak economic conditions and shipping demand and a dispute with the shipyard building the vessel.

22

In addition, the refund guarantors under the newbuilding contracts, which are banks, financial institutions and other credit agencies, may also be affected by financial market conditions in the same manner as our lenders and, as a result, may be unable or unwilling to meet their obligations under their refund guarantees. If the shipbuilders or refund guarantors are unable or unwilling to meet their obligations to the sellers of the vessels, this may impact our acquisition of vessels and may materially and adversely affect our operations and our obligations under our credit facilities. The delivery of any secondhand vessels could be delayed because of, among other things, hostilities or political disturbances, non-performance of the purchase agreement with respect to the vessels by the seller, our inability to obtain requisite permits, approvals or financing or damage to or destruction of the vessels while being operated by the seller prior to the delivery date.

If we fail to manage our growth properly, we may not be able to successfully expand our market share.

As and when market conditions permit, we intend to continue to prudently grow our fleet over the long term. The acquisition of such additional vessels could impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff, and may necessitate that we, and they, increase the number of personnel. In the future, we may not be able to identify suitable vessels, acquire vessels on advantageous terms or obtain financing for such acquisitions. Any future growth will depend on:

Growing a business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel, managing relationships with customers and our commercial and technical managers and integrating newly acquired vessels into existing infrastructures. We may not be successful in executing any growth initiatives and may incur significant expenses and losses in connection therewith.

We may decide to sell certain of the vessels in our fleet if in our view market conditions are favorable for such sales or sell our LPG carriers in our fleet that are subject to purchase options held by the charterers of the respective vessels, which, if exercised, could reduce the size of our LPG carrier fleet and reduce our future revenues.

Since our initial public offering through to December 31, 2018 we have sold 31 LPG carriers and have classified another six of our vessels as held for sale. Two of these held for sale vessels as of December 31, 2018 were delivered to their new owners within the first quarter of 2019 and a 49.9% equity interest in the remaining four held for sale vessels was sold in the first quarter of 2019. We may decide to sell more vessels from our fleet if, in our view, the market conditions are favorable for such sales. The chartering arrangements with respect to four LPG carriers of our fleet include options for the respective charterers to purchase the vessels at stipulated prices at any time during the term of the existing charter for the respective vessels. The option exercise prices with respect to these vessels decline over time and reflect an estimate, made at the time of entry into the applicable charter in the first quarter of 2014, of market prices. In addition, the chartering arrangements for four LPG carriers in our fleet give the charterer the right to purchase the respective vessels at the end of the current charter term in 2021 and 2022 and 2029. This might result in our company realizing losses or gains depending on the time each vessel option is exercised. If the charterers were to exercise these options with respect to any or all of these vessels or if we sell additional vessels, the expected size of our LPG carrier fleet would be reduced and, if there were a scarcity of secondhand LPG carriers available for acquisition at such time and because of the delay in delivery associated with commissioning newbuilding LPG carriers, we could be unable to replace these

23

vessels with other comparable vessels, or any other vessels, quickly or, if LPG carrier values were higher than currently anticipated at the time we were required to sell these vessels, at a cost equal to the purchase price paid by the charterer. Consequently, if we sell additional vessels or if these purchase options were to be exercised, the expected size of our LPG carrier fleet would be reduced, and as a result our anticipated level of revenues would be reduced.

In addition, the operation of our JV agreement, pursuant to which we sold the 49.9% equity interest in the four JV vessels in the first quarter of 2019, may increase certain administrative burdens, delay decision-making, and make it more difficult to obtain debt financing or complicate the operation of the vessels acquired under the joint venture agreement. For example, the joint venture agreement requires that certain decisions regarding chartering or sale of the JV vessels be made jointly by us and the JV investor. Accordingly, if the JV investor were to fail to cooperate with us with respect to these matters, such JV vessels may have to be sold or fixed on a period charter at an inopportune time, which could adversely affect our results of operations.

We may be unable to attract and retain key management personnel and other employees in the shipping industry, which may negatively affect the effectiveness of our management and our results of operation.

Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of our management team, including our Chief Executive Officer, Harry Vafias. In addition, Harry Vafias is a member of the Vafias family, which controls Stealth Maritime, our fleet manager. Our success will depend upon our and Stealth Maritime’s ability to hire and retain qualified managers to oversee our operations. The loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition. Difficulty in hiring and retaining personnel could adversely affect our results of operations. We do not have employment agreements directly with our key personnel who are technically employees of Stealth Maritime, our fleet manager, although under our management agreement with Stealth Maritime, our relationship is governed by terms substantially similar to those typically included in employment agreements. We do not maintain “key man” life insurance on any of our officers.

In the highly competitive international LPG carrier, product carrier and crude oil tanker markets, we may not be able to compete for charters with new entrants or established companies with greater resources.

We deploy our vessels in highly competitive markets that are capital intensive. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, some of which have greater resources than we do. Competition for the transportation of LPG, refined petroleum products and crude oil can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its managers to the charterers. Competitors with greater resources could enter and operate larger LPG carrier fleets through consolidations or acquisitions, and many larger fleets that compete with us in each of these sectors may be able to offer more competitive prices and fleets.

We have three medium range product carriers and one Aframax crude oil tanker; however, we principally operate LPG carriers and our lack of a diversified business could adversely affect us.

Unlike many other shipping companies, which may carry dry bulk, crude oil, oil products or products or goods shipped in containers, we currently depend primarily on the transport of LPG. The vast majority of our revenue has been and is expected to be derived from this single source—the seaborne transport of LPG. Due to our lack of a more diversified business model, adverse developments in the seaborne transport of LPG and the market for LPG products have a significantly greater impact on our financial conditions and results of operations than if we maintained more diverse assets or lines of business.

We have expanded into the product carrier sector and into the crude oil tanker sector and we may not be able to successfully execute this expansion, or any further expansion, in such sectors or any other sectors, such as dry or other wet or gas shipping sectors we choose to expand into, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition.

We have expanded into the product carrier sector with the acquisition of three medium range product carriers and into the crude oil tanker sector with one Aframax tanker. In the future, we may further expand in

24

these sectors or into dry or other wet or other gas shipping sectors if opportunities arise. We have limited experience in these sectors, including the product carrier and crude oil tanker sectors, and an inability to successfully execute our recent expansion into these sectors or any such future expansion plans could:

each of which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operation and financial condition. We may also from time to time consider various alternatives for our product carriers and crude oil tankers that could involve the sale of all or a portion of our interest in these vessels and sectors.

Purchasing and operating previously owned, or secondhand, vessels may result in increased operating costs and vessels off-hire, which could adversely affect our revenues.

Our examination of secondhand vessels, which may not include physical inspection prior to purchase, does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition and cost of any required (or anticipated) repairs that we would have had if these vessels had been built for and operated exclusively by us. Generally, we do not receive the benefit of warranties on secondhand vessels.

In general, the cost of maintaining a vessel in good operating condition increases with its age. As of April 1, 2019, the average age of the vessels in our fleet, including chartered in vessels and the JV vessels, was approximately 8.5 years. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain and operate than more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in engine technology. Cargo insurance rates increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers.

Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of vessels may require expenditures for alterations, or the addition of new equipment, to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which the vessels may engage. As our vessels age, market conditions may not justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives. If we sell vessels, the sales prices may not equal and could be less than their carrying values at that time.

The shipping industry has inherent operational risks that may not be adequately covered by our insurance.

We procure hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which include environmental damage and pollution insurance coverage, and war risk insurance for our fleet. While we endeavor to be adequately insured against all known risks related to the operation of our ships, there remains the possibility that a liability may not be adequately covered and we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage for our fleet in the future. The insurers may also not pay particular claims. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate, we may not be able to timely obtain a replacement vessel in the event of a loss. Our insurance policies contain deductibles for which we will be responsible and limitations and exclusions which may increase our costs or lower our revenue. In addition, if one of our ships, or other ships managed by Stealth Maritime or Brave Maritime and owned by an affiliated entity of Stealth Maritime or Brave Maritime, were to incur significant costs from an accident, spill or other environmental liability, our insurance premiums and costs could increase significantly.

Our major stockholder exerts considerable influence on the outcome of matters on which our stockholders are entitled to vote and his interests may be different from yours.

Our major stockholder, our Chief Executive Officer, including through a company he controls, owns approximately 17.2% of our outstanding common stock as of April 1, 2019 and exerts considerable influence on

25

the outcome of matters on which our stockholders are entitled to vote, including the election of our Board of Directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of this stockholder may be different from your interests.

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

Under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of vessel owning or chartering corporations, such as our subsidiaries, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but does not both begin and end, in the United States is characterized as United States-source shipping income. United States-source shipping income is subject to either a (i) 4% United States federal income tax without allowance for deductions or (ii) taxation at the standard United States federal income tax rates (and potentially to a 30% branch profits tax), unless derived by a corporation that qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.

Generally, we and our subsidiaries will qualify for this exemption for a taxable year if our shares are treated as “primarily and regularly traded” on an established securities market in the United States. Our shares of common stock will be so treated if (i) the aggregate number of our shares of common stock traded during such year on an established securities market in the United States exceeds the aggregate number of our shares of common stock traded during that year on established securities markets in any other single country, (ii) either (x) our shares of common stock are regularly quoted during such year by dealers making a market in our shares or (y) trades in our shares of common stock are effected, other than in de minimis quantities, on an established securities market in the United States on at least 60 days during such taxable year and the aggregate number of our shares of common stock traded on an established securities market in the United States during such year equals at least 10% of the average number of our shares of common stock outstanding during such taxable year and (iii) our shares of common stock are not “closely held” during such taxable year. For these purposes, our shares of common stock will be treated as closely held during a taxable year if, for more than one-half the number of days in such taxable year, one or more persons each of whom owns either directly or under applicable attribution rules, at least 5% of our shares of common stock, own, in the aggregate, 50% or more of our shares of common stock, unless we can establish, in accordance with applicable documentation requirements, that a sufficient number of the shares of common stock in the closely-held block are owned, directly or indirectly, by persons that are residents of foreign jurisdictions that provide United States shipping companies with an exemption from tax that is equivalent to that provided by Section 883 to preclude other stockholders in the closely-held block from owning 50% or more of the closely-held block of shares of common stock.

We believe that it is currently the case, and may also be the case in the future, that, one or more persons each of whom owns, either directly or under applicable attribution rules, at least 5% of our shares of common stock own, in the aggregate, 50% or more of our shares of common stock. In such circumstances, we and our subsidiaries may qualify for the exemption provided in Section 883 of the Code only if a sufficient number of shares of the closely-held block of our shares of common stock were owned or treated as owned by “qualified stockholders” so it could not be the case that, for more than half of the days in the taxable year, the shares of common stock in the closely-held block not owned or treated as owned by qualified stockholders represented 50% or more of our shares of common stock. For these purposes, a “qualified stockholder” includes an individual that owns or is treated as owning shares of our common stock and is a resident of a jurisdiction that provides an exemption that is equivalent to that provided by Section 883 of the Code and certain other persons; provided in each case that such individual or other person complies with certain documentation and certification requirements set forth in the Section 883 regulations and designed to establish status as a qualified stockholder.

Our Chief Executive Officer, who beneficially owned approximately 17.2% of our shares of common stock as of April 1, 2019, has entered into an agreement with us regarding his compliance, and the compliance by certain entities that he controls and through which he owns our shares, with the certification procedures designed to establish status as a qualified stockholder. In certain circumstances, his compliance and the compliance of such

26

entities he controls with the terms of that agreement may enable us and our subsidiaries to qualify for the benefits of Section 883 even where persons (each of whom owns, either directly or under applicable attribution rules, 5% or more of our shares) own, in the aggregate, more than 50% of our outstanding shares. However, his compliance and the compliance of such entities he controls with the terms of that agreement may not enable us or our subsidiaries to qualify for the benefits of Section 883. We or any of our subsidiaries may not qualify for the benefits of Section 883 for any year.

If we or our subsidiaries do not qualify for the exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, then we or our subsidiaries would be subject for those years to the 4% United States federal income tax on gross United States shipping income or, in certain circumstances, to net income taxation at the standard United States federal income tax rates (and potentially also to a 30% branch profits tax). The imposition of such tax could have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings and cash flow.

We could become a “passive foreign investment company,” which would have adverse United States federal income tax consequences to United States holders and, in turn, us.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a “passive foreign investment company,” or PFIC, for United States federal income tax purposes if either (1) at least 75% of its gross income for any taxable year consists of certain types of “passive income” or (2) at least 50% of the average value of the corporation’s assets produce or are held for the production of those types of “passive income.” For purposes of these tests, “passive income” includes dividends, interest, and gains from the sale or exchange of investment property and rents and royalties other than rents and royalties which are received from unrelated parties in connection with the active conduct of a trade or business. For purposes of these tests, income derived from the performance of services does not constitute “passive income” and working capital and similar assets held pending investment in vessels will generally be treated as an asset which produces passive income. United States stockholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous United States federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC.

In connection with determining our PFIC status we treat and intend to continue to treat the gross income that we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering and voyage chartering activities as services income, rather than rental income. We believe that our income from time chartering and voyage chartering activities does not constitute “passive income” and that the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income do not constitute assets held for the production of passive income. We treat and intend to continue to treat, for purposes of the PFIC rules, the income that we derive from bareboat charters as passive income and the assets giving rise to such income as assets held for the production of passive income. There is, however, no legal authority specifically under the PFIC rules regarding our current and proposed method of operation and it is possible that the Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, may not accept our positions and that a court may uphold such challenge, in which case we and certain of our subsidiaries could be treated as PFICs. In this regard we note that a federal court decision addressing the characterization of time charters concludes that they constitute leases for federal income tax purposes and employs an analysis which, if applied to our time charters, could result in our treatment and the treatment of our vessel-owning subsidiaries as PFICs. In addition, in making the determination as to whether we are a PFIC, we intend to treat the deposits that we make on our newbuilding contracts and that are with respect to vessels we do not expect to bareboat charter as assets which are not held for the production of passive income for purposes of determining whether we are a PFIC. We note that there is no direct authority on this point and it is possible that the IRS may disagree with our position.

We do not believe that we were a PFIC for 2018. This belief is based in part upon our beliefs regarding the value of the assets that we hold for the production of or in connection with the production of passive income relative to the value of our other assets. Should these beliefs turn out to be incorrect, then we and certain of our subsidiaries could be treated as PFICs for 2018. There can be no assurance that the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) or a court will not determine values for our assets that would cause us to be treated as a PFIC for 2018 or a subsequent year.

27

In addition, although we do not believe that we were a PFIC for 2018, we may choose to operate our business in the current or in future taxable years in a manner that could cause us to become a PFIC for those years. Because our status as a PFIC for any taxable year will not be determinable until after the end of the taxable year, and depends upon our assets, income and operations in that taxable year, there can be no assurance that we will not be considered a PFIC for 2019 or any future taxable year.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our United States stockholders would face adverse United States tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those stockholders make an election available under the Code (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such stockholders, as discussed below under “Item 10 Additional Information—E. Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders”), such stockholders would be liable to pay United States federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our shares of common stock, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the stockholder’s holding period of our shares of common stock. See “Item 10. Additional Information—E. Tax Considerations—United States Federal Income Tax Consequences—United States Federal Income Taxation of United States Holders” for a more comprehensive discussion of the United States federal income tax consequences to United States stockholders if we are treated as a PFIC. As a result of these adverse tax consequences to United States stockholders, such a finding by the IRS may result in sales of our common stock by United States stockholders, which could lower the price of our common stock and adversely affect our ability to raise capital.

As a foreign private issuer we are entitled to claim an exemption from certain Nasdaq corporate governance standards, and if we elected to rely on this exemption, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

As a foreign private issuer, we are entitled to claim an exemption from many of Nasdaq’s corporate governance practices. Currently, our corporate governance practices comply with the Nasdaq corporate governance standards applicable to U.S. listed companies other than that, while Nasdaq requires listed companies to obtain prior shareholder approval for certain issuances of authorized stock in transactions not involving a public offering, as permitted under Marshall Islands law and our articles of incorporation and bylaws, we do not need prior shareholder approval to issue shares of authorized stock. To the extent we rely on this or other exemptions you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the Nasdaq corporate governance requirements.

We are incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands, which does not have a well-developed body of corporate law or a bankruptcy act.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our articles of incorporation and bylaws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, or BCA. The provisions of the BCA resemble provisions of the corporation laws of a number of states in the United States. However, there have been few judicial cases in the Republic of the Marshall Islands interpreting the BCA. The rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under the law of the Republic of the Marshall Islands are not as clearly established as the rights and fiduciary responsibilities of directors under statutes or judicial precedent in existence in certain U.S. jurisdictions. Stockholder rights may differ as well. While the BCA does specifically incorporate the non-statutory law, or judicial case law, of the State of Delaware and other states with substantially similar legislative provisions, our public stockholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling stockholders than would stockholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction. The Marshall Islands has no established bankruptcy act, and as a result, any bankruptcy action involving our company would have to be initiated outside the Marshall Islands, and our public stockholders may find it difficult or impossible to pursue their claims in such other jurisdictions.

28

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

We are a Marshall Islands company, and our executive offices are located outside of the United States. All of our directors and officers reside outside of the United States, and most of our assets and their assets are located outside the United States. As a result, you may have difficulty serving legal process within the United States upon us or any of these persons. You may also have difficulty enforcing, both in and outside the United States, judgments you may obtain in the U.S. courts against us or these persons in any action, including actions based upon the civil liability provisions of U.S. federal or state securities laws.

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

Risks Related To Our Common Stock

The market price of our common stock has fluctuated and may continue to fluctuate in the future.

The market price of our common stock has fluctuated widely since our initial public offering in October 2005 and may continue to do so as a result of many factors, including our actual results of operations and perceived prospects, the prospects of our competition and of the shipping industry in general and in particular the LPG carrier sector, differences between our actual financial and operating results and those expected by investors and analysts, changes in analysts’ recommendations or projections, changes in general valuations for companies in the shipping industry, particularly the LPG carrier sector, changes in general economic or market conditions and broad market fluctuations.

If the market price of our common stock remains below $5.00 per share, under stock exchange rules, our stockholders will not be able to use such shares as collateral for borrowing in margin accounts. This inability to use shares of our common stock as collateral may depress demand and certain institutional investors are restricted from investing in or holding shares priced below $5.00, which could lead to sales of such shares creating further downward pressure on and increased volatility in the market price of our common stock.

We may not pay dividends on our common stock.

We have not paid a dividend since the first quarter of 2009, when our Board of Directors decided to suspend dividend payments in light of the volatile global economic situation and conditions in the LPG shipping market. Our board of directors will evaluate our dividend policy consistent with our cash flows and liquidity requirements. In addition, other external factors, such as our existing loan agreements, future financing arrangements and capital expenditures, as well as Marshall Islands law, may also restrict or prohibit our declaration and payment of dividends under some circumstances. For instance, we are not permitted to declare or pay cash dividends, or repurchase shares, in any twelve month period that exceed 50% of our free cash flow in the preceding twelve month period. Due to these constraints on dividend payments we may not be able to pay regular quarterly dividends in the future. See “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—Credit Facilities—Financial Covenants.”

The declaration and payment of dividends will be subject at all times to the discretion of our Board of Directors. The timing and amount of future dividends will depend on the state of the LPG carrier and tanker markets, our earnings, financial condition, cash requirements and availability, fleet renewal and expansion, restrictions in our loan agreements or other financing arrangements, the provisions of Marshall Islands law affecting the payment of dividends and other factors. Marshall Islands law generally prohibits the payment of dividends other than from surplus or while a company is insolvent or would be rendered insolvent upon the payment of such dividends.

29

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

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

These provisions include:

Our current loan agreements also require that our Chief Executive Officer, Harry Vafias, together with his immediate family, at all times own at least 10% of our outstanding capital stock and certain of our loan agreements provide that it would be an event of default if Harry Vafias ceased to serve as an executive officer or director of our company, Harry Vafias together with his immediate family, ceased to control our company or any other person or group controlled 25% or more of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of public stockholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and your ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

the sale of two vessels which were classified as of December 31, 2018 as held for sale and the sale of a 49.9% equity interest in the entities owning four remaining vessels that were also classified as held for sale. As of April 1, 2019, our fleet is composed of 44 LPG carriers (including two vessels that are chartered-in which aggregate 18,517 cbm in capacity and four vessels which aggregate 20,573 cbm in which we own a 50.1% equity interest and which we refer to as the JV Vessels), with a total capacity of approximately 298,099 cubic meters (cbm), three medium range product carriers with a total capacity of 140,000 dwt and one 115,804 dwt Aframax tanker.

Our company operates through a number of subsidiaries which either directly or indirectly own or charter in the vessels in our fleet. A list of our subsidiaries, including their respective jurisdiction of incorporation, as of April 1, 2019, all of which are wholly-owned by us other than as indicated therein, is set forth in Exhibit 8 to this Annual Report on Form 20-F.

B. Business Overview

We own a fleet of LPG carriers providing international seaborne transportation services to LPG producers and users, as well as crude oil and product carriers chartered to oil producers, refiners and commodities traders. Our LPG carriers carry various petroleum gas products in liquefied form, including propane, butane, butadiene, isopropane, propylene and vinyl chloride monomer, which are all byproducts of the production of crude oil and natural gas. The three medium range product carriers in our fleet are capable of carrying refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel, as well as edible oils and chemicals, while our Aframax tanker is used for carrying crude oil. We believe that we have established a reputation as a safe, cost-efficient operator of modern and well-maintained LPG carriers. We also believe that these attributes, together with our strategic focus on meeting our customers’ chartering needs, has contributed to our ability to attract leading charterers as our customers and to our success in obtaining charter renewals. We are managed by Stealth Maritime, a privately owned company controlled by other members of the Vafias family, of which our Chief Executive Officer is a member.

As of April 1, 2019, our fleet consisted of 44 LPG carriers, including two chartered-in LPG carriers and four JV vessels, with an average age of 8.3 years, two 2008-built product carriers, one 2009-built product carrier and one 2010-built Aframax crude oil tanker.

The table below describes our fleet and its deployment as of April 1, 2019.

31

32

In the first quarter of 2019, we agreed to sell a 49.9% equity interest in the subsidiaries owning four of our vessels, the Gas Haralambos , the Gas Defiance , the Gas Shuriken and the Eco Lucidity , to a leading maritime-focused investor. We and our manager, Stealth Maritime, will continue to manage these vessels. The agreement also contemplates potential further co-investments in additional second-hand small LPG vessels meeting certain employment and other conditions that are acquired from third parties, or our fleet. We and the investor each have certain rights to purchase or bid for the purchase of vessels subject to this arrangement in the event of their proposed sale.

Commercial and Technical Management of Our Fleet

We have a management agreement with Stealth Maritime, pursuant to which Stealth Maritime provides us with technical, administrative, commercial and certain other services. Stealth Maritime is a leading ship-management company based in Greece, established in 1999 in order to provide shipping companies with a range of services. Our manager’s safety management system is ISM certified in compliance with IMO’s regulations by Lloyd’s Register. In relation to the technical services, Stealth Maritime is responsible for arranging for the crewing of the vessels, the day to day operations, inspections and vetting, maintenance, repairs, drydocking and insurance. Administrative functions include but are not limited to accounting, back-office, reporting, legal and secretarial services. In addition, Stealth Maritime provides services for the chartering of our vessels and monitoring thereof, freight collection, and sale and purchase. In providing most of these services, Stealth Maritime pays third parties and receives reimbursement from us. In addition, Stealth Maritime may subcontract technical management and crew management for some of our vessels to third parties, including Navis Maritime Services Inc., in which Stealth Maritime has a 25% interest, Jebsens Maritime Inc. – previously Selandia Crew Management Philippines Inc. and Southfield Agencies Inc., all based in Manila, and Brave Maritime (an affiliate of Stealth Maritime) based in Greece. As of April 1, 2019 the Company no longer had any vessel being crewed by Southfield Agencies Inc., as the last vessel under a manning agreement with them was the Gas Texiana, which was sold in February 2019. As of April 1, 2019, the technical management of two of our ships was subcontracted by Stealth Maritime to Brave Maritime. These crew and technical managers are supervised by Stealth Maritime.

33

Under the November 2006 agreement, which was amended effective January 1, 2007, as approved by our Board of Directors, including all of our independent directors, we pay Stealth Maritime a fixed management fee of $440 per vessel operating under a voyage or time charter per day on a monthly basis in advance, pro-rated for the calendar days we own the vessels. We pay a fixed fee of $125 per vessel per day for each of our vessels operating on bareboat charter. We are also obligated to pay Stealth Maritime a fee equal to 1.25% of the gross freight, demurrage and charter hire collected from the employment of our vessels. Stealth Maritime will also earn a fee equal to 1.0% of the contract price of any vessel bought or sold by them on our behalf. In addition, as long as Stealth Maritime (or an entity with respect to which Harry N. Vafias is an executive officer, director or the principal shareholder) is our fleet manager or Harry N. Vafias is an executive officer or director of the Company, Stealth Maritime has granted us a right of first refusal to acquire any LPG carrier which Stealth Maritime may acquire in the future. In addition, Stealth Maritime has agreed that it will not charter-in any LPG carrier without first offering the opportunity to charter-in such vessels to us. This right of first refusal does not prohibit Stealth Maritime from managing vessels owned by unaffiliated third parties in competition with us, nor does it cover product carriers or crude oil tankers.

The initial term of our management agreement with Stealth Maritime expired in June 2010; however, unless six months’ notice of non-renewal is given by either party prior to the end of the then current term, this agreement automatically extends for additional 12 month periods. No such notice has been given, and accordingly, this agreement will extend to June 2020.

For additional information about the management agreement, including the calculation of management fees, see “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions” and our consolidated financial statements which are included as Item 18 to this Annual Report.

Crewing and Employees

Stealth Maritime ensures that all seamen have the qualifications and licenses required to comply with international regulations and shipping conventions, and that our vessels employ experienced and competent personnel. In 2018, Navis Maritime Services Inc., Jebsens Maritime Inc. – previously Selandia Crew Management Philippines Inc. and Southfield Agencies Inc., each of which is based in Manila ,were responsible for providing the crewing of our LPG fleet, to the extent that these vessels were not deployed on bareboat charters. These responsibilities include training, compensation, transportation and additional insurance of the crew. As of April 1, 2019, the Company no longer had any vessels being crewed by Southfield Agencies Inc., as the last vessel under a manning agreement with them was the Gas Texiana , which was sold in February 2019.

Chartering of the Fleet

We, through Stealth Maritime, manage the employment of our fleet. We deploy our LPG carriers and tankers on period charters, including time and bareboat charters that can last up to several years, and spot market charters (through voyage charters and short-term time charters), which generally last from one to six months, subject to market conditions. Time and bareboat charters are for a fixed period of time. A voyage charter is generally a contract to carry a specific cargo from a loading port to a discharging port for an agreed-upon total charge. Under voyage charters we pay for voyage expenses such as port, canal and fuel costs. Under a time charter the charterer pays for voyage expenses while under a bareboat charter the charterer pays for voyage expenses and operating expenses such as crewing, supplies, maintenance and repairs including special survey and dry-docking costs.

Vessels operating in the spot market generate revenues that are less predictable but may enable us to capture increased profit margins during periods of improvements in LPG charter rates, although we are then exposed to the risk of declining LPG carrier charter rates. Typically spot market charters can last from a few days up to two months. If we commit vessels to period charters, future spot market rates may be higher or lower than those rates at which we have period chartered our vessels.

34

In formulating our chartering strategy we evaluate past, present and future performance of the freight markets and balance the mix of our chartering arrangements in order to achieve optimal results for the fleet. As of April 1, 2019 and including our two chartered in vessels and four JV vessels, we had 7 vessels operating in the spot market, 18 vessels on time charters expiring in 2019, 11 on time charters expiring from 2020 to 2021 and 12 on bareboat charters expiring from 2019 to 2029. In terms of charter coverage as of April 1, 2019, we had 68% of the available calendar days fixed under period charters for 2019, and 28% for 2020.

While the majority of our fleet is operating in the Far East, we deploy vessels globally. Some of the areas where we usually operate are the Middle East, the Mediterranean, North West Europe, Africa and Latin America. According to industry reports, the United States is currently expected to continue to increase its exports of LPG products. In the event this creates more demand for vessels like ours, we would expect to deploy more vessels in the United States and the Caribbean. As freight rates usually vary between these areas as well as voyage and operating expenses, we evaluate such parameters when positioning our vessels for new employment.

Customers

Our assessment of a charterer’s financial condition and reliability is an important factor in negotiating employment for our vessels. Principal charterers include producers of LPG products, such as national, major and other independent energy companies and energy traders, and industrial users of those products. For the year ended December 31, 2018, we had no customer accountable for more than 10% of our total revenues. In addition, vessels under bareboat charter may be sub-chartered to third parties.

Environmental and other Regulations

Government regulations significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. They are subject to international conventions and national, state and local laws and regulations in force in the countries in which they may operate or are registered.

A variety of governmental and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities (United States Coast Guard, harbor master or equivalent), classification societies, flag state administration (country of registry), charterers and particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or result in the temporary suspension of operation of one or more of our vessels.

We believe that the heightened level of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators and charterers is leading to greater inspection and safety requirements on all vessels and may accelerate the scrapping of older vessels throughout the industry. Increasing environmental concerns have created a demand for vessels that conform to the stricter environmental standards. We are required to maintain operating standards for all of our vessels that emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of our officers and crews and compliance with United States and international regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations. However, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, any future requirements may limit our ability to do business, increase our operating costs, force the early retirement of one or more of our vessels, and/or affect their resale value, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

Environmental Regulations—International Maritime Organization (“IMO”)

The International Maritime Organization (“IMO”), the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships, has negotiated international conventions relating to pollution by ships. In 1973, IMO adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (“MARPOL”), which has

35

been periodically updated with relevant amendments. MARPOL addresses pollution from ships by oil, noxious liquid substances carried in bulk, harmful substances carried by sea in packaged form, sewage, garbage, and air emissions. Our vessels are subject to standards imposed by the IMO.

In September 1997, the IMO adopted MARPOL Annex VI to address air pollution from ships. Effective in May 2005, Annex VI set limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibited deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. Annex VI also included a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allowed for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. Options for implementing the requirements of Annex VI include use of low sulfur fuels, modifications to vessel engines, or the addition of post combustion emission controls. Annex VI has been ratified by some, but not all IMO member states. Vessels that are subject to Annex VI must, if built before the effective date, obtain an International Air Pollution Prevention Certificate evidencing compliance with Annex VI not later than either the first dry docking after May 19, 2005, but no later than May 19, 2008. All vessels subject to Annex VI and built after May 19, 2005 must also have this Certificate.

In October 2008, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI, and United States ratified the Annex VI amendments in October 2008. Beginning in 2011 the amendments required a progressive reduction of sulfur levels in bunker fuels to be phased in by 2020 and imposed more stringent nitrogen oxide emission standards on marine diesel engines, depending on their date of installation. Since January 1, 2012, the amended Annex VI required that fuel oil contain no more than 3.50% sulfur. More stringent emission standards apply in coastal areas designated by the IMO as Emission Control Areas, or ECAs, such as the Baltic and North Seas, United States and Canadian coastal areas, and the United States Caribbean Sea. As of January 1, 2015, vessels operating within an ECA must use fuel with a sulfur content that does not exceed 0.10%. We have obtained International Air Pollution Prevention Certificates for all of our vessels and believe they are compliant in all material respects with current Annex VI requirements.

The IMO confirmed in October 2016 that a global 0.5% sulfur cap on marine fuels will come into force on January 1, 2020, as agreed in amendments adopted in 2008 for Annex VI to MARPOL. Annex VI sets progressively stricter regulations to control sulfur oxides (SOx) and nitrous oxides (NOx) emissions from ships, which present both environmental and health risks. The 0.5% sulfur cap marks a significant reduction from the current global sulfur cap of 3.5%, which had been implemented since January 1, 2012. When the 2020 sulfur cap was decided upon in 2008, it was also agreed that a review should be undertaken to assess whether there was sufficient compliant fuel available to meet the 2020 date, failing which, the date could be deferred to 2025. That review was completed in July 2016 by a consortium of consultants led by CE Delft and submitted to the IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee (MEPC) during their 70th session. The review concluded that sufficient compliant fuel would be available to meet the new requirement. However, there have been competing studies, that hold the opposing view that refining capacity will not be sufficient in 2020, with an estimated 60-70% additional sulfur plant capacity required by 2020. China, Hong Kong and Taiwan have announced an early implementation of the sulfur cap effective January 1, 2019. The regulations, which were announced in mid-2018 and apply from January 2019, are similar to those already applied in the ECAs. They set a sulfur content limit of 0.5% and will affect all vessels sailing within 12 nautical miles of the coast as well as when berthing. There have also been questions as to how the sulfur cap will be enforced, as it is up to individual parties to MARPOL to enforce fines and sanctions. We may incur costs to comply with the amended Annex VI requirements, including if we were to elect to install scrubbers on any of our vessels .We currently have no committed capital expenditure obligations for the installation of scrubbers.

Our LPG carriers must have an IMO Certificate of Fitness demonstrating compliance with construction codes for LPG carriers. These codes, and similar regulations in individual member states, address fire and explosion risks posed by the transport of liquefied gases. Collectively, these standards and regulations impose detailed requirements relating to the design and arrangement of cargo tanks, vents, and pipes; construction materials and compatibility; cargo pressure; and temperature control. All of our LPG carriers have Certificates of Fitness and we intend to obtain such certificates for the vessels that we have agreed to acquire.

36

Many countries have ratified and follow the liability plan adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969 (the CLC) (the United States, with its separate OPA 90 regime described below, is not a party to the CLC). This convention generally applies to vessels that carry oil in bulk as cargo. Under this convention and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, the registered owner of a regulated vessel is strictly liable for pollution damage in the territorial waters or exclusive economic zone of a contracting state caused by the discharge of any oil from the ship, subject to certain defenses. Under an amendment to the 1992 Protocol that became effective on November 1, 2003, for vessels of 5,000 to 140,000 gross tons, liability per incident is limited to 4.51 million. Special Drawing Rights (SDR) plus 631 SDR for each additional gross ton over 5,000. The SDR is an International Monetary Fund unit pegged to a basket of currencies. The right to limit liability under the CLC is forfeited where the spill is caused by the owner’s actual fault and, under the 1992 Protocol, where the spill is caused by the owner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to states that are parties to the CLC must provide evidence of insurance covering the liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law regimes govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that convention. We believe that our P&I insurance will cover any liability under the CLC.

In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, which imposes strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage caused by discharges of bunker oil in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states. The Bunker Convention also 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 Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). Because the Bunker Convention does not apply to pollution damage governed by the CLC, it applies only to discharges from any of our vessels that are not transporting oil. The Bunker Convention entered into force on November 21, 2008. Liability limits under the Bunker Convention were increased as of June 2015. In jurisdictions where the Bunker Convention has not been adopted, such as the United States, liability for spill or releases of oil from ship’s bunkers typically is determined by national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events occur.

Our LPG vessels and product carriers may also become subject to the International Convention on Liability and Compensation for Damage in Connection with the Carriage of Hazardous and Noxious Substances by Sea adopted in 1996 as amended by the Protocol to the HNS Convention, adopted in April 2010 (2010 HNS Protocol) (collectively, the “2010 HNS Convention”), if it enters into force. The Convention creates a regime of liability and compensation for damage from hazardous and noxious substances (or HNS), including liquefied gases. The 2010 HNS Convention sets up a two-tier system of compensation composed of compulsory insurance taken out by ship owners and an HNS Fund that will come into play when the insurance is insufficient to satisfy a claim or does not cover the incident. Under the 2010 HNS Convention, if damage is caused by bulk HNS, claims for compensation will first be sought from the ship owner up to a maximum of 100 million Special Drawing Rights (or SDR). If the damage is caused by packaged HNS or by both bulk and packaged HNS, the maximum liability is 115 million SDR. Once the limit is reached, compensation will be paid from the HNS Fund up to a maximum of 250 million SDR. The 2010 HNS Convention has not been ratified by a sufficient number of countries to enter into force, and at this time we cannot estimate with any certainty the costs of compliance with its requirements should it enter into force.

At the international level, the IMO adopted the BWM Convention in February 2004. The Convention’s implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements, to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention took effect on September 8, 2017. Many of the implementation dates originally contained in the BWM Convention had already passed prior to its effectiveness, so that the period for installation of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements would be very short, with several thousand ships per year needing to install the systems. Consequently, the IMO Assembly passed a resolution in December 2013 revising the dates for implementation of the ballast water management

37

requirements so that they are triggered by the entry into force date. In effect, this makes all vessels constructed before September 8, 2017 “existing” vessels, allowing for the installation of ballast water management systems on such vessels at the first renewal IOPP survey following entry into force of the BWM Convention. In July 2017, the implementation scheme was further changed to require vessels with International Oil Pollution Prevention (“IOPP”) certificates expiring between September 8, 2017 and September 8, 2019 to comply at their second IOPP renewal. Each vessel in our current fleet has been issued or will be issued a BWM plan Statement of Compliance by the classification society with respect to the applicable IMO regulations and guidelines. The cost of compliance could increase for our vessels as a result of these requirements, although it is difficult to predict the overall impact of such a requirement on our operations.

The operation of our vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the ISM Code of the IMO. The ISM Code requires shipowners and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive SMS that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Vessel operators must obtain a “Safety Management Certificate” from the government of the vessel’s flag state to verify that it is being operated in compliance with its approved SMS. The failure of a ship owner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject such party to increased liability, decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Currently, each of the vessels in our fleet is ISM code-certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certification will be maintained indefinitely.

The operations of our product carriers are subject to compliance with the IMO’s International Code for the Construction and Equipment of Ships carrying Dangerous Chemicals in Bulk (IBC Code) for chemical tankers built after July 1, 1986. The IBC Code includes ship design, construction and equipment requirements and other standards for the bulk transport of certain liquid chemicals. Amendments to the IBC Code pertaining to revised international certificates of fitness for the carriage of dangerous goods entered into force in June 2014. We may need to make certain expenditures to comply with these amendments.

Environmental Regulations—The United States Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (“OPA”) and the U.S. Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (“CERCLA”)

The United States 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 applies to discharges of any oil from a vessel, including discharges of fuel oil (bunkers) and lubricants. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which include the United States’ territorial sea and its two hundred nautical mile exclusive economic zone. 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. Accordingly, both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

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

38

The current limits of OPA liability are the greater of $2,200 per gross ton or $18,796,800 for double-hulled tank vessels, subject to periodic adjustment for inflation. These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable United States federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities.

OPA requires owners and operators of vessels over 300 gross tons to establish and maintain with the United States Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under the OPA. Under the United States Coast Guard regulations implementing OPA, vessel owners and operators may evidence their financial responsibility by showing proof of insurance, surety bond, self-insurance, or guaranty. Under the OPA regulations, an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessels in the fleet having the greatest maximum liability under OPA.

CERCLA contains a similar liability regime whereby owners and operators of vessels are liable for cleanup, removal and remedial costs, as well as damage for injury to, or destruction or loss of, natural resources, including the reasonable costs associated with assessing 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 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.

We currently maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per vessel per incident. In addition, we carry hull and machinery and protection and indemnity insurance to cover the risks of fire and explosion. Under certain circumstances, fire and explosion could result in a catastrophic loss. While we believe that our present 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 we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates. If the damages from a catastrophic spill exceeded our insurance coverage, it would have a severe effect on us and could possibly result in our insolvency.

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. Under the self-insurance provisions, the ship owner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility. We have complied with the United States Coast Guard regulations by providing a financial guaranty evidencing sufficient self-insurance.

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

39

Although the 2010 oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico involved a drilling rig and well, it may result in additional legislative or regulatory initiatives for all vessels, including the raising or elimination of liability caps under OPA or more stringent operational requirements. We cannot predict what additional requirements may be enacted and what effect, if any, such requirements may have on our operations.

Environmental Regulations—Other Environmental Initiatives

The EU has also adopted legislation that: (1) requires member states to refuse access to their ports to certain sub-standard vessels, according to vessel type, flag and number of previous detentions; (2) creates an obligation on member states to inspect at least 25% of vessels using their ports annually and provides for increased surveillance of vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment; (3) provides the EU with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies; and (4) requires member states to impose criminal sanctions for certain pollution events, such as the unauthorized discharge of tank washings. It is impossible to predict what additional legislation or regulations, if any, may be promulgated by the EU or any other country or authority.

On March 23, 2012, the U.S. Coast Guard adopted new ballast water discharge standards under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA. The regulations, which became effective on June 21, 2012, set maximum acceptable discharge limits for living organisms and established standards for ballast water management systems, and they are consistent with the requirements under the 2004 BWM Convention described above. The new requirements are being phased in based on the size of the vessel and its next drydocking date. As of the date of this report, the U.S. Coast Guard has approved sixteen Ballast Water Treatment Systems.

The U.S. Clean Water Act (“CWA”) prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in navigable waters 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 90. Under U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) regulations we are required to obtain a CWA permit to discharge ballast water and other wastewaters incidental to the normal operation of our vessels if we operate within the three mile territorial waters or inland waters of the United States. This permit, which the EPA has designated as the Vessel General Permit for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of Vessels, or VGP, incorporates the current U.S. Coast Guard requirements for ballast water management, as well as supplemental ballast water requirements, and includes requirements applicable to 26 specific discharge streams, such as deck runoff, bilge water and gray water. The U.S. Coast Guard and the EPA have entered into a memorandum of understanding which provides for collaboration on the enforcement of the VGP requirements. As a result, it is expected that the U.S. Coast Guard will include the VGP as part of its normal Port State Control inspections. The EPA issued a new VGP that became effective in December 2013. Among other things, it contained numeric ballast water discharge limits for most vessels and more stringent requirements for exhaust gas scrubbers and required the use of environmentally friendly lubricants. We have submitted NOIs (Notices Of Intent) for Discharges Incidental to the Normal Operation of a Vessel under the 2013 VGP to the U.S. EPA for all our ships trading in U.S. waters. The U.S. Coast Guard had provided waivers to vessels prior to the US. Coast Guard approval of Ballast Water Treatment Systems. The EPA, on the other hand, has taken a different approach to enforcing the ballast water management standards in the 2013 VGP. Under a December 27, 2013 policy the agency may consider why vessels do not have the requisite ballast water management technology installed when taking actions to compel compliance with the requirements of the 2013 VGP. The ballast water management standards of the 2013 VGP were challenged by the Canadian Shipowners’ Association in the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on October 5, 2015 that EPA acted arbitrarily and capriciously with respect to certain of the ballast water provisions in the 2013 VGP. The Court remanded the issue to EPA to either justify its approach in the 2013 VGP or redraft the ballast water sections of the VGP consistent with the Court’s ruling. In the meantime, the 2013 VGP will remain in effect. Compliance with the EPA and Coast Guard ballast water management regulations could require the installation of equipment on our vessels to treat ballast water before it is discharged or the implementation of other port facility disposal arrangements at potentially substantial cost, or may otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

40

Climate Control Initiatives

Although the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change requires adopting countries to implement national programs to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not currently subject to the Kyoto Protocol. The Kyoto Protocol was extended to 2020 at the 2012 United Nations Climate Change Conference, with the hope that a new climate change treaty would be adopted by 2015 and come into effect by 2020. The Paris Agreement adopted under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in December 2015, contemplates commitments from each nation party thereto to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and limit increases in global temperatures but did not include any restrictions or other measures specific to shipping emissions. However, restrictions on shipping emissions are likely to continue to be considered and a new treaty may be adopted in the future that includes restrictions on shipping emissions. International or multi-national bodies or individual countries may adopt their own climate change regulatory initiatives. The IMO’s Marine Environment Protection Committee adopted two new sets of mandatory requirements to address greenhouse gas emissions from shipping that entered into force in January 2013. The Energy Efficiency Design Index establishes minimum energy efficiency levels per capacity mile and applies to new vessels. Currently operating vessels must develop and implement Ship Energy Efficiency Plans. By 2025, all new ships built must be 30% more energy efficient than those built in 2014. These new requirements could cause us to incur additional costs to comply. The IMO is also considering the development of market-based mechanisms for limiting greenhouse gas emissions from ships, but it is impossible to predict the likelihood of adoption of such a standard or the impact on our operations. In April 2015, the EU adopted regulations requiring the monitoring and reporting of greenhouse gas emissions from marine vessels (of over 5,000 gross tons) which went into effect in January 2018. The United States EPA has issued a finding that greenhouse gas emissions endanger the public health and safety and has adopted regulations under the Clean Air Act to limit emissions of greenhouse gases from certain mobile sources and proposed regulations to limit greenhouse gas emissions from large stationary sources. Although the mobile source regulations do not apply to greenhouse gas emissions from vessels, EPA is considering a petition from the California Attorney General and environmental groups to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels. Any passage of climate control initiatives by the IMO, the EU or the individual countries in which we operate that limit greenhouse gas emissions from vessels could require us to limit our operations or make significant financial expenditures that we cannot predict with certainty at this time. Passage of climate control initiatives that affect the demand for LPG products and oil may also materially affect our business. Even in the absence of climate control legislation and regulations, our business may be materially affected to the extent that climate change may result in sea level changes or more intense weather events.

On June 29, 2017, the Global Industry Alliance, or the GIA, was officially inaugurated. The GIA is a program, under the Global Environmental Facility-United Nations Development Program- IMO project, which supports shipping, and related industries, as they move towards a low carbon future. Organizations including, but not limited to, shipowners, operators, classification societies, and oil companies, signed to launch the GIA.

In addition, the United States is currently experiencing changes in its environmental policy, the results of which have yet to be fully determined. For example, in April 2017, the U.S. President signed an executive order regarding the environment that targets the United States’ offshore energy strategy, which affects parts of the maritime industry and may affect our business operations. Additional legislation or regulation applicable to the operation of our ships that may be implemented in the future could negatively affect our profitability. Furthermore, recent action by the IMO’s Maritime Safety Committee and U.S. agencies indicate that cybersecurity regulations for the maritime industry are likely to be further developed in the near future in an attempt to combat cybersecurity threats. For example, cyber-risk management systems must be incorporated by ship owners and managers by 2021. This might cause companies to cultivate additional procedures for monitoring cybersecurity, which could require additional expenses and/or capital expenditures. However, the impact of such regulations is difficult to predict at this time.

41

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect in the United States. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the United States Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created International Ship and Port Facilities Security or, ISPS, Code. Among the various requirements are:

The United States Coast Guard regulation’s aim to align with international maritime security standards exempted non-United States vessels from MTSA vessel security measures provided such vessels have on board, by July 1, 2004, a valid International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have obtained ISSCs for all of our vessels and implemented the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Codes to ensure that our vessels attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. We do not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations.

IMO Cyber Security

The Maritime Safety Committee, at its 98th session in June 2017, also adopted Resolution MSC.428(98) - Maritime Cyber Risk Management in Safety Management Systems. The resolution encourages administrations to ensure that cyber risks are appropriately addressed in existing safety management systems (as defined in the ISM Code) no later than the first annual verification of the company’s Document of Compliance after January 1, 2021. Owners risk having ships detained if they have not included cyber security in the ISM Code safety management on ships by January 1, 2021.

Vessel Recycling Regulations

The EU has also recently adopted a regulation that seeks to facilitate the ratification of the IMO Recycling Convention and sets forth rules relating to vessel recycling and management of hazardous materials on vessels. In addition to new requirements for the recycling of vessels, the new regulation contains rules for the control and proper management of hazardous materials on vessels and prohibits or restricts the installation or use of certain hazardous materials on vessels. The new regulation applies to vessels flying the flag of an EU member state and certain of its provisions apply to vessels flying the flag of a third country calling at a port or anchorage of a member state. For example, when calling at a port or anchorage of a member state, a vessel flying the flag of a third country will be required, among other things, to have on board an inventory of hazardous materials that complies with the requirements of the new regulation and the vessel must be able to submit to the relevant authorities of that member state a copy of a statement of compliance issued by the relevant authorities of the country of the vessel’s flag verifying the inventory. The new regulation will take effect on non-EU-flagged vessels calling on EU ports of call beginning on December 31, 2020.

42

Vessel Security Regulations

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect in the United States. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the United States Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS, created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created International Ship and Port Facilities Security or, ISPS, Code. Among the various requirements are:

The United States Coast Guard regulation’s aim to align with international maritime security standards exempted non-United States vessels from MTSA vessel security measures provided such vessels have on board, by July 1, 2004, a valid International Ship Security Certificate (ISSC) that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have obtained ISSCs for all of our vessels and implemented the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Codes to ensure that our vessels attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. We do not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations.

Classification and Inspection

All our vessels are certified as being “in class” by a classification society member of the International Association of Classification Societies such as Lloyds Register of Shipping, Bureau Veritas, American Bureau of Shipping, RINA SpA, DNV and Nippon Kaiji Kyokai. All new and secondhand vessels that we purchase must be certified prior to their delivery under our standard contracts and memoranda of agreement. If the vessel is not certified on the date of closing, we have no obligation to take delivery 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 that is a member of the International Association of Classification Societies. Every vessel’s hull and machinery is “classed” by a classification society authorized by its country of registry. The classification society certifies that the vessel has been built and maintained in accordance with the rules of such classification society and complies with applicable rules and regulations of the country of registry of the vessel and the international conventions of which that country is a member. Each vessel is inspected by a surveyor of the classification society every year—an annual survey, every two to three years—an intermediate survey, and every four to five years—a special survey. Vessels also may be required, as part of the intermediate survey process, to be dry-docked every 30 to 36 months for inspection of the underwater parts of the vessel and for necessary repairs related to such inspection; alternatively, such requirements may be met concurrently with the special survey.

In addition to the classification inspections, many of our customers, including the major oil companies, regularly inspect our vessels as a precondition to chartering voyages on these vessels. We believe that our well-maintained, high quality tonnage should provide us with a competitive advantage in the current environment of increasing regulations and customer emphasis on quality of service.

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

43

Vessels are drydocked for the special survey for inspection of the underwater parts and for repairs related to inspections. If any defects are found, the classification surveyor will issue a “recommendation” which must be rectified by the ship owner within the prescribed time limits.

Risk of Loss and Liability Insurance

General

The operation of any cargo vessel includes risks such as mechanical failure, physical damage, 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 always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. While we believe that our present 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 we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull and Machinery Insurance

We have obtained marine hull and machinery and war risk insurance, which include the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of our vessels. The vessels are each covered up to at least fair market value, with deductibles of $100,000 per vessel.

We also maintain increased value insurance for most of our vessels. Under the increased value insurance, in case of total loss of the vessel, we will be able to recover the sum insured under the increased value policy in addition to the sum insured under the Hull and Machinery policy. Increased value insurance also covers excess liabilities which are not recoverable in full by the Hull and Machinery policies by reason of under insurance.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

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

Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for Oil Pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. The 13 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. Claims pooling between the clubs is regulated by the Pooling Agreement which defines the risks that can be pooled and how losses are to be shared between the participating clubs. The Pool provides a mechanism for sharing all claims in excess of US$10 million up to, approximately US$8 billion.

Under the current structure, clubs’ contributions to claims in the lower pool layer from $10 million to $50 million are assessed on a tripartite formula which takes account of each club’s contributing tonnage, premium and claims record. For claims falling in the upper pool layer from $50 million to $100 million, 7.5% is retained by the club bringing the claim and 92.5% is shared by all on a tonnage-weighted basis.

The Group clubs arrange a common market reinsurance contract to provide reinsurance for claims which exceed the upper limit of the pool (US $100 million) up to an amount of US $3.1 billion any one claim (US $1 billion for Oil Pollution claims). It is said to be the largest single marine reinsurance contract in the market.

44

As a member of a Mutual P&I Association, we may become subject to unbudgeted supplementary calls payable to the P&I Club depending on its financial year results that they are determined by 3 main parameters, i.e the exposure from payment of claims, the income through premium and the income arising from investments. Our aim at every renewal is to concluding our P&I insurance with only “A rated” P&I clubs as this, amongst other benefits, eliminates the risk of unbudgeted supplementary calls being imposed.

Disclosure of Activities pursuant to Section 13(r) of the U.S. Securities Exchange Act of 1934

Section 219 of the Iran Threat Reduction and Syria Human Rights Act of 2012 added Section 13(r) to the Exchange Act. Section 13(r) requires an issuer to disclose whether it or any of its affiliates knowingly engaged in certain activities, transactions or dealings relating to Iran. Disclosure is required even where the activities, transactions or dealings are conducted in compliance with applicable law. Provided in this section is information concerning the activities of us and our affiliates that occurred in 2018 and which we believe may be required to be disclosed pursuant to Section 13(r) of the Exchange Act.

In 2018, 4 of our vessels made an aggregate of 12 port calls to Iran to load C3+ (a petrochemical gas) which was subsequently discharged in China, all of which port calls and discharges were made prior to November 5, 2018. These port calls were made while the vessels were on consecutive voyage charters to an international Far Eastern trader operating under such charterer’s instructions. These port calls represented 0.5% of the 2,653 total port calls made by all the vessels owned by us in 2018. As the vessel owner, we earned revenues at the agreed daily charter rates from the charterer. The aggregate gross revenue attributable to these port calls in 2018 was approximately $13.7 million while the aggregate net profit before finance charges (we do not attribute finance charges to individual vessel voyages) was approximately $1.5 million. All the charter party agreements for our vessels restrict the charterers from calling in Iran in violation of U.S. sanctions, or carrying any cargo to or from Iran which is subject to U.S. sanctions.

We do not believe that any of these transactions or activities are sanctionable. January 16, 2016 was “implementation day” under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (“JCPOA”) among the P5+1 (China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States), the E.U., and Iran, and the United States and the E.U. lifted nuclear-related sanctions on Iran which were re-imposed by the United States on August 6, 2018 and November 5, 2018. All activities, transactions and dealings reported in this section occurred after the implementation date of the JCPOA and prior to the re-implementation of the applicable U.S. sanctions. We do not intend to charter our vessels to charterers who may make, or may sub-let the vessels to sub-charterers who may make, port calls to Iran, so long as the activities are not permissible and potentially sanctionable under U.S. or other applicable laws.

Competition

We operate in a highly competitive global market based primarily on supply and demand of vessels and cargoes. While the worldwide LPG sector is comparatively smaller than other shipping sectors, consisting of vessels of varying sizes between 1,000 and 85,000 cbm, it is a diversified global market with many charterers, owners and operators of vessels. As of April 1, 2019, our LPG carrier fleet, including our two chartered in vessels and four JV vessels, had an average age of 8.3 years. Accordingly, we believe we are well positioned from a competitive standpoint in terms of our vessels meeting the ongoing needs of charterers. Also, as of April 1, 2019, we had one of the largest single-owned fleets in our primary sector segment (3,000 cbm to 8,000 cbm), which, in our view, also positions us well from the standpoint of charterers and competitors. We believe, however, that the LPG shipping sector will continue to be highly competitive, and will be driven by both energy production and consumption.

Ownership of medium range product carriers and crude oil tankers capable of transporting crude oil and refined petroleum products, such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel, as well as edible oils and chemicals, is highly diversified and is divided among many independent tanker owners. Many oil companies and other oil

45

trading companies, the principal charterers of our product carriers and crude oil tankers, also operate their own vessels and transport oil for themselves and third party charterers in direct competition with independent owners and operators. Competition for charters, including for the transportation of oil and oil products, can be intense and depends on price as well as on the location, size, age, condition, specifications and acceptability of the vessel and its operator to the charterer and is frequently tied to having an available vessel with the appropriate approvals from oil majors. Principal factors that are important to our charterers include the quality and suitability of the vessel, its age, technical sophistication, safety record, compliance with IMO standards and the heightened industry standards that have been set by some energy companies, and the competitiveness of the bid in terms of overall price.

Seasonality

The LPG carrier market is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of propane and butane for heating during the winter months. Tanker markets are typically stronger in the winter months as a result of increased oil consumption in the northern hemisphere, but weaker in the summer months as a result of lower oil consumption in the northern hemisphere and refinery maintenance. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. As a result, our revenues may be stronger in fiscal quarters ended December 31 and March 31 and relatively weaker during the fiscal quarters ended June 30 and September 30, as was generally the case in each of the last five fiscal years other than the fourth quarter of 2018 which did not reflect this typical strength mostly as a result of weak conditions in the Asian LPG market.

C. Organizational Structure

As of April 1, 2019, other than the subsidiaries owning the JV vessels as indicated therein, we were the sole owner of all the outstanding shares of the subsidiaries listed in Exhibit 8.

D. Properties

Other than our vessels we do not have any material property. For information on our fleet see “Item 4. Information on the Company—Business Overview.” Our vessels are subject to priority mortgages, which secure our obligations under our various credit facilities. For further details regarding our credit facilities, refer to “Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects—B. Liquidity and Capital Resources—Credit Facilities.”

We have no freehold or material leasehold interest in any real property. We lease office space from an affiliated company of Stealth Maritime. See “Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions—B. Related Party Transactions—Office Space.”

operated a fleet of 47 LPG carriers, including 44 vessels we own and 3 vessels that were chartered in, that carry various petroleum gas products in liquefied form, including propane, butane, butadiene, isopropane, propylene and VCM (“Vinyl Chloride Monomer”), three medium range product carriers that carry refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel, as well as edible oils and chemicals, and one Aframax tanker which is used for carrying crude oil. In the first quarter of 2019, we completed the sale of two vessels, redelivered one of our chartered in vessels and concluded the sale of a 49.9% equity interest in the entities owning four additional vessels. All of the aforementioned vessels sold in the first quarter of 2019 had been classified as of December 31, 2018 as held for sale. Accordingly, as of April 1, 2019, our fleet is composed of 38 LPG carriers, excluding the two vessels that are chartered in and four JV Vessels, with a total capacity of 259,009 cbm and three medium range product carriers with a total capacity of 140,000 dwt and one 115,804 dwt crude oil tanker. For the years ended December 31, 2016, 2017 and 2018, we owned an average of 53.4, 52.6 and 50.8 vessels, respectively, generating revenues of $144.1 million, $154.3 million and $164.3 million, respectively.

In the first quarter of 2019, we sold a 49.9% equity interest in the subsidiaries owning four of our vessels, the Gas Haralambos , the Gas Defiance , the Gas Shuriken and the Eco Lucidity , to a leading maritime-focused investor. We and our manager, Stealth Maritime, will continue to manage these vessels. These four vessels were classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2018, and following the closing date of these sales, the entities owning these vessels, including associated debt totaling $ 30.1 million, are no longer fully consolidated in our balance sheet as we and the investor will have joint control over the vessels. Our 50.1% equity interest in these entities will be accounted for under the equity method.

We, through Stealth Maritime, manage the employment of our fleet. We intend to continue to deploy our fleet under period charters including time and bareboat charters, which can last up to several years, and spot market or voyage charters, which generally last from one to six months, subject to market conditions. Period charters and short term time charters are for a fixed period of time.

As of April 1, 2019, 9 of our LPG carriers, 2 of our medium range product carriers and our Aframax crude oil tanker were deployed on bareboat charters, under which the charterer is responsible for the costs associated with the operations of the vessels. Of the remaining vessels in our fleet, as of April 1, 2019, 7 were employed in the spot market, with the remaining vessels deployed on time charters. As of April 1, 2019, 68% of our anticipated fleet days for the existing fleet were covered by period charter contracts for the remainder of 2019 and 28 % for 2020. The corresponding forward coverage as of April 1, 2018 was 67% for the remainder of 2018 and 33% for 2019. We are, however, exposed to prevailing charter rate fluctuations for the remaining anticipated fleet days not covered by period charter contracts, as well as performance by our counterparties for the chartered days.

47

A. Operating Results

sooner and potentially suppressing charter rates. With regard to the four tankers in our fleet, one of our product carriers is employed on a fixed-rate time charter expiring in May 2020 and two of the product carriers are deployed on fixed rate bareboat charters expiring in April 2019 and September 2020, respectively, while the Aframax tanker is deployed on fixed rate bareboat charter that expires in March 2020, which has limited our exposure to fluctuations in charter rates for these vessels. However, we are exposed further to prevailing charter rates in the product and crude tanker sectors when these vessels’ existing charters expire. Currently tanker market rates are at low levels therefore it is likely that any negotiation of the charter rates of new period contracts in the near term will occur at relatively low levels.

Our ability to control our fixed and variable expenses, including those for commission expenses, crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses for repairs and maintenance, the cost of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses also affect our financial results. Factors beyond our control, such as developments relating to market premiums for insurance and the value of the U.S. dollar compared to currencies in which certain of our expenses, primarily crew wages, are denominated can also cause our vessel operating expenses to increase. In addition, our net income is affected by our financing arrangements, including our interest rate swap arrangements.

Basis of Presentation and General Information

Revenues

Our voyage revenues are driven primarily by the number of vessels in our fleet, the number of voyage days during which our vessels generate revenues and the amount of daily charter hire that our vessels earn under charters which, in turn, are affected by a number of factors, including our decisions relating to vessel acquisitions and disposals, the amount of time that we spend positioning our vessels, the amount of time that our vessels spend in dry dock undergoing repairs, maintenance and upgrade work, the age, condition and specifications of our vessels and the levels of supply and demand in the LPG carrier, product carrier and crude oil tanker charter markets.

We employ our vessels under time, bareboat and spot charters. Bareboat charters provide for the charterer to bear the cost of operating the vessel and as such typically market rates for bareboat charters are lower than those for time charters. Vessels operating on period charters, principally time and bareboat charters, provide more predictable cash flows, but can yield lower profit margins than vessels operating in the spot charter market during periods characterized by favorable market conditions. As a result, during the time our vessels are committed on period charters we will be unable, during periods of improving charter markets, to take advantage of improving charter rates as we could if our vessels were employed only on spot charters. Vessels operating in the spot charter market generate revenues that are less predictable but may enable us to capture increased profit margins during periods of improving charter rates, although we are then exposed to the risk of declining LPG carrier, product carrier or crude oil tanker charter rates, which may have a materially adverse impact on our financial

49

performance. If we commit vessels on period charters, future spot market rates may be higher or lower than those rates at which we have time chartered our vessels.

Voyage Expenses

Voyage expenses include port and canal charges, bunkers (fuel oil) expenses and commissions. These charges and expenses increase in periods during which vessels are employed on the spot market, because under these charters, these expenses are for the account of the vessel owner. Under period charters, these charges and expenses, including bunkers (fuel oil) but excluding commissions which are always paid by the vessel owner, are paid by the charterer. Bunkers (fuel oil), the price of which declined beginning in the third quarter of 2014 into 2017 when prices increased, accounted for 56.3% of total voyage expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018, 42.4% of total voyage expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 and 39.7% of total voyage expenses for the year ended December 31, 2016. Commissions on hire are paid to our manager Stealth Maritime and/or third party brokers. Stealth Maritime receives a fixed brokerage commission of 1.25% on freight, hire and demurrage for each vessel based on our management agreement since 2005. In 2018, port and canal charges and bunker expenses represented a relatively small portion of our vessels’ overall expenses, 9.4%, because the majority of our vessels were employed under period charters, including time and bareboat charters, that require the charterer to bear such expenses. As of April 1, 2019, we had 7 vessels in the spot market for which we pay voyage expenses; the corresponding number as of April 1, 2018 was 10 and as of April 1, 2017 was 8.

Vessel Operating Expenses

Vessel operating expenses include crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses for repairs and maintenance, the cost of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses. Our ability to control these fixed and variable expenses, also affects our financial results. In addition, the type of charter under which our vessels are employed (time, bareboat or spot charter) also affects our operating expenses because we do not pay the operating expenses of vessels that we deploy on bareboat charters. Factors beyond our control, some of which may affect the shipping industry in general, including, for instance, developments relating to market prices for insurance and regulations related to safety and environmental matters may also cause these expenses to increase.

Management Fees

During 2018, we paid Stealth Maritime, our fleet manager, a fixed rate management fee of $440 per day for each vessel in our fleet under spot or time charter and a fixed rate fee of $125 per day for each of the vessels operating on bareboat charter. These rates have been in effect since January 1, 2007. Stealth Maritime also receives a fee equal to 1.0% calculated on the price stated in the relevant memorandum of agreement for any vessel bought or sold by them on our behalf. From these management fees paid to Stealth Maritime, Stealth Maritime pays one technical manager that is responsible for the technical management of some of our vessels that are not technically managed by Stealth Maritime on a day-to-day basis.

General and Administrative Expenses

We incur general and administrative expenses that consist primarily of legal fees, audit fees, office rental fees, officers and board remuneration or reimbursement, directors and officers insurance, listing fees and other general and administrative expenses. Our general and administrative expenses also include our direct compensation expenses and the value of non-cash executive services provided through, and other expenses arising from, our management agreement with Stealth Maritime, our directors’ compensation and the value of the lease expense for the space we rent from Stealth Maritime. For our compensation expenses, pursuant to our management agreement, we reimburse Stealth Maritime for its payment of the compensation of our Chief Executive Officer, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director, Chief Technical Officer, and Internal Auditor. During the year ended December 31, 2018, such compensation was in the aggregate amount of $1.2 million plus $0.3 million of stock-based compensation expense relating to equity awards issued to our executive officers and

50

non-executive members of our Board of Directors in August 2018. As of December 31, 2018, we had $0.6 million of unrecognized stock-based compensation expense that we expect to recognize ratably over the remaining vesting period to August 2019.

Inflation

Inflation has only a moderate effect on our expenses given current economic conditions. In the event that significant global inflationary pressures appear, these pressures would increase our operating, voyage, administrative and financing expenses.

Depreciation and Dry docking

We depreciate our vessels on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, determined to be 30 years from the date of their initial delivery from the shipyard in the case of our LPG carriers and 25 years in the case of our product carriers and crude oil tanker. Depreciation is based on cost less the estimated scrap value of the vessels. We expense costs associated with dry dockings and special and intermediate surveys as incurred which may affect the volatility of our results. During 2018, we dry docked 7 vessels at a total cost of $3.6 million. We expect that during 2019 our dry docking costs will be lower, as 2 vessels are scheduled to be dry docked in 2019.

Impairment Loss

Based on the accounting standards followed by the Company, impairment losses are recognized on long-lived assets used in operations or held for sale, when indicators of impairment are present and the undiscounted cash flows estimated to be generated by those assets are less than their carrying amounts and the asset’s carrying value exceeds its fair value. The Company performs an analysis of the anticipated undiscounted future net cash flows of the related long-lived assets. If the carrying value of the related asset exceeds the undiscounted cash flows, the carrying value is reduced to its fair value and the difference is recorded as an impairment loss in the consolidated statements of operations. For the years ended December 31 2018, 2017 and 2016, we recognized an impairment loss of $11.4 million on eleven of our vessels, $6.5 million on seven of our oldest vessels and $5.7 million on six of our oldest vessels, respectively.

Net (Gain)/Loss on Sale of Vessels

The carrying value of our vessels includes the original cost of the vessels plus capitalized expenses since acquisition relating to improvements and upgrading of the vessel, less accumulated depreciation and less any impairment. Depreciation is calculated using the straight line method, from the date the vessel was originally built, over an estimated useful life of 25 years for the tankers in our fleet and 30 years for the LPG carriers in our fleet. LPG carriers tend to trade for longer periods due to the less corrosive nature of the cargoes they carry. Residual values used in depreciation calculations are based on $350 per light weight ton.

In 2018, we sold and delivered to their new owners the Gas Enchanted , the Gas Evoluzione , the Gas Legacy , the Gas Sikousis , and the Gas Marathon , all for further trading; we recognized an aggregate loss of $ 0.8 million on the sale of these vessels. Another two of our vessels, the Gas Sincerity and the Gas Texiana , which were agreed to be sold in 2018, were delivered to their new owners in the first quarter of 2019. In 2017, we sold the Gas Moxie , the Gas Nirvana , the Gas Icon and the Gas Emperor, for further trading, for which we recognized an aggregate loss of $0.1 million. In 2016, we sold the Gas Arctic for demolition and the Gas Ice for further trading, for which we recognized an aggregate gain of $0.1 million.

During the year ended December 31, 2014, we sold two vessels, the Gas Cathar and the Gas Premiership , that were leased back by our Company on a bareboat hire basis. The aforementioned transaction is classified as a sale and lease back transaction and in accordance with US GAAP ASC 840-40, the net gain on sale of vessels of

51

$0.8 million must be amortized throughout the lease period of the vessels. The lease for the Gas Cathar is scheduled to expire in the first quarter of 2020 while the lease for the Gas Premiership expired in the fourth quarter of 2018.

Loss on Derivatives

All of our nine interest rate swaps, as of December 31, 2018, are accounted for as cash flow hedges and the changes in their fair values are recorded in “Accumulated other comprehensive income”. All changes in the fair value of our cash flow interest rate swaps and foreign currency exchange agreements that are not accounted for as cash flow hedges, are recorded in earnings under “Loss on Derivatives.” To the extent we have interest rate swaps and foreign currency exchange agreements in this category, this increases the potential volatility in our reported earnings, in comparison to the case where such arrangements did qualify for hedge accounting, due to the recognition of non-cash fair value movements of our cash flow interest rate swaps and foreign currency exchange arrangements directly in our statement of operations.

Interest Expense and Finance Costs

We have entered into credit facilities to fund a portion of the purchase price of the vessels in our fleet, which are described in the “—Credit Facilities” section below. We incur interest expense on outstanding indebtedness under these credit facilities, which we include in interest expense. We also incurred financing costs in connection with establishing those facilities, which are deferred and amortized over the period of the facility, which we also include in interest expense. We will incur additional interest expenses under any new credit facilities we enter into to finance or refinance the purchase price of additional vessels as described in the “Liquidity and Capital Resources” section below.

Results of Operations

Year ended December 31, 2018 compared to the year ended December 31, 2017

The average number of vessels in our fleet was 50.8 for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to 52.6 for the year ended December 31, 2017.

REVENUES—Voyage revenues for the year ended December 31, 2018 were $164.3 million compared to $154.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $10.0 million, primarily due to improved market conditions. Total calendar days for our fleet were 19,554 for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to 19,917 for the year ended December 31, 2017; due to the decrease in the average number of vessels in our fleet. Of the total calendar days in 2018, 4,691 or 24.0% were bareboat charter days and 11,005 or 56.3% were time charter days and 3,667 or 18.8% were spot days. This compares to 4,934 or 24.8% bareboat charter days and 11,838 or 59.4% time charter days and 2,945 or 14.8% were spot days in 2017. Our fleet operational utilization was 95.5% and 96.2% for the years ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017, respectively.

VOYAGE EXPENSES—Voyage expenses were $20.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $15.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $5.0 million, or 31.8%. This was primarily due to the increased number of spot days and the higher bunker prices prevailing in 2018 compared to 2017. Voyage expenses consisted largely of bunker charges in the amount of $11.6 million for 2018 compared to bunker charges in the amount of $6.7 million for 2017, an increase of $4.9 million. Under spot charters we are responsible for paying the vessels’ bunkers consumption, as well as most expenses. Voyage expenses also included port expenses of $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $2.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $0.3 million and commissions to third parties which were $2.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 and $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.

52

VESSEL OPERATING EXPENSES—Vessel operating expenses were $60.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $59.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $1.0 million, or 1.7%. The increase in operating expenses , in spite of the net reduction of the average number of our owned vessels by two, was mainly driven by the operation of three additional new 22,000 cbm semi-refrigerated LPG vessels not yet delivered in the same period of last year which are more expensive to operate compared to smaller LPG vessels. Other components of vessel operating expenses were repairs and maintenance costs which increased from $6.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2017 to $7.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2018 mainly due to some unforeseen technical needs of some older vessels.

DRY DOCKING COSTS—Dry docking costs were $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $0.1 million, or 2.9%. For each of the year ended December 31, 2018 and the year ended December 31, 2017 seven vessels were dry docked.

MANAGEMENT FEES—Management fees were $7.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, a decrease of $0.2 million or 2.8%. The decrease was due to the lower average number of vessels in the fleet. The daily management fees per vessel did not change during these periods and remained at $440 per day for vessels under time and spot charter and at $125 per day for vessels under bareboat charter.

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES—General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2018 were $3.0 million compared to $2.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $0.1 million or 3.4%. Included in the general and administrative expenses for the years ended December 31, 2018 and December 31, 2017 are $1.2 million and $1.1 million respectively paid to our manager for the services of the Company’s executive officers pursuant to our management agreement. Stock based compensation expense for the vested and non- vested shares, which is also part of the general and administrative expenses, increased to $0.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2018 from $0.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2017.

DEPRECIATION—Depreciation expenses for the 50.8 average number of vessels in our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2018 were $41.3 million compared to $38.9 million for the 52.6 average number of vessels in our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2017 an increase of $2.4 million or 6.2%. This increase in depreciation expenses, in spite of the net reduction of the average number of our owned vessels by two was mainly due to the addition of three 22,000 cbm semi-refrigerated vessels which have significantly higher carrying values, and therefore associated annual depreciation expense compared to a smaller LPG vessel.

IMPAIRMENT LOSS—During the year ended December 31, 2018 the Company recognized an impairment loss of $11.4 million for eleven of its vessels, six of which were classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2018. With regards to the remaining five vessels for which we incurred impairment charges, one was delivered to her new owners in the second quarter of 2018, three were delivered to their new owners in the third quarter of 2018 while the remaining one was delivered to their new owners in the fourth quarter of 2018. During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recognized an impairment loss of $6.5 million for seven of its oldest vessels, four of which were sold in 2017.

NET (GAIN)/ LOSS ON SALE OF VESSELS—During the year ended December 31, 2018 we agreed to the sale of seven vessels. Five of these vessels the Gas Enchanted , the Gas Evoluzione , the Gas Legacy , the Gas Sikousis , and the Gas Marathon were delivered to their new owners within 2018 and for these vessels we incurred a net loss on the sale of these vessels of $0.8 million. The remaining two vessels agreed to be sold within the year 2018, the Gas Sincerity and the Gas Texiana were delivered to their new owners within the first quarter of 2019. During the year ended December 31, 2017 we sold four of our oldest vessels, the Gas Moxie, the Gas Nirvana, the Gas Icon and the Gas Emperor all for further trading. The net loss on the sale of these vessels was $77.3 thousands.

53

OTHER OPERATING COSTS/(INCOME) — During the year ended December 31, 2018 we received $0.6 million of legal claims. This income was partially offset by a $0.1 million charge related to the delay of the delivery of our new 22,000 cbm semi-refrigerated vessels.

INTEREST AND FINANCE COSTS—Interest and finance costs were $23.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $16.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $6.6 million, or 39.5%. The increase in interest and finance cost was mainly due the increase in our bank debt and to an increase in Libor rates.

INTEREST INCOME—Interest income was $0.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018 compared to $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, an increase of $0.3 million related mostly to a higher amount of time deposits and higher deposit rates offered compared to rates offered in the same period of last year.

NET INCOME/(LOSS)—As a result of the above factors, we recorded a net loss of $12.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, compared to net loss of $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017.

Year ended December 31, 2017 compared to the year ended December 31, 2016

The average number of vessels in our fleet was 52.6 for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to 53.4 for the year ended December 31, 2016.

REVENUES—Voyage revenues for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $154.3 million compared to $144.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $10.2 million, primarily due to improved market conditions. Total calendar days for our fleet were 19,917 for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to 20,275 for the year ended December 31, 2016; due to the decrease in the average number of vessels in our fleet. Of the total calendar days in 2017, 4,934 or 24.8% were bareboat charter days and 11,838 or 59.4% were time charter days. This compares to 5,080 or 25.1% bareboat charter days and 10,751 or 53.0% time charter days in 2016. Our fleet operational utilization was 96.2% and 91.1% for the years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016, respectively.

VOYAGE EXPENSES—Voyage expenses were $15.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $15.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $0.3 million, or 1.9%. This was primarily due to higher fuel prices prevailing throughout the year 2017 compared to year 2016. Voyage expenses consisted largely of bunker charges in the amount of $6.7 million for 2017 compared to bunker charges in the amount of $6.1 million for 2016, an increase of $0.6 million. Under spot charters we are responsible for paying the vessels’ bunkers consumption, as well as most expenses. Voyage expenses also included port expenses of $2.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $3.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $0.8 million and commissions to third parties which were $2.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to $2.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $0.2 million.

VESSEL OPERATING EXPENSES—Vessel operating expenses were $59.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $58.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $0.6 million, or 1.0%. The increase in operating expenses was driven by one of our product tankers coming off bareboat as well as increased maintenance costs for some vessels in the fleet. Other components of vessel operating expenses were repairs and maintenance costs which increased from $5.7 million in the year ended December 31, 2016 to $6.4 million in the year ended December 31, 2017.

DRY DOCKING COSTS—Dry docking costs were $3.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $3.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $0.1 million, or 2.8%. For the year ended December 31, 2017 seven vessels were dry docked compared to ten vessels for the year ended December 31, 2016. In 2017 the Company faced higher drydocking cost as per vessel drydocked due to the trading areas of some of the vessels due for drydock.

54

MANAGEMENT FEES—Management fees were $7.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $7.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $0.1 million or 1.4%. The decrease was due to the lower average number of vessels in the fleet; 52.6 for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to 53.4 for the year ended December 31, 2016. The daily management fees per vessel did not change during these periods and remained $440 per day for vessels under time and spot charter and $125 per day for vessels under bareboat charter. The decrease in management fees in 2017 resulted from decrease in the total number of calendar days, which was due to the decrease in the average size of our fleet.

GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES—General and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $2.9 million compared to $3.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $0.2 million or 6.5%. Included in the general and administrative expenses for both years ended December 31, 2017 and December 31, 2016 are $1.1 million paid to our manager for the services of the Company’s executive officers pursuant to our management agreement. Stock based compensation expense for the vested and non- vested shares, which is also part of the general and administrative expenses, decreased to $0.1 million during the year ended December 31, 2017 from $0.3 million during the year ended December 31, 2016.

DEPRECIATION—Depreciation expenses for the 52.6 average number of vessels in our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2017 were $38.9 million compared to $39.1 million for the 53.4 average number of vessels in our fleet for the year ended December 31, 2016 a decrease of $0.2 million, or 0.5%.

IMPAIRMENT LOSS—During the year ended December 31, 2017, the Company recognized an impairment loss of $6.5 million for seven of its oldest vessels, four of which were sold in 2017 while for the year ended December 31, 2016 the Company recognized an impairment loss of $5.7 million for six of its oldest vessels.

NET (GAIN)/ LOSS ON SALE OF VESSELS—During the year ended December 31, 2017 we sold four of our oldest vessels, the Gas Moxie, the Gas Nirvana, the Gas Icon and the Gas Emperor all for further trading. The net loss on the sale of these vessels was $77.3 thousands. During the year ended December 31, 2016, we sold two vessels, the Gas Arctic for demolition and the Gas Ice for further trading. The net gain on the sale of these vessels was $118.4 thousands.

OTHER OPERATING COSTS—On November 17, 2016 and on July 18, 2017 at our request due to charter market conditions, the delivery dates for the four 22,000 cbm newbuildings were delayed. As a consequence, for the postponement of the delivery date the Company agreed to pay to the shipbuilder an additional charge. These charges were included in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations under the caption “Other Operating Costs” for the year ended December 31, 2017.

INTEREST AND FINANCE COSTS—Interest and finance costs were $16.7 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $14.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, an increase of $2.4 million, or 16.8%. The increase in interest and finance cost was mainly due to an increase in loan interest expenses, mainly as a result of the increase in Libor rates.

LOSS ON DERIVATIVES—Included in the results for the year ended December 31, 2017 are net losses from interest rate derivative instruments of $0.4 million. Interest paid on interest rate swap arrangements amounted to $0.4 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to $1.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016 and net gains from change in fair value of the same arrangements was nil for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to gains of $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

INTEREST INCOME—Interest income was $0.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2017 compared to $0.5 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, a decrease of $0.2 million, related mostly to a lower amount of time deposits.

55

NET INCOME/(LOSS)—As a result of the above factors, we recorded a net loss of $1.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, compared to net loss of $7.8 million for the year ended December 31, 2016.

Net cash used in investing activities—was $78.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, $48.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, and $54.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2016. During 2018, we acquired three 22,000 cbm new LPG semi-refrigerated vessels, the Eco Ice , the Eco Arctic and the Eco Freeze , for which we paid a total of $108.3 million. During 2017, we acquired one LPG vessel, the Eco Frost , for which we paid a total of $33.3 million, while we paid an amount of $27.3 million as advances related to the three remaining LPG newbuilding deliveries, two of which were delivered in January 2018 and one in April 2018. During 2016, we acquired two LPG vessels, the Eco Nical and the Eco Dominator, for which we paid a total of $33.0 million while we paid an amount of $23.2 million as advances related to the four remaining LPG newbuilding deliveries. With regards to the sale of vessels, during 2018, we agreed to sell seven vessels, all for further trading. Five of these vessels, the Gas Enchanted , the Gas Evoluzione , the Gas Legacy , the Gas Sikousis , and the Gas Marathon were delivered to their new owners within 2018 with net sale proceeds of $29.1 million. In 2017, we sold four of our oldest vessels, the Gas Moxie , the Gas Nirvana , the Gas Icon and the Gas Emperor, all for further trading with net sale proceeds of $11.5 million. In 2016, we sold two of our oldest vessels, the Gas Arctic for demolition and the Gas Ice for further trading, with net sale proceeds of $1.5 million.

Net cash (used in)/ provided by financing activities—net cash provided by financing activities was $57.3 million for the year ended December 31, 2018, consisting mainly of $115.7 million in proceeds from long-term debt, while $56.7 million in loan repayments of which $46.7 million were regular loan installments and $10.0 million were voluntary repayments of existing credit facilities of two of our vessels agreed to be sold. Net cash used in financing activities was $14.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2017, consisting mainly of $56.3 million of loan repayments and $43.0 million of debt proceeds. Net cash used in financing activities was $27.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2016, consisting mainly of $31.2 million in proceeds from long-term debt offset by $55.6 million in loan repayments.

As and when we identify assets that we believe will provide attractive returns, we generally enter into specific term loan facilities and borrow amounts under these facilities as the vessels are delivered to us. This is the primary driver of the timing and amount of cash provided to us by our financing activities, however, from time to time to bolster our cash position and take advantage of financing opportunities, including to refinance the acquisition cost of vessels acquired earlier, we have entered into and may in the future borrow under credit facilities secured by previously unencumbered vessels in our then-existing fleet.

Credit Facilities

We, and certain of our subsidiaries, have entered into a number of credit facilities in connection with financing the acquisition of certain vessels in our fleet. The following summarizes certain terms of our credit facilities under which we had aggregate outstanding indebtedness net of deferred finance charges of $443.3 million, as of December 31, 2018 which is reflected in our balance sheet as “Long-term debt” and “Current portion of long-term debt.” For a description of our credit facilities also see Note 11 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere in this report.

57

The interest rates on the outstanding loans as of December 31, 2018 are based on LIBOR plus a margin which varies from 0.80% to 3.00%. The average interest rates (including the margin) on the above outstanding loans were 5.34% for the year ended December 31, 2018 and 3.97% for the year ended December 31, 2017. As

58

of December 31, 2018, $111.5  million of our outstanding loans were covered by interest rate swap agreements paying fixed rates ranging from 1.52% to 2.89% and received floating rates based on LIBOR.

As of April 1, 2019, six of our vessels, the Gas Prodigy, the Gas Flawless, the Gas Monarch, the Gas Pasha, the Gas Spirit , and the Gas Nemesis II, were unencumbered. We had no undrawn borrowing capacity under our existing credit facilities.

Financial Covenants

Our credit facilities contain financial covenants requiring us to:

We are also required to maintain at the end of each quarter a free cash balance of $10,000,000.

Our current loan agreements also require that our Chief Executive Officer, Harry Vafias, together with his immediate family, at all times own at least 10% of our outstanding capital stock and certain of our loan agreements provide that it would be an event of default if Harry Vafias ceased to serve as an executive officer or director of our company, Harry Vafias, together with his immediate family, ceased to control our company or any other person or group controlled 25% or more of the voting power of our outstanding capital stock. In addition, our loan agreements include restrictions on the payment of dividends in amounts exceeding 50% of our free cash flow in any rolling 12-month period.

Our existing credit facility agreements contain customary events of default with respect to us and our applicable subsidiaries, including upon the non-payment of amounts due under the credit facility; breach of covenants; matters affecting the collateral under such facility; insolvency proceedings and the occurrence of any event that, in light of which, the lender considers that there is a significant risk that the borrowers are, or will later become, unable to discharge their liabilities as they fall due.

Our credit facilities provide that upon the occurrence of an event of default, the lenders may require that all amounts outstanding under the credit facility be repaid immediately and terminate our ability to borrow under the credit facility and foreclose on the mortgages over the vessels and the related collateral. Our credit facilities also contain cross-default clauses.

C. Research and Development, Patents and Licenses

None.

D. Trend Information

Our results of operations depend primarily on the charter hire rates that we are able to realize. In turn, charter rates are determined by the underlying balance in demand and supply for our vessels. Demand for LPG

59

transportation is influenced by various global economic factors and trade patterns, while the supply is primarily a factor of the fleet growth, determined by the number of vessels in the order book entering the fleet and the number of vessels exiting the fleet, primarily sold for demolition. As a result, the LPG shipping sector has been a highly cyclical industry experiencing volatility in charter hire rates and vessel values.

After a difficult period following the global financial crisis we saw some improvement from the fourth quarter of 2011 to the third quarter of 2014, charter rates subsequently declined sharply, due largely to the dramatic decline in oil prices, and despite some reasonable improvement between the second half of 2017 and until the first quarter of 2019 the charter rates remain well below levels reached in 2007 and 2008. Although prospects for the small LPG segment currently appear favorable as the orderbook for 2019 and the next couple of years is negligible, future growth in the demand for LPG carriers and charter rates will depend on economic growth in the world economy and demand for LPG. Global financial conditions remain volatile and demand for LPG transportation may decrease in the future. We believe that the future growth in demand for LPG carriers and the charter rate levels will depend primarily upon the supply and demand for LPG particularly supply in the United States and the economies of the Middle East where large quantities are produced, and demand in the Far East and developing countries like Asia and Africa and in general upon seasonal and regional changes in supply/demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet.

As a result of the volatility and rate declines witnessed in the overall shipping markets during the past few years and the global financial conditions, credit to finance vessel acquisitions has become scarcer. Companies in the shipping sector generally depend on credit facilities, to partially finance their acquisitions.

60

Critical Accounting Policies

The discussion and analysis of our financial condition and results of operations is based upon our consolidated financial statements, which have been prepared in accordance with U.S. GAAP. The preparation of those financial statements requires us to make estimates and judgments that affect the reported amount of assets and liabilities, revenues and expenses and related disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities at the date of our financial statements. Actual results may differ from these estimates under different assumptions or conditions.

Critical accounting policies are those that reflect significant judgments or uncertainties, and potentially result in materially different results under different assumptions and conditions. We have described below what we believe are our most critical accounting policies that involve a high degree of judgment and the methods of their application. For a description of all of our significant accounting policies, see Note 2 to our consolidated financial statements included elsewhere herein.

Impairment or disposal of long-lived assets: We follow the Accounting Standards Codification (“ASC”) Subtopic 360-10, “Property, Plant and Equipment” (“ASC 360-10”), which requires long-lived assets used in operations be reviewed for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate that the carrying amount of the assets may not be recoverable. We perform quarterly an analysis of the anticipated undiscounted future net cash flows of all our long-lived assets. If the carrying value of the related asset exceeds the undiscounted cash flows and the fair market value of the asset, the carrying value is reduced to its fair value and the difference is recorded as an impairment loss in the consolidated statement of operations.

We review certain indicators of potential impairment, such as undiscounted projected operating cash flows, vessel sales and purchases, business plans and overall market conditions including any regulatory changes that may have a material impact on the vessel lives. The decline in the values of some of the vessels included in our LPG fleet and the decline in the global economy were considered to be indicators of potential impairment. As of the end of each respective quarter of 2018, we performed step one, the undiscounted cash flow test as required by the ASC guidance. We determined undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel and compared it to the vessel’s carrying value. This assessment was made at the individual vessel level since separately identifiable cash flow information for each vessel was available. In developing estimates of future cash flows to be generated over remaining useful lives of the vessels, we made assumptions about the future, such as: (1) vessel charter rates, (2) vessel utilization rates, (3) vessel operating expenses, (4) dry docking costs, (5) vessel scrap values at the end of vessels’ remaining useful lives and (6) the remaining useful lives of the vessels. These assumptions were based on historical trends as well as future expectations in line with our historical performance and our expectations for future fleet utilization under our current fleet deployment strategy, vessel sales and purchases, and overall market conditions.

Projected cash flows were determined for the vessels by considering the revenues from existing charters for those vessels that have long term employment, and:

with an annual 1% revenue increase for both categories.

61

We also assumed an average annual inflation rate of 1.5% for operating expenses using as a base rate:

Utilization rate was assumed to be:

Based on our historical experience and future expectations, we believe the use of different assumptions for these items depending on whether a vessel is less than 20 years old or 20 years old or more, provides a better estimate of the expected future chartering profile and associated operating expenses for vessels in these different age groups. Although we believe that the assumptions we use to calculate future cash flows are reasonable and appropriate, such assumptions are highly subjective.

During the first nine months of 2018, the Company identified and recorded an impairment loss of $8,161,963 for seven of its vessels, the Gas Legacy , the Gas Enchanted , the Gas Evoluzione , the Gas Sikousis, the Gas Marathon, the Gas Sincerity and the Gas Texiana, which were agreed to be sold for further trading. As of December 31, 2018, the Company identified and recorded an additional impairment loss of $3,189,858 relating to vessels Gas Shuriken, Gas Defiance, Gas Haralambos and Eco Lucidity, following the decision to enter into, or potentially enter into, as applicable, joint venture agreements with a third party investor based on which the third party investor would acquire a 49.9% equity interest in these four vessel owning companies of the Company and the vessels were classified as vessels held for sale. For the three months ended December 31, 2018, no impairment loss was identified and recorded for the Company’s vessels that are held for use.

As of June 30, 2017, the Company identified and recorded an impairment loss of $897,965 relating to one of the oldest vessels of the fleet, Gas Monarch , and as of September 30, 2017, the Company identified and recorded an impairment loss of $1,258,037, relating to two of the oldest vessels of the fleet, Gas Pasha and Gas Evoluzione . In addition, during the first nine months of 2017, the Company identified and recorded an impairment loss of $4,305,271 for four of its oldest vessels, the Gas Moxie , the Gas Nirvana , the Gas Icon and the Gas Emperor which were sold during the year 2017, for further trading. For the three months ended December 31, 2017, no impairment loss was identified and recorded for the Company’s vessels that are held for use. Furthermore, as of December 31, 2017, the fair market value of each vessel of 20 years of age and above exceeded its carrying value. For 2016 we had six of our oldest vessels of the fleet impaired, the Gas Moxie , the Gas Emperor , the Gas Marathon , the Gas Texiana , the Gas Nirvana and the Gas Galaxy , as in each case the undiscounted net operating cash flows of each of these vessels did not exceed the respective vessel’s carrying value. The total impairment loss identified and recorded by the Company was $11,351,821 as of December 31, 2018, $6,461,273 during the year ended December 31, 2017 and $5,735,086 as of December 31, 2016.

The carrying values of our vessels may not represent their fair market value at any point in time since the market prices of second-hand vessels tend to fluctuate with changes in charter rates and the cost of newbuildings.

62

Sensitivity Analysis.

The impairment test is highly sensitive to variances in future charter rates. When we conducted the analysis of the impairment test as of December 31, 2018 we also performed a sensitivity analysis related to the future cash flow estimates. Set forth below is an analysis, as of December 31, 2018, of the percentage difference between the current average rates for our fleet compared with the base rates used in the impairment test as described above, as well as an analysis of the impact on our impairment analysis if we were to utilize the most recent five-year, three-year and one-year historical average rates, which shows the number of vessels whose carrying value would not have been recovered and the related impairment charge.

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

Based on the carrying value of each of our vessels held for use as of December 31, 2018 and what we believe the charter-free market values of each of these vessels was as of December 31, 2018, 20 of our 42 owned vessels in the water have current carrying values above their market values (25 of our 50 vessels in the water as at December 31, 2017). We believe that the aggregate carrying value of these vessels, assessed separately, exceeds their aggregate charter-free market value by approximately $67 million and $78 million as of December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively.

The Company’s estimates of market values assume that the vessels are all in good and seaworthy condition without need for repair and, if inspected, would be certified as being in class without recommendations of any kind. In addition, because vessel values are highly volatile, these estimates may not be indicative of either the current or future prices that the Company could achieve if it were to sell any of the vessels. The Company would not record an impairment charge for any of the vessels for which the fair market value is below its carrying value unless and until the Company either determines to sell the vessel for a loss or determines that the vessel’s carrying amount is not recoverable. The Company believes that the undiscounted projected net operating cash flows over the estimated remaining useful lives for those vessels that have experienced declines in estimated market values below their carrying values exceed such vessels’ carrying values as of December 31, 2018, and accordingly has not recorded an impairment charge.

Vessel depreciation: We record the value of our vessels at their cost (which includes acquisition costs directly attributable to the vessel and expenditures made to prepare the vessel for its initial voyage) less accumulated depreciation and impairment, if any. We depreciate our vessels on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, estimated to be 25 or 30 years from date of initial delivery from the shipyard depending on the vessel type. We believe that a 30-year depreciable life is consistent with that of other gas vessel owners and reflects management’s intended use and a 25-year depreciable life is consistent with other product carrier vessel owners and reflects management’s intended use. Depreciation is based on cost less the estimated residual scrap value. An increase in the useful life of the vessel or in the residual value would have the effect of decreasing the

63

annual depreciation charge and extending it into later periods. A decrease in the useful life of the vessel or in the residual value would have the effect of increasing the annual depreciation charge. No events or circumstances occurred in 2018 that would require us to revise estimates related to depreciation and such revisions are not expected to occur in the future.

G. Safe Harbor

See section “Forward-Looking Information” at the beginning of this annual report.

became the Chief Operating Officer, and has worked for the Stealth Maritime Corporation since 2000. From 1997 until 2000, Mr. Babilis worked in the Technical Department of Multi Trading Ship Management, a company specializing in chemical tankers. From 1993 until 1997, Mr. Babilis worked in a consulting or research capacity for various EEC Shipping related projects and worked as a consultant to shipping companies and as a representative of the Technical Chamber of Greece to the Joint Committee of Health and Safety of Ship Repair (Perama Zone). In addition, from 1996 until 1997, Mr. Babilis was involved in the construction of the Landing Ships at Eleusis Shipyards (Detachment of Hellenic Navy). From 1992 until 1993, Mr. Babilis worked for an international consortium, including PricewaterhouseCoopers and Port and Transport Consulting of Bremen, for the design of the Port Management Information System of Piraeus Port Authority. Mr. Babilis started his career in the Operations Department of Trade and Transport Inc. Mr. Babilis has been involved in the research center of Athens University of Economics and Business and in the Ocean Transportation Economics department at the National Technical University of Athens. From 1994 until 1996, Mr. Babilis was the General Secretary of the Hellenic Association of Naval Architects. Mr. Babilis graduated from the National Technical University of Athens, department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering, in 1990, and received an honorary scholarship from the Hellenic Scholarship foundation.

Markos Drakos has been a member of our Board of Directors since 2006 and Chairman of our Audit Committee. In 1988, Mr. Drakos co-founded Touche Ross & Co (Cyprus), later renamed Deloitte & Touche, Nicosia and served as co-managing partner of the company’s Nicosia office in Cyprus until 2002. Following the December 2002 reorganization of Deloitte & Touche, Nicosia, Mr. Drakos founded Markos Drakos Consultants Group, a consulting company, which served as successor to the consulting, special services and international business division of Deloitte & Touche, Nicosia. From 2000 until 2003, Mr. Drakos also served as Vice Chairman of the Cyprus Telecommunications Authority, the leading telecommunications company in Cyprus. Mr. Drakos has also served as a member of the Offshore, Shipping & Foreign Investment Committee of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Cyprus. Mr. Drakos received a Bachelor of Science degree in Economics from the London School of Economics and is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and a member of the Institute of Certified Public Accountants of Cyprus.

John Kostoyannis joined our Board of Directors in 2010. Mr. Kostoyannis is a Managing Director at Allied Shipbroking Inc., a leading shipbroking house in Greece, providing Sale and Purchase and Chartering services in the shipping industry. Before joining Allied Shipbroking, from 1991 until September 2001, Mr. Kostoyannis worked in several prominent shipbroking houses in London and Piraeus. He is a member of the Hellenic Shipbrokers Association. Mr. Kostoyannis graduated from the City of London Polytechnic in 1988 where he studied Shipping and Economics.

B. Compensation of Directors and Senior Management

The Chairman of our Board of Directors receives annual fees of $70,000, plus reimbursement for his out-of-pocket expenses, while each of our other independent directors receives fees of up to $35,000 per annum, plus reimbursement of their out-of-pocket expenses. Executive directors received no compensation for their services as directors. We do not have service contracts with any of our directors. In addition, we have not paid any compensation to our executive officers. Under our management agreement with Stealth Maritime, we reimburse Stealth Maritime for its payment of the compensation to our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Deputy Chairman and Executive Director, Internal Auditor and our Chief Technical Officer. The aggregate of such compensation for each of the years 2016 and 2017 was $1.1 million and $1.2 million for the year 2018.

Our executive officers and directors are also eligible to receive awards under our equity compensation plan described below under “—Equity Compensation Plan.” In August 2018, we awarded an aggregate of 264,621 restricted shares of common stock to directors and officers, all which are scheduled to vest in August 2019, subject to satisfaction of the vesting terms. The restricted shares are subject to forfeiture until they become vested. We did not grant any awards under our equity compensation plan to directors or officers of the Company

65

during the years ended December 31, 2017 and 2016. We recognized share-based compensation expense of $0.3 million, $0.1 million and $0.3 million in 2016, 2017 and 2018, respectively. As of December 31, 2018, there was an additional $0.6 million of share-based compensation expense relating to the awards granted in August 2018 which we expect to recognize ratably over the remaining vesting period to August 2019.

C. Board Practices

The Board of Directors may change the number of directors by a vote of a majority of the entire Board. Each director is elected to serve until the third succeeding annual meeting of stockholders and until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified, except in the event of death, resignation or removal. A vacancy on the board created by death, resignation, removal (which may only be for cause), or failure of the stockholders to elect the entire class of directors to be elected at any election of directors or for any other reason, may be filled only by an affirmative vote of a majority of the remaining directors then in office, even if less than a quorum, at any special meeting called for that purpose or at any regular meeting of the board of directors. Our Board of Directors is divided into three classes with only one class of directors being elected in each year and each class serving a three-year term.

At December 31, 2018 and April 1, 2019, we had five members on our Board of Directors named above. Our Board of Directors has determined that Michael G. Jolliffe, Markos Drakos and John Kostoyannis are independent directors within the meaning of the applicable Nasdaq listing requirements and SEC independence requirements applicable to Audit Committee members since none of them has received any compensation from the Company except for director’s fees and restricted stock awards to directors and none of them has any relationship or has had any transaction with the Company which the Board believes would compromise their independence. Officers are elected from time to time by vote of our Board of Directors and hold office until a successor is elected.

We have no service contracts with any of our directors that provide for benefits upon termination of employment.

During the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018, the full Board of Directors held four meetings. Each director attended all of the meetings of the Board and all of the meetings of committees of which such director was a member in 2018, except for one director, who attended at least 75% of such meetings.

To promote open discussion among the independent directors, a majority of the directors met four times in 2018 in regularly scheduled executive sessions without participation of our Company’s management and will continue to do so. Mr. Jolliffe has served as the presiding director for purposes of these meetings. Stockholders who wish to send communications on any topic to the Board of Directors or to the independent directors as a group, or to the presiding director, Mr. Jolliffe, may do so by writing to StealthGas Inc., 331 Kifissias Avenue, Erithrea 14561 Athens, Greece.

Corporate Governance

Our Board of Directors and our Company’s management reviews our corporate governance practices in order to oversee our compliance with the applicable corporate governance rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market and the SEC.

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

66

We will provide a paper copy of any of these documents upon the written request of a stockholder. Stockholders may direct their requests to the attention of Investor Relations, c/o Harry Vafias, StealthGas Inc., 331 Kifissias Avenue, Erithrea 14561 Athens, Greece. These documents are also available on our website at www.stealthgas.com under the heading “Corporate Governance.”

Committees of the Board of Directors