Edgar Filing: EUROSEAS LTD.

d1199272_20-f.htm

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

_________________

FORM 20-F

_________________

(Mark One)

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

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

For the fiscal year ended

December 31, 2010

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

For the transition period from

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

Date of event requiring this shell company report

Commission file number 001-33283

EUROSEAS LTD.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(Translation of Registrant's name into English)

Marshall Islands

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

4 Messogiou & Evropis Street, 151 25 Maroussi Greece

(Address of principal executive offices)

Tasos Aslidis, Tel: (908) 301-9091, Euroseas Ltd. c/o Tasos Aslidis,

11 Canterbury Lane, Watchung, NJ 07069

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile, and address of Company Contact Person)


Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class		Name of each exchange on which registered
Common shares, $0.03 par value		NASDAQ Global Select Market


Securities registered or to be registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None

Securities for which there is a reporting obligation pursuant to Section 15(d) of the Act:


None
(Title of Class)


Indicate the number of outstanding shares of each of the issuer's classes of capital or common stock as of the close of the period covered by the annual report:
	31,002,211 common shares, $0.03 par value


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

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

Note – Checking the box above will not relieve any registrant required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 from their obligations under those Sections.

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate website, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). o Yes o No Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, or a non-accelerated filer. See definition of "accelerated filer and large accelerated filer" in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check One)

Large accelerated filer

Accelerated filer

Non-accelerated filer

o	x	o

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing: x U.S. GAAP o International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the international Accounting Standards Board. o Other If "Other" has been checked in response to the previous question, indicate by check mark which financial statement item the registrant has elected to follow:
o Item 17 o Item 18

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

(APPLICABLE ONLY TO ISSUERS INVOLVED IN BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS DURING THE PAST FIVE YEARS)

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed all documents and reports to be filed by Sections 12, 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 subsequent to the distribution of securities under a plan confirmed by a court.
o Yes o No

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Forward-Looking Statements		1

Part I

Item 1.	Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers	2
Item 2.	Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable	2
Item 3.	Key Information	2
Item 4.	Information on the Company	35
Item 4A.	Unresolved Staff Comments	52
Item 5.	Operating and Financial Review and Prospects	52
Item 6.	Directors, Senior Management and Employees	67
Item 7.	Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions	73
Item 8.	Financial Information	76
Item 9.	The Offer and Listing	78
Item 10.	Additional Information	80
Item 11.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	90
Item 12.	Description of Securities Other than Equity Securities	92
Part II

Item 13.	Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies	93
Item 14.	Material Modifications to the Rights of Security Holders and Use of Proceeds	93
Item 15.	Controls and Procedures	93
Item 16A	Audit Committee Financial Expert	95
Item 16B	Code of Ethics	96
Item 16C	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	96
Item 16D	Exemptions from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees	96
Item 16E	Purchase of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers	96
Item 16 F	Change in Registrant's Certifying Accountant	96
Item 16 G	Corporate Governance	96
Part III

Item 17.	Financial Statements	98
Item 18.	Financial Statements	98
Item 19.	Exhibits	99

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Euroseas Ltd., or the Company, desires to take advantage of the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 and is including this cautionary statement in connection with this safe harbor legislation. This annual report contains forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements include information about possible or assumed future results of our operations or our performance. Words such as "expects," "intends," "plans," "believes," "anticipates," "estimates," and variations of such words and similar expressions are intended to identify the forward-looking statements. Although we believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to have been correct. These statements involve known and unknown risks and are based upon a number of assumptions and estimates which are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies, many of which are beyond our control. Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements regarding:

·	our future operating or financial results;

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

·	drybulk and container shipping industry trends, including charter rates and factors affecting vessel supply and demand;

·	our financial condition and liquidity, including our ability to obtain additional financing in the future to fund capital expenditures, acquisitions and other general corporate activities;

·	availability of crew, number of off-hire days, drydocking requirements and insurance costs;

·	our expectations about the availability of vessels to purchase or the useful lives of our vessels;

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

·	our ability to leverage to our advantage our manager's relationships and reputations in the drybulk and container shipping industry;

·	changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns;

·	changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities;

·	potential liability from future litigation;

·	global and regional political conditions;

·	acts of terrorism and other hostilities, including piracy; and

·	other factors discussed in the section titled "Risk Factors."

WE UNDERTAKE NO OBLIGATION TO PUBLICLY UPDATE OR REVISE ANY FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS CONTAINED IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT, OR THE DOCUMENTS TO WHICH WE REFER YOU IN THIS ANNUAL REPORT, TO REFLECT ANY CHANGE IN OUR EXPECTATIONS WITH RESPECT TO SUCH STATEMENTS OR ANY CHANGE IN EVENTS, CONDITIONS OR CIRCUMSTANCES ON WHICH ANY STATEMENT IS BASED.

PART I

Item 1.

Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers

Not Applicable.

Item 2.

Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

Not Applicable.

Item 3.

Key Information

Please note: Throughout this report, all references to "we," "our," "us" and the "Company" refer to Euroseas and its subsidiaries. We use the term deadweight ton, or dwt, in describing the size of vessels. Dwt, expressed in metric tons, each of which is equivalent to 1,000 kilograms, refers to the maximum weight of cargo and supplies that a vessel can carry. We use the term twenty-foot equivalent unit, or teu, in describing the size of our containerships and multipurpose vessel in addition to dwt. Teu, expressed in number of containers, refers to the maximum number of twenty-foot long containers that can be placed on board. Unless otherwise indicated, all references to "dollars" and "$" in this report are to, and amounts are presented in, U.S. dollars.

A.	Selected Financial Data

SELECTED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL DATA

The following information sets forth selected historical financial data for Euroseas. We derived this information from our audited financial statements for the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010 included in this annual report. The information is only a summary and should be read in conjunction with our historical financial statements and related notes, and our Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations contained elsewhere herein. The historical financial and other data presented for the years ended December 31, 2006 and 2007, as well as balance sheet data as of December 31, 2008, have been derived from audited financial statements not included in this Annual Report and are provided for comparison purposes. The historical results included below and elsewhere in this annual report are not indicative of our future performance.

As of January 1, 2009, the Company changed its accounting policy of drydocking costs from the deferral method, under which the Company amortized drydocking costs over the estimated period of benefit between drydockings, to the direct expense method, under which the Company expenses all drydocking costs as incurred. The Company believes that the direct expense method is preferable as it eliminates the significant amount of time and subjectivity involved in determining which costs and activities related to drydocking qualify for the deferral method.

The Company reflected this change as a change in accounting principles from an accepted accounting principle to a preferable accounting principle in accordance with guidance relating to Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. The new accounting principle has been applied retrospectively to all periods presented.

See next page for table of Euroseas Ltd. – Summary of Selected Historical Financials.

	Euroseas Ltd. – Summary of Selected Historical Financials
	Year Ended December 31,
	2006			2007			2008			2009			2010
Income Statement Data
Voyage revenues		42,143,361			86,104,365			132,243,918			66,215,669			54,422,489
Commissions		(1,829,534	)		(4,024,032	)		(5,940,460	)		(2.433.776	)		(1,944,473	)
Net revenue		40,313,827			82,080,333			126,303,458			63,781,893			52,478,016
Voyage expenses		(1,154,738	)		(897,463	)		(3,092,323	)		(1,510,551	)		(1,596,569	)
Vessel operating expenses		(10,368,817	)		(17,240,132	)		(27,521,194	)		(23,763,480	)		(21,507,192	)
Drydocking expenses (4)		(821,198	)		(5,770,007	)		(6,129,257	)		(1,912,474	)		(6,537,733	)
Vessel depreciation (1)		(6,277,328	)		(16,423,092	)		(28,284,752	)		(19,092,384	)		(17,979,750	)
Management fees		(2,266,589	)		(3,669,137	)		(5,387,415	)		(5,074,297	)		(4,892,006	)
Other general and administration expenses		(1,076,884	)		(2,656,176	)		(4,057,736	)		(3,640,534	)		(3,026,941	)
Impairment loss		-			-			(25,113,364	)		-			-
Net gain (loss) on sale of vessels		4,892,177			3,440,681			-			(8,959,321	)		-
Other operating income		-			-			-			-			2,352,946
Operating income / (loss)		23,240,450			38,865,007			26,717,417			22,429			(709,229	)
Interest and other financing costs		(3,398,858	)		(4,850,239	)		(2,930,737	)		(1,437,637	)		(1,498,216	)
Interest income		870,046			2,357,633			3,168,501			1,123,317			538,820
Equity loss in joint venture		-			-			-			-			(538,833	)
Other (loss) / income		(1,598	)		90,920			(5,464,271	)		(15,335,613	)		(4,398,392	)
Net income / (loss)		20,710,040			36,463,321			21,490,910			(15,627,504	)		(6,605,850	)
Balance Sheet Data
Current assets		9,975,596			118,307,463			92,538,220			58,933,240			46,404,826
Vessels, net		95,494,342			238,248,984			231,963,606			257,270,824			255,412,434
Deferred assets and other long term assets		11,021,531			9,419,852			8,716,960			7,214,230			5,399,374
Investment in Joint Venture		-			-			-			-			14,461,167
Total assets		116,491,469			365,976,299			333.218,786			323,418,294			321,677,801
Current liabilities including current portion of long term debt		21,665,399			35,182,511			21,417,515			30,443,552			25,214,542
Long term debt, including current portion		74,950,000			81,590,000			56,015,000			71,515,000			88,385,000
Total liabilities		79,493,599			99,400,483			76,387,354			91,965,031			102,982,809
Common shares outstanding (adjusted for the 1-for-3 split)		12,620,150			30,261,113			30,575,611			30,849,711			31,002,211
Share capital		378,605			907,834			917,269			925,492			930,067
Total shareholders' equity		36,997,869			266,575,816			256,831,432			231,453,263			218,694,992
Other Financial Data
Net cash provided by operating activities		20,968,824			48,958,771			74,283,741			7,837,660			12,748,989
Net cash used in investing activities		(55,367,015	)		(146,671,991	)		(46,145,503	)		(45,598,765	)		(29,206,844	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities		16,741,997			199,057,433			(58,422,367	)		4,894,463			9,746,824

Earnings / (loss) per share, basic	1.65	1.69	0.71	(0.51	)	(0.21	)
Earnings / (loss) per share, diluted	1.65	1.68	0.70	(0.51	)	(0.21	)
Dividends declared	9,465,082	20,278,538	34,664,699	10,779,609		6,848,536
Cash dividends / return of capital, declared per common share	0.75	1.00	1.13	0.35		0.22
Weighted average number of shares outstanding during period, basic	12,535,365	21,566,619	30,437,107	30,648,991		30,900,122
Weighted average number of shares outstanding during period, diluted	12,535,365	21,644,920	30,505,476	30,648,991		30,900,122

	2006			2007			2008			2009			2010
Other Fleet Data (2)
Number of vessels		8.09			11.48			15.61			16.30			15.53
Calendar days		2,942			4,190			5,714			5,949			5,669
Available days		2,895			3,980			5,563			4,983			4,953
Voyage days		2,864			3,969			5,451			4,724			4,914
Utilization Rate (percent)		98.9	%		99.7	%		98.0	%		94.8	%		99.2	%

	(In U.S. dollars per day per vessel)
Average TCE rate (3)		14,312			21,468			23,695			13,698			11,201
Vessel Operating Expenses		3,524			4,115			4,816			3,979			3,794
Management Fees		770			875			943			853			863
G&A Expenses		366			634			710			612			534
Total Operating Expenses excluding drydocking expenses		4,660			5,624			6,469			5,444			5,191
Drydocking expenses		279			1,377			1,073			321			1,153

(1) In November 2008, the estimated useful life of the containerships and multipurpose vessels was increased from 25 years to 30 years in line with industry practice and in consideration of the intended use of such vessels. In addition, the estimated scrap value of the vessels was reduced from $300 to $250 per light ton to better reflect market price developments in the scrap metal market. The effect of this change was to reduce 2008 depreciation expenses by $0.8 million or $0.03 per share and increase 2008 net income by the same amount, and to reduce 2009 depreciation expenses by $6.4 million or $0.21 per share and decrease net losses by the same amount.

(2) For the definition of calendar days, available days, voyage days and utilization rate see Item 5A-Operating Results.

(3) Time charter equivalent rate, or, TCE rate, is determined by dividing voyage revenues less voyage expenses or time charter equivalent revenue, or TCE revenues, by the number of voyage days during the relevant time period. TCE revenues, a non-GAAP measure, provides additional meaningful information in conjunction with shipping revenues, the most directly comparable GAAP measure, because it assists Company management in making decisions regarding the deployment and use of its vessels and in evaluating the Company's financial performance. TCE revenues and TCE rate are also standard shipping industry performance measures used primarily to compare period-to-period changes in a shipping company's performance despite changes in the mix of charter types (i.e., spot charters, time charters and bareboat charters) under which the vessels may be employed between the periods (see also Item 5A-Operating Results).

(4) Beginning with the first quarter of 2009, the Company changed its accounting policy of drydocking costs from the deferral method, under which the Company amortized drydocking costs over the estimated period of benefit between drydockings, to the direct expense method, under which the Company expenses all drydocking costs as incurred. The Company believes that the direct expense method is preferable as it eliminates the significant amount of time and subjectivity involved in determining which costs and activities related to drydocking qualify for the deferral method. The Company reflected this change as a change in accounting principle from an accepted accounting principle to a preferable accounting principle in accordance with guidance relating to Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. The accounting guidance has been applied retrospectively to all periods presented.

Reconciliation of TCE revenues as reflected in the consolidated statement of operations and calculation of TCE rate follow:

	2006			2007			2008			2009			2010
(In U.S. dollars, except for voyage days and TCE rates which are expressed in U.S. dollars per day)
Voyage revenues		42,143,361			86,104,365			132,243,918			66,215,669			54,422,489
Loss of hire insurance income (1)		-			-			-			-			2,214,179
Voyage expenses		(1,154,738	)		(897,463	)		(3,092,323	)		(1,510,551	)		(1,596,569	)
Time Charter Equivalent ("TCE") Revenues		40,988,623			85,206,902			129,151,595			64,705,118			55,040,099
Voyage days(1)		2,864			3,969			5,451			4,724			4,914
Average TCE rate(1)		14,313			21,468			23,695			13,698			11,201

(1) Average TCE calculation for 2010 takes into account loss of hire insurance receipts for the period our vessel M/V "Eleni P" was hijacked and held off the coast of Somalia. The loss of hire receipts are included not in the "Voyage revenues" but in the "Operating expenses" in the "Consolidated statement of operations". The period of hijacking (about 214 days) is included in the "Voyage days".

B.	Capitalization and Indebtedness

Not Applicable.

C.	Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

Not Applicable.

D.	Risk Factors

Any investment in our stock involves a high degree of risk. You should consider carefully the following factors, as well as the other information set forth in this annual report, before making an investment in our common stock. Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and our business in general. Other risks relate to the securities market for, and ownership of, our common stock. Any of the described risks could significantly and negatively affect our business, financial condition, operating results and common stock price. The following risk factors describe the material risks that are presently known to us.

Industry Risk Factors

The cyclical nature of the shipping industry may lead to volatile changes in freight rates, which may reduce our revenues and net income.

We are an independent shipping company that operates in the drybulk, container and multipurpose shipping industry. Our profitability is dependent upon the freight rates we are able to charge. The supply of, and demand for, shipping capacity strongly influences freight rates. The demand for shipping capacity is determined primarily by the demand for the type of commodities carried and the distance that those commodities must be moved by sea. The demand for commodities is affected by, among other things, world and regional economic and political conditions (including developments in international trade, fluctuations in industrial and agricultural production and armed conflicts), environmental concerns, weather patterns, and changes in seaborne and other transportation costs. The size of the existing fleet in a particular market, the number of new vessel deliveries, the scrapping of older vessels and the number of vessels out of active service (i.e., laid-up, drydocked, awaiting repairs or otherwise not available for hire), determines the supply of shipping capacity, which is measured by the amount of suitable tonnage available to carry cargo. The cyclical nature of the shipping industry may lead to volatile changes in freight rates, which may reduce our revenues and net income.

In addition to the prevailing and anticipated freight rates, factors that affect the rate of newbuilding, scrapping and laying-up include newbuilding prices, secondhand vessel values in relation to scrap prices, costs of bunkers and other operating costs, costs associated with classification society surveys, normal maintenance and insurance coverage, the efficiency and age profile of the existing fleet in the market and government and industry regulation of maritime transportation practices, particularly environmental protection laws and regulations. These factors influencing the supply of and demand for shipping capacity are outside of our control, and we may not be able to correctly assess the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions. Some of these factors may have a negative impact on our revenues and net income.

Our future profitability will be dependent on the level of charter rates in the international drybulk and container shipping industry.

Charter rates for the international drybulk shipping industry reached record highs during 2007 and during the first eight months of 2008; however, in September 2008, drybulk charter rates fell dramatically as a result of the worldwide credit crunch and financial crisis. The Baltic Dry Index, or BDI, declined from a high of 11,793 in May 2008 to a low of 663 in December 2008, which represents a decline of 94%. Over the comparable period of May through December 2008, the high and low of the Baltic Capesize Index, the Baltic Panamax Index, the Baltic Supramax Index and the Baltic Handysize Index represent declines of 96%, 96%, 94% and 92%, respectively. Containership rates also dropped precipitously during the fourth quarter of 2008. During 2009, the BDI increased from a low of 772 in January 2009 to a high of 4,661 in November 2009. In 2010, the BDI increased from 3,140 in January 2010 to a high of 4,209 in May 2010 and subsequently decreased to a low of 1,700 in July 2010. Since December 31, 2010, the BDI has further decreased to a low of 1,043 on February 4, 2011. The decline and volatility in dry bulk charter rates is due to various factors, including the lack of trade financing for purchases of commodities carried by sea, which may result in a significant decline in cargo shipments (e.g. late 2008 and early 2009), trade disruptions caused by natural disasters (e.g. 2010), and increased newbuilding deliveries, especially in the Capesize segment. There is no certainty that the dry bulk charter market will experience any recovery over the next months and the market could decline from its current level, especially, given the large number of scheduled newbuilding deliveries. Containership rates declined to historically low levels and stayed at such levels for all of 2009. During the first quarter of 2010, rates for medium and large size containerships (i.e. vessels larger than 3,000 teu) started recovering and approached pre-crisis levels, followed by a recovery of rates for smaller containerships, a class size that includes all of our containerships, though that recovery was limited and rates for smaller containerships did not approach pre-crisis levels. Containership rate recovery has continued until November 2010 when rates experienced about a 10% decline by December 2010. They resumed their growth in January 2011 reaching a plateau in April and registering a 3-5%decline in the first half of May 2011. Rates in drybulk or containership markets are influenced by the balance of demand for and supply of vessels and may remain depressed or decline again in the future. Rates for multipurpose vessels are influenced by both drybulk and containership market developments as multipurpose vessels can carry either drybulk or containerized cargo.

Because the factors affecting the supply and demand for vessels are outside of our control and are unpredictable, the nature, timing, direction and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable, and as a result so are the rates at which we can charter our vessels. In addition, we may not be able to successfully charter our vessels in the future or renew existing charters at rates sufficient to allow us to meet our obligations or to pay dividends to our shareholders.

Some of the factors that influence demand for vessel capacity include:

	·	supply of, and demand for, drybulk commodities and containerized cargo;
	·	changes in the exploration or production of energy resources, commodities, semi-finished and finished consumer and industrial products, and the resulting changes in the international pattern of trade;

global and regional economic and political conditions, including armed conflicts and terrorist activities; embargoes and strikes;

the location of regional and global exploration, production and manufacturing facilities;

	·	availability of credit to finance international trade;
	·	the location of consuming regions for energy resources, commodities, semi-finished and finished consumer and industrial products;

	·	the distance drybulk and containerized commodities are to be moved by sea;
	·	environmental and other regulatory developments;

	·	currency exchange rates;
	·	changes in global production and manufacturing distribution patterns of finished goods that utilize drybulk and other containerized commodities;

	·	changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns; and
	·	weather and other natural phenomena.

Some of the factors that influence the supply of vessel capacity include:

	·	the number of newbuilding deliveries;
	·	the scrapping rate of older vessels;

	·	the price of steel and other materials;
	·	port and canal congestion;

	·	changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful life of vessels;
	·	vessel casualties;

	·	the number of vessels that are out of service; and
	·	changes in global commodity production.

We anticipate that the future demand for our drybulk, container and multipurpose vessels and the charter rates of the corresponding markets will be dependent upon economic recovery in the United States, Europe and Japan, among other economies, as well as continued economic growth in China, India and the overall world economy, seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet. The capacity of the world fleet may increase and economic growth may not continue. Adverse economic, political, social or other developments could also have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

An over-supply of drybulk carrier and containership capacity may lead to further reductions in charter hire rates and profitability and may require us to raise additional capital in order to remain compliant with our loan covenants and affect our ability to pay dividends in the future.

The market supply of drybulk carriers and containerships has been increasing, and the number of both drybulk vessels and containerships on order have recently reached historic highs. The drybulk vessel newbuildings are expected to continue being delivered in 2011 and 2012 at significantly higher rates than in any previous year despite a number of order cancellations and delivery delays. The containership newbuildings are also expected to continue being delivered in significant numbers over the next couple of years, although at a lower rate than in 2010. If the number of new ships delivered exceeds the number of vessels being scrapped and lost, vessel capacity will increase. An over-supply of drybulk carrier and containership capacity may result in a further reduction of charter hire rates. For instance, given that as of May 1, 2011, as reported by industry sources, the capacity of the fully cellular worldwide container vessel fleet was approximately 14.6 million teu, with approximately 4.0 million teu, or, about 28% of the present fleet, of additional capacity on order, the growing supply of container vessels may exceed future demand. Similarly, as of May 1, 2011, as reported by industry sources, the capacity of the worldwide drybulk fleet was approximately 557.7 million dwt with another 254.5 million dwt, or about 46% of the present fleet, of additional capacity on order. If the supply of vessel capacity increases but the demand for vessel capacity does not increase correspondingly, charter rates and vessel values could materially decline.

If such a reduction occurs upon the expiration or termination of our drybulk carriers' and containerships' current charters, such as during 2011 or 2012 when the charters of thirteen of our vessels are currently scheduled to expire, we may only be able to re-charter those drybulk carriers and containerships at reduced or unprofitable rates or we may not be able to charter these vessels at all. Many of the containership charters we renewed or concluded during 2009 and 2010 were at unprofitable rates and were entered into because they resulted in lower losses than would have resulted had we put the vessels in lay-up. In fact, during 2009, we were not able to re-charter three of our containerships that completed their charters in early 2009, and as a result, we laid-up these three vessels. One of the laid-up vessels was sold in December 2009 and the other two were re-activated in the second half of 2010. Any inability to enter into more profitable charters may require us to raise additional capital in order to remain compliant with our loan covenants and may also affect our ability to pay dividends in the future.

The market value of our vessels can fluctuate significantly, which may adversely affect our financial condition, cause us to breach financial covenants, result in the incurrence of a loss upon disposal of a vessel or increase the cost of acquiring additional vessels.

The value of our vessels may fluctuate, adversely affecting our earnings and liquidity and causing us to breach our secured credit agreements.

The fair market values of our vessels are related to prevailing freight charter rates. While the fair market value of vessels and the freight charter market have a very close relationship as the charter market moves from trough to peak, the time lag between the effect of charter rates on market values of ships can vary. A decrease in the market values of our vessels could limit the amount of funds that we can borrow or trigger certain financial covenants under our current or future credit facilities, and we may incur a loss if we sell vessels following a decline in their market value. Furthermore, a decrease in the market value of our vessels could require us to raise additional capital in order to remain compliant with our loan covenants, and could result in the loss of our vessels and adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

The ocean-going container shipping industry is both cyclical and volatile in terms of charter hire rates and profitability. Containership charter rates peaked in 2005 and generally stayed strong until the middle of 2008, when the effects of the recent economic crisis began to affect the global container trade. Rates fell significantly, declining to below the late 2001 ten-year lows. According to industry sources, in 2010 and 2011, containership charter rates have improved but remain below long-term averages, but that improvement may not be sustainable and charter rates could decline again. The factors affecting the supply and demand for containerships and bulk carriers and supply and demand for products shipped in containers or bulk carriers are outside of our control, and the nature, timing and degree of changes in industry conditions are unpredictable.

The market value of our vessels may increase or decrease depending on the following factors:

general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping industry in general;

supply of drybulk, container and multipurpose vessels, including newbuildings;

demand for drybulk, container and multipurpose vessels;

types and sizes of vessels;

scrap values;

other modes of transportation;

cost of newbuildings;

technological advances;

new regulatory requirements from governments or self-regulated organizations;

	·	competition from other shipping companies; and
	·	prevailing level of charter rates.

As vessels grow older, they generally decline in value. Due to the cyclical nature of the drybulk and container shipping industry, if for any reason we sell vessels at a time when prices have fallen, we could incur a loss and our business, results of operations, cash flow, financial condition and ability to pay dividends could be adversely affected.

In addition, we periodically re-evaluate the carrying amount and period over which long-lived assets are depreciated to determine if events have occurred that would require modification to such assets' carrying values or their useful lives. A determination that a vessel's estimated remaining useful life or fair value has declined below its carrying amount could result in an impairment charge against our earnings and a reduction in our shareholders' equity. Any change in the assessed market value of any of our vessels might also cause a violation of the covenants of each secured credit agreement, which, in turn, might restrict our cash and affect our liquidity. All of our credit agreements provide for a minimum security maintenance ratio. If the assessed market value of our vessels declines below certain thresholds, we will be deemed to have violated these covenants and may incur penalties for breach of our credit agreements. For example, these penalties could require us to prepay the shortfall between the assessed market value of our vessels and the value of such vessels required to be maintained pursuant to the secured credit agreement, or to provide additional security acceptable to the lenders in an amount at least equal to the amount of any shortfall. Furthermore, we may enter into future loans, which may include various other covenants, in addition to the vessel-related ones, that may ultimately depend on the assessed values of our vessels. Such covenants could include, but are not limited to, maximum fleet leverage covenants and minimum fair net worth covenants.

An economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region could exacerbate the effect of any slowdowns in the economies of the United States and the European Union and debt problems of some European Union countries and could materially reduce the amount and/or profitability of our business, financial condition and results of operations.

A significant number of the port calls made by our vessels involve the loading or discharging of raw materials and semi-finished products in ports in the Asia Pacific region. As a result of the credit and financial crisis at the end of 2008 and beginning of 2009 and the resulting world economic slowdown demand for the services of our vessels has declined. However, economic activity in the Asia Pacific region led by China quickly recovered, especially with regard to the import of bulk commodities. Any negative change in economic conditions in any Asia Pacific country, particularly in China, may have a significant adverse effect on our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects. In particular, in recent years, China has been one of the world's fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product which has had a significant impact on shipping demand. Such growth may not be sustained and the Chinese economy and other Asian countries may experience contraction in the future. Moreover, any continued or renewed weakness in the economies of the United States of America, the European Union or certain Asian countries may adversely affect economic growth in China, India and elsewhere. Furthermore, recent debt problems in certain European Union countries like Greece, Portugal and Ireland may cause disruption in the operations of financial institutions on which we depend on for our operations and hold deposits in, or, changes in regulatory environment within which we operate (especially in Greece). Our business, financial position and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, will likely be materially and adversely affected by an economic downturn in any of these countries, particularly in China and Japan and, to some extent, India, and such downturns may exacerbate the effect of any slowdowns in the economies of the United States and the European Union.

Liner companies, which comprise the largest contingent of charterers of containerships, have been placed under significant financial pressure, thereby increasing our charter counterparty risk.

The decline in global trade due to the economic slowdown has resulted in a significant decline in demand for the seaborne transportation of products in containers, including for exports from China to Europe and the United States. Consequently, the cargo volumes and freight rates achieved by liner companies, which charter containerships from ship owners like us, have declined, with only marginal improvement in 2010 and 2011 year-to-date, adversely affecting their profitability. The financial challenges faced by liner companies, some of which announced efforts to obtain third party aid and restructure their obligations, including our charterers, has reduced demand for containership charters and may increase the likelihood of our customers being unable or unwilling to pay us contracted charter rates. The combination of the current surplus of containership capacity and the expected increase in the size of the world containership fleet over the next several years may make it difficult to secure substitute employment for our containerships if our counterparties fail to perform their obligations under the currently arranged time charters, and any new charter arrangements we are able to secure may be at lower rates.

The earthquake and resulting tsunami and nuclear power plant crisis that struck Japan in March 2011 could, in the near term, reduce drybulk and container trade to and from areas of Japan, including Tokyo, which could result in reductions in prevailing charter rates and adversely affect our business.

The March 2011 earthquake in Japan and resulting tsunami have caused several nuclear power plants located in Japan to fail and emit radiation and could possibly result in catastrophic meltdowns. Although the full effect of these disasters, both on the Japanese and global economies, is not currently known, a number of drybulk and liner companies have restricted vessels from calling on ports in Tokyo and Northern Japan. In addition, authorities in other countries, including China and the United States, have begun screening vessels that have visited Japan or nearby waters for nuclear radiation, causing delays and reduced attractiveness of any contaminated vessels for subsequent employment. These disasters will, for some period of time, result in reduced drybulk and container trade to and from Japan, which has the world's third largest economy, and could potentially result in reduced charter rates. In addition, there can be no assurances that our vessels trading in the Pacific will not be impacted by the possible effects of spreading radiation. These disasters and the resulting economic effects, both in the region and globally, could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

The containership industry is highly competitive, and we may be unable to compete successfully for charters with established companies or new entrants that may have greater resources and access to capital, which may have a material adverse effect on us.

The containership industry is a highly competitive industry that is capital intensive and highly fragmented. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, some of whom may have greater resources and access to capital than we will have. Competition among vessel owners for the seaborne transportation of semi-finished and finished consumer and industrial products can be intense and depends on the charter rate, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its operators to charterers. Due in part to the highly fragmented market, many of our competitors with greater resources and access to capital than we have could operate larger fleets than we may operate and thus be able to offer lower charter rates or higher quality vessels than we are able to offer. If this were to occur, we may be unable to retain or attract new charterers on attractive terms or at all, which may have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition, liquidity and results of operations.

Changes in the economic and political environment in China and policies adopted by the Chinese government to regulate China's economy may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

The Chinese economy differs from the economies of most countries belonging to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, or OECD, in such respects as structure, government involvement, level of development, growth rate, capital reinvestment, allocation of resources, rate of inflation and balance of payments position. Prior to 1978, the Chinese economy was a planned economy. Since 1978, increasing emphasis has been placed on the utilization of market forces in the development of the Chinese economy. Annual and five year State Plans are adopted by the Chinese government in connection with the development of the economy. Although state-owned enterprises still account for a substantial portion of the Chinese industrial output, in general, the Chinese government is reducing the level of direct control that it exercises over the economy through State Plans and other measures. There is an increasing level of freedom and autonomy in areas such as allocation of resources, production, pricing and management and a gradual shift in emphasis to a "market economy" and enterprise reform. Limited price reforms were undertaken, with the result that prices for certain commodities are principally determined by market forces. Many of the reforms are unprecedented or experimental and may be subject to revision, change or abolition based upon the outcome of such experiments. The Chinese government may not continue to pursue a policy of economic reform. The level of imports to and exports from China could be adversely affected by the nature of the economic reforms pursued by the Chinese government, as well as by changes in political, economic and social conditions or other relevant policies of the Chinese government, such as changes in laws, regulations or export and import restrictions, all of which could adversely affect our business, operating results, financial condition and cash flows.

We may become dependent on spot charters in the volatile shipping markets, which may result in decreased revenues and/or profitability.

Although a majority of our vessels are currently under time charters, in the future, we may have more of these vessels and/or any newly acquired vessels on spot charters. The spot market is highly competitive and rates within this market are subject to volatile fluctuations, while time charters provide income at pre-determined rates over more extended periods of time. If we decide to spot charter our vessels, we may not be able to keep all our vessels fully employed in these short-term markets. In addition, we may not be able to predict whether future spot rates will be sufficient to enable our vessels to be operated profitably. A significant decrease in charter rates has affected and could continue affecting the value of our fleet and could adversely affect our profitability and cash flows with the result that our ability to pay debt service to our lenders and dividends to our shareholders could be adversely affected

We are subject to complex laws and regulations, including environmental regulations that can adversely affect the cost, manner or feasibility of doing business.

Our operations are subject to numerous laws and regulations in the form of international conventions and treaties, national, state and local laws and national and international regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate or are registered, which can significantly affect the ownership and operation of our vessels. These requirements include, but are not limited to, the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage of 1969, the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships of 1975, the International Maritime Organization, or IMO, International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution of 1973, the IMO International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea of 1974, the International Convention on Load Lines of 1966, the U.S. Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA, the U.S. Clean Air Act, U.S. Clean Water Act and the U.S. Marine Transportation Security Act of 2002. Compliance with such laws, regulations and standards, where applicable, may require installation of costly equipment or operational changes and may affect the resale value or useful lives of our vessels. Furthermore, the explosion of the Deepwater Horizon and the subsequent release of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, or other events, may result in further regulation of the shipping industry, and modifications to statutory liability schemes. Thus we may also incur additional costs in order to comply with other existing and future regulatory obligations, including, but not limited to, costs relating to air emissions including greenhouse gases, the management of ballast waters, maintenance and inspection, development and implementation of emergency procedures and insurance coverage or other financial assurance of our ability to address pollution incidents. These costs could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. 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.

Environmental laws often impose strict liability for remediation of spills and releases of oil and hazardous substances, which could subject us to liability without regard to whether we were negligent or at fault. Because such conventions, laws and regulations are often revised, we cannot predict the ultimate cost of complying with such conventions, laws and regulations or the impact thereof on the resale price or useful life of our vessels. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business and which may materially adversely affect our operations. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our operations. Under OPA, for example, owners, operators and bareboat charterers are jointly and severally strictly liable for the discharge of oil within the 200-mile exclusive economic zone around the United States. An oil spill could result in significant liability, including fines, penalties and criminal liability and remediation costs for natural resource damages under other federal, state and local laws, as well as third-party damages. We are required to satisfy insurance and financial responsibility requirements for potential oil (including marine fuel) spills and other pollution incidents. Although we have arranged insurance to cover certain environmental risks, there can be no assurance that such insurance will be sufficient to cover all such risks or that any claims will not have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. We currently maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability coverage insurance of $1.0 billion per incident. If the damages from a catastrophic spill exceeded our insurance coverage, it would severely and adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

We are subject to international safety regulations and the failure to comply with these regulations may subject us to increased liability, may adversely affect our insurance coverage and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the UN's International Maritime Organization's International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention, or the ISM Code. The ISM Code requires shipowners, ship managers and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. The failure of a shipowner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject it to increased liability, may invalidate existing insurance or decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels and may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Each of the vessels that has been delivered to us is ISM Code-certified and we expect that each other vessel that we have agreed to purchase will be ISM Code-certified when delivered to us.

In addition, vessel classification societies also impose significant safety and other requirements on our vessels. In complying with current and future environmental requirements, vessel-owners and operators may also incur significant additional costs in meeting new maintenance and inspection requirements, in developing contingency arrangements for potential spills and in obtaining insurance coverage. Government regulation of vessels, particularly in the areas of safety and environmental requirements, can be expected to become stricter in the future and require us to incur significant capital expenditures on our vessels to keep them in compliance.

The operation of our vessels is also affected by other government regulation in the form of international conventions, 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. Because such conventions, laws, and regulations are often revised, we may not be able to predict the ultimate cost of complying with such conventions, laws and regulations or the impact thereof on the resale prices or useful lives of our vessels. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted which could limit our ability to do business or increase the cost of our doing business and which may materially adversely affect our operations. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses, certificates and financial assurances with respect to our operations.

The operation of our vessels is affected by the requirements set forth in the International Maritime Organization's ("IMO's") International Management Code for the Safe Operation of Ships and Pollution Prevention ("ISM Code"). The ISM Code requires shipowners and bareboat charterers to develop and maintain an extensive "Safety Management System" that includes the adoption of a safety and environmental protection policy setting forth instructions and procedures for safe operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. The failure of a shipowner or bareboat charterer to comply with the ISM Code may subject such party to increased liability, may decrease available insurance coverage for the affected vessels, and/or may result in a denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. Currently, each of our vessels and Eurobulk Ltd., or Eurobulk, our affiliated ship management company, are ISM Code-certified, but we may not be able to maintain such certification indefinitely.

Although the United States of America is not a party, many countries have ratified and follow the liability scheme adopted by the IMO and set out in the International Convention on Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage, 1969, as amended (the "CLC"), and the Convention for the Establishment of an International Fund for Oil Pollution of 1971, as amended and the Regulations for the Prevention of Air Pollution from Ships to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (as modified in 1978 and 1997), including Annex VI thereto. Under these conventions, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable for pollution damage, including air pollution, caused on the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil, subject to certain complete defenses. Many of the countries that have ratified the CLC have increased the liability limits through a 1992 Protocol to the CLC. The right to limit liability is also forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the owner's actual fault or privity and, under the 1992 Protocol, where the spill is caused by the owner's intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading to contracting states must provide evidence of insurance covering the limited liability of the owner. In jurisdictions where the CLC has not been adopted, various legislative schemes or common law govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to the CLC.

OPA established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and clean-up of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States of America or any of its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in waters of the United States of America, which includes the territorial sea of the United States of America and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. OPA allows for potentially unlimited liability without regard to fault of vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers for all containment and clean-up costs and other damages arising from discharges or threatened discharges of oil from their vessels, including bunkers (fuel), in the U.S. waters. OPA also expressly permits individual states to impose their own liability regimes with regard to hazardous materials and oil pollution materials occurring within their boundaries.

While we do not carry oil as cargo, we do carry fuel oil (bunkers) in our drybulk carriers and containerships. We currently maintain, for each of our vessels, pollution liability coverage insurance of $1.0 billion per incident. If the damages from a catastrophic spill exceeded our insurance coverage, that would have a material adverse affect on our financial condition and operating cash flows.

Capital expenditures and other costs necessary to operate and maintain our vessels may increase due to changes in governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards.

Changes in governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards, as well as compliance with standards imposed by maritime self-regulatory organizations and customer requirements or competition, may require us to make additional expenditures. In order to satisfy these requirements, we may, from time to time, be required to take our vessels out of service for extended periods of time, with corresponding losses of revenues. In the future, market conditions may not justify these expenditures or enable us to operate some or all of our vessels profitably during the remainder of their economic lives.

Increased inspection procedures and tighter import and export controls and new security regulations could increase costs and disrupt our business.

International shipping is subject to various security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin and destination. Inspection procedures may result in the seizure of contents of our vessels, delays in the loading, offloading or delivery and the levying of customs duties, fines or other penalties against us.

International container shipping is subject to additional security and customs inspection and related procedures in countries of origin, destination and trans-shipment points. Since the events of September 11, 2001, U.S. authorities have increased container inspection rates. Government investment in non-intrusive container scanning technology has grown, and there is interest in electronic monitoring technology, including so-called "e-seals" and "smart" containers that would enable remote, centralized monitoring of containers during shipment to identify tampering with or opening of the containers, along with potentially measuring other characteristics such as temperature, air pressure, motion, chemicals, biological agents and radiation.

It is unclear what changes, if any, to the existing security procedures will ultimately be proposed or implemented, or how any such changes will affect the container shipping industry. These changes have the potential to impose additional financial and legal obligations on carriers and, in certain cases, to render the shipment of certain types of goods by container uneconomical or impractical. These additional costs could reduce the volume of goods shipped in containers, resulting in a decreased demand for container vessels. In addition, it is unclear what financial costs any new security procedures might create for container vessel owners, or whether companies responsible for the global traffic of containers at sea, referred to as container line operators, may seek to pass on certain of the costs associated with any new security procedures to vessel owners.

If our vessels fail to maintain their class certification and/or fail any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, those vessels would be unable to carry cargo, thereby reducing our revenues and profitability and violating certain covenants in our loan agreements.

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 ("SOLAS"). Our vessels are currently classed with Lloyd's Register of Shipping, Bureau Veritas and Nippon Kaiji Kyokai. ISM and International Ship and Port Facilities Security ("ISPS") certification have been awarded by Bureau Veritas and the Panama Maritime Authority to our vessels and Eurobulk.

If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations. That status could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements.

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, or IACS. All of our vessels that we have purchased, and may agree to purchase in the future, must be certified as being "in class" prior to their delivery under our standard purchase contracts and memorandum of agreement. If the vessel is not certified on the date of closing, we have no obligation to take delivery of the vessel. We have all of our vessels, and intend to have all vessels that we acquire in the future, classed by IACS members.

Rising fuel prices may adversely affect our profits.

Fuel (bunkers) is a significant, if not the largest, operating expense for many of our shipping operations when our vessels are under voyage charter. When a vessel is operating under a time charter, these costs are paid by the charterer. However fuel costs are taken into account by the charterer in determining the amount of time charter hire and therefore fuel costs also indirectly affect time charter rates. 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 OPEC and other oil and gas producers, war and unrest in oil producing countries and regions, regional production patterns and environmental concerns. Fuel prices had been at historically high levels for most of 2008, but shipowners did not really feel the effect of these high prices because the shipping markets were also at high levels. As the shipping markets declined in the last three months of 2008 and into 2009, fuel prices fell too, thus reducing fuel costs and certain other components of operating expenses (e.g. the cost of lubricants, etc.). During 2010 and, especially, 2011 year-to-date, fuel prices increased again and approached their 2008 levels. Any increases in the price of fuel may adversely affect our profitability, especially if such increases are combined with lower drybulk and containership rates.

Also upon redelivery of vessels at the end of a period time or trip time charter, we may be obligated to repurchase bunkers on board at prevailing market prices, which could be materially higher than fuel prices at the inception of the charter period.

Rising crew costs may adversely affect our profits.

Crew costs are a significant operating expense for many of our shipping operations. The cost of employing suitable crew is unpredictable and fluctuates based on events outside our control, including supply and demand and the wages paid by other shipping companies. Crew costs were at high levels in 2008, but shipowners were not noticeably affected by these high prices because the shipping markets were also at high levels until September 2008 when the credit and financial crisis commenced. Since then, shipping rates have declined significantly and crew salaries have remained largely unchanged. An increase in the world vessel operating fleet, either because of the delivery of new tonnage or the re-activation of laid-up containerships, will likely result in higher demand for crews which, in turn, might drive crew costs up. Any increase in crew costs may adversely affect our profitability especially if such increase is combined with lower drybulk and containership rates.

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 other parties 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 arresting 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 which would have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations.

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 of our vessels for claims relating to another of our vessels.

The smuggling of drugs or other contraband onto our vessels may lead to governmental claims against us.

We expect that our vessels will call in ports in South America and other areas where smugglers attempt to hide drugs and other contraband on vessels, with or without the knowledge of crew members. To the extent our vessels are found with contraband, whether inside or attached to the hull of our vessel and whether with or without the knowledge of any of our crew, we may face governmental or other regulatory claims, which could have an adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

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

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 could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations

World events outside our control may negatively affect our ability to operate, thereby reducing our revenues and net income or our ability to obtain additional financing, thereby restricting the implementation of our business strategy.

We operate in a sector of the economy that is likely to be adversely impacted by the effects of political conflicts, including the current political instability in Egypt, terrorist or other attacks, war or international hostilities. Terrorist attacks such as the attacks on the United States of America on September 11, 2001, on Madrid, Spain on March 11, 2004, on London, England on July 7, 2005, on Mumbai, India in December 2008 and the continuing response to these attacks, as well as the threat of future terrorist attacks, continue to cause uncertainty in the world financial markets and may affect our business, results of operations and financial condition. The continuing conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Syria amongst other countries may lead to additional acts of terrorism and armed conflict around the world, which may contribute to further economic instability in the global financial markets. These uncertainties could also have a material adverse effect on our ability to obtain additional financing on terms acceptable to us or at all. Terrorist attacks on vessels may in the future also negatively affect our operations and financial condition and directly impact our vessels or our customers. Future terrorist attacks could result in increased volatility and turmoil of the financial markets in the United States of America and globally and could result in an economic recession in the United States of America or the world. Any of these occurrences could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition, costs and operating cash flows.

Continued 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 ability to obtain financing, our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, and could cause the market price of our common stock to further decline.

The United States and other parts of the world have exhibited weak economic conditions, are exhibiting deteriorating economic trends and have been in a recession. For example, the credit markets in the United States have experienced significant contraction, deleveraging and reduced liquidity, and the United States federal government and state governments have implemented and are considering a broad variety of governmental action and/or new regulation of the financial markets. Securities and futures markets and the credit markets are subject to comprehensive statutes, regulations and other requirements. The Securities and Exchange Commission, or SEC, other regulators, self-regulatory organizations and exchanges are authorized to take extraordinary actions in the event of market emergencies, and may effect changes in law or interpretations of existing laws.

Recently, a number of financial institutions have experienced serious financial difficulties and, in some cases, have entered bankruptcy proceedings or are in regulatory enforcement actions. The uncertainty surrounding the future of the credit markets in the United States and the rest of the world has resulted in reduced access to credit worldwide.

We face risks related to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates, and instability in the banking and securities markets around the world, among other factors. Major market disruptions and the current adverse changes in market conditions and regulatory climate in the United States and worldwide may adversely affect our business or impair our ability to borrow amounts under our credit facilities or any future financial arrangements. We cannot predict how long the current market conditions will last. However, these recent and developing economic and governmental factors, including proposals to reform the financial system, together with the concurrent decline in charter rates and vessel values, may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows, and might cause the price of our common stock on the NASDAQ Global Select Market to decline.

We may require substantial additional financing to fund the acquisition of additional vessels and to implement our business plans. We cannot be certain that sufficient financing will be available on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. If we cannot raise the financing we need in a timely manner and on acceptable terms, we may not be able to acquire the vessels necessary to implement our business plans and consequently we may not be able to pay dividends.

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

We operate our vessels in markets that have historically exhibited seasonal variations in demand and, as a result, in charter hire rates. To the extent we operate vessels in the spot market, this seasonality may result in quarter-to-quarter volatility in our operating results which could affect the amount of dividends that we may pay to our shareholders from time to time. For example, the dry bulk carrier market is typically stronger in the fall and winter months in anticipation of increased consumption of coal and other raw materials in the northern hemisphere during the winter months. In addition, unpredictable weather patterns in these months tend to disrupt vessel scheduling and supplies of certain commodities. While this seasonality has not materially affected our operating results and cash available for distribution to our shareholders as dividends, as long as our fleet is employed on period time charters, if our vessels are employed in the spot market in the future, seasonality may materially affect our operating results in the future.

We may be subject to litigation that, if not resolved in our favor and not sufficiently insured against, could have a material adverse effect on us.

We may be involved in various litigation matters from time to time. These matters may include, among other things, contract disputes, personal injury claims, environmental claims or proceedings, asbestos and other toxic tort claims, employment matters, governmental claims for taxes or duties, and other litigation that arises in the ordinary course of our business. Although we intend to defend these matters vigorously, we cannot predict with certainty the outcome or effect of any claim or other litigation matter, and the ultimate outcome of any litigation or the potential costs to resolve them may have a material adverse effect on us. Insurance may not be applicable or sufficient in all cases and/or insurers may not remain solvent which may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and operating cash flows.

Company Risk Factors

If we do not use our cash on hand to acquire vessels and expand our fleet, we may use it for general corporate purposes, which may result in lower earnings.

We intend to use our cash on hand to acquire additional vessels and expand our fleet when we believe market conditions are favorable for purchasing such vessels. Our management will have the discretion to identify and acquire vessels. If our management is unable to identify and acquire vessels on terms acceptable to us, we may use our cash on hand for general corporate purposes. It may take a substantial period of time before we can locate and purchase suitable vessels. During this period, our cash on hand may be invested on a short-term basis and therefore may not yield returns at rates comparable to what a vessel might have earned.

We depend entirely on Eurobulk to manage and charter our fleet, which may adversely affect our operations if Eurobulk fails to perform its obligations.

We have no employees and we currently contract the commercial and technical management of our fleet, including crewing, maintenance and repair, to Eurobulk, our affiliated ship management company. We may lose Eurobulk's services or Eurobulk may fail to perform its obligations to us which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of our operations. Although we may have rights against Eurobulk if it defaults on its obligations to us, you will have no recourse against Eurobulk. Further, we expect that we will need to seek approval from our lenders to change Eurobulk as our ship manager.

Because Eurobulk is a privately held company, there is little or no publicly available information about it and there may be very little advance warning of operational or financial problems experienced by Eurobulk that may adversely affect us.

The ability of Eurobulk to continue providing services for our benefit will depend in part on its own financial strength. Circumstances beyond our control could impair Eurobulk's financial strength, and because Eurobulk is privately held it is unlikely that information about its financial strength would become public unless Eurobulk began to default on its obligations. As a result, there may be little advance warning of problems affecting Eurobulk, even though these problems could have a material adverse effect on us.

As of May 25, 2011, Friends Investment Company Inc. owns approximately 34.7% of our outstanding shares of common stock, which may limit other shareholders' ability to influence our actions.

As of May 25, 2011, Friends Investment Company Inc., or Friends, our largest shareholder, owns approximately 34.7% of the outstanding shares of our common stock and unvested incentive award shares. As a result of this share ownership and for so long as Friends owns a significant percentage of our outstanding common stock, Friends will be able to influence the outcome of any shareholder vote, including the election of directors, the adoption or amendment of provisions in our amended and restated articles of incorporation or bylaws, as amended, and possible mergers, corporate control contests and other significant corporate transactions. This concentration of ownership may have the effect of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control, merger, consolidation, takeover or other business combination involving us. This concentration of ownership could also discourage a potential acquirer from making a tender offer or otherwise attempting to obtain control of us, which could in turn have an adverse effect on the market price of our common stock.

If our Euromar joint venture partners exercise their conversion rights, they may own a significant percentage of our stock and may have representatives on our Board of Directors, thus enabling them to influence our actions.

Our joint venture agreement (the "Joint Venture") to form Euromar LLC, a Marshall Islands limited liability company ("Euromar") includes the option by Eton Park Capital Management, L.P. ("Eton Park") and an affiliate of Rhône Capital III L.P. ("Rhône"), exercisable in certain instances and at any time after the two year anniversary of the Joint Venture on March 25, 2012, to convert all or part of their equity interests in Euromar into common shares of Euroseas at a price to be based on the comparable values of Euromar and Euroseas at the time of exercise, with such conversion happening at not less than the net asset value of each entity. Depending on the values of each entity at the time of conversion, our joint venture partners may wind up owning a majority of our common shares. In addition, depending upon the share percentage of Euroseas owned by Eton Park and Rhône following any such conversion, the number of directors on Euroseas' Board of Directors may be increased from 7 to up to a maximum of 11 directors for so long as the respective ownership thresholds are met. As part of the Joint Venture, Euroseas' largest shareholder, Friends, has entered into a shareholder voting agreement with Eton Park and Rhône whereby Friends has agreed to vote its shares in favor of any directors nominated by Eton Park and Rhône to fill such additional board seats. Under the same shareholder voting agreement, the parties have agreed that Eton Park and Rhône may vote a certain percentage of their shares in their sole discretion (based upon their percentage interest on the Euroseas Board of Directors and the number of shares outstanding), with the remainder of their shares being voted in accordance with the vote of all other Euroseas shareholders. As a result of the foregoing, upon exercise of their conversion rights Eton Park and Rhône may be able to influence our actions.

Our corporate governance practices are in compliance with, and are not prohibited by, the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and as such we are entitled to exemption from certain NASDAQ corporate governance standards. As a result, you may not have the same protections afforded to stockholders of companies that are subject to all of the NASDAQ corporate governance requirements.

Our Company's corporate governance practices are in compliance with, and are not prohibited by, the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Therefore, we are exempt from many of NASDAQ's corporate governance practices other than the requirements regarding the disclosure of a going concern audit opinion, submission of a listing agreement, notification of material non-compliance with NASDAQ corporate governance practices, and the establishment and composition of an audit committee and a formal written audit committee charter. For a list of the practices followed by us in lieu of NASDAQ's corporate governance rules, we refer you to the section of this annual report entitled "Board Practices—Corporate Governance" under Item 6.

We and our principal officers have affiliations with Eurobulk that could create conflicts of interest detrimental to us.

Our principal officers are also principals, officers and employees of Eurobulk, which is our ship management company. These responsibilities and relationships could create conflicts of interest between us and Eurobulk. Conflicts may also arise in connection with the chartering, purchase, sale and operations of the vessels in our fleet versus other vessels that are or may be managed in the future by Eurobulk. Circumstances in any of these instances may make one decision advantageous to us but detrimental to Eurobulk and vice versa. Eurobulk currently manages one vessel other than those owned by Euroseas (and, in the future, will manage vessels acquired by Euromar, our joint venture entity established with companies managed by Eton Park and an affiliate of Rhône), and to date has managed only vessels where the Pittas family was a minority shareholder, but never any vessel which had no Pittas family participation at all. However, it is possible that in the future Eurobulk may manage additional vessels which will not belong to Euroseas and in which the Pittas family may have controlling, little or even no power or participation and where conflicts such as those described above may arise. Eurobulk may not be able to resolve all conflicts of interest in a manner beneficial to us and our shareholders.

Companies affiliated with Eurobulk or our officers and directors may acquire vessels that compete with our fleet.

Companies affiliated with Eurobulk or our officers and directors own drybulk carriers and may acquire additional drybulk carriers, containerships or multipurpose vessels in the future. These vessels could be in competition with our fleet and other companies affiliated with Eurobulk might be faced with conflicts of interest with respect to their own interests and their obligations to us. Eurobulk, Friends and Aristides J. Pittas, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, have granted us a right of first refusal to acquire any drybulk vessel or containership that any of them may consider for acquisition in the future. In addition, Mr. Pittas will use his best efforts to cause any entity with respect to which he directly or indirectly controls to grant us this right of first refusal. Were we, however, to decline any such opportunity offered to us or we do not have the resources or desire to accept any such opportunity, Eurobulk, Friends and Aristides J. Pittas, and any of their respective Affiliates, could acquire such vessels.

As part of our joint venture, Euroseas and certain affiliates have granted Euromar LLC certain rights of first refusal in respect of vessel acquisitions, and made certain arrangements with respect to vessel dispositions and chartering opportunities presented to Euroseas and its affiliates.

As part of our joint venture, Euroseas and certain affiliates have granted Euromar certain rights of first refusal in respect of vessel acquisitions, and made certain arrangements with respect to vessel dispositions and chartering opportunities presented to Euroseas and its affiliates. For example, under certain circumstances, Euroseas may be prevented from directly acquiring a vessel if Euromar elects to purchase such vessel, Euroseas may be prevented from selling a vessel if Euromar elects to sell a similar vessel and/or Euroseas may be prevented from chartering a vessel to a third party if Euromar elects to charter a similar vessel to such third party. As a result of these arrangements, we may be unable to take advantage of favorable opportunities in the market with respect to the vessels in our fleet.

Our officers do not devote all of their time to our business.

Our officers are involved in other business activities that may result in their spending less time than is appropriate or necessary in order to manage our business successfully. Our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Internal Auditor and Secretary are not employed directly by us, but rather their services are provided pursuant to our Master Management Agreement with Eurobulk. In addition, on March 25, 2010, we entered into the Joint Venture to form Euromar. Our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer are each on the board of Euromar and Euroseas and Eurobulk have each agreed to provide certain management services to Euromar. Therefore our officers may spend a material portion of their time providing services to Euromar. They may also spend a material portion of their time providing services to Eurobulk and its affiliates on matters unrelated to us.

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

We are a holding company and our subsidiaries, which are all wholly-owned by us, conduct all of our operations and own all of our operating assets. We have no significant assets other than the equity interests in our wholly-owned subsidiaries. As a result, our ability to make dividend payments to you depends on our subsidiaries and their ability to distribute funds to us. If we are unable to obtain funds from our subsidiaries, we may be unable or our Board of Directors may exercise its discretion not to pay dividends.

We may not be able to pay dividends.

We currently intend to pay quarterly dividends to holders of our common stock, when, as and if declared by our Board of Directors. Our last dividend of $0.07 per share was declared in May 2011 for the results of the first quarter of 2011. However, we may not earn sufficient revenues or we may incur expenses or liabilities that would reduce or eliminate the cash available for distribution as dividends. Our loan agreements may also limit the amount of dividends we can pay under some circumstances based on certain covenants included in the loan agreements.

In addition, 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 dividends will depend on our earnings, financial condition, cash requirements and availability, restrictions in our loan agreements, growth strategy, charter rates in the drybulk and container shipping industry, 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 (retained earnings and the excess of consideration received for the sale of shares above the par value of the shares), but, if there is no surplus, dividends may be declared out of the net profits (basically, the excess of our revenue over our expenses) for the fiscal year in which the dividend is declared or the preceding fiscal year. Marshall Islands law also prohibits the payment of dividends while a company is insolvent or if it would be rendered insolvent upon the payment of a dividend. As a result, we may not be able to pay dividends.

If we are unable to fund our capital expenditures, we may not be able to continue to operate some of our vessels, which would have a material adverse effect on our business and our ability to pay dividends.

In order to fund our capital expenditures, we may be required to incur borrowings or raise capital through the sale of debt or equity securities. Our ability to access the capital markets through future offerings may be limited by our financial condition at the time of any such offering as well as by adverse market conditions resulting from, among other things, general economic conditions and contingencies and uncertainties that are beyond our control. Our failure to obtain the funds for necessary future capital expenditures would limit our ability to continue to operate some of our vessels and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends. Even if we are successful in obtaining such funds through financings, the terms of such financings could further limit our ability to pay dividends.

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

We intend to continue to grow our fleet. Our growth will depend on:

	·	locating and acquiring suitable vessels;
	·	identifying and consummating acquisitions or joint ventures;

	·	integrating any acquired business successfully with our existing operations;
	·	enhancing our customer base;

	·	managing our expansion; and
	·	obtaining required financing on acceptable terms.

During periods in which charter rates are high, vessel values generally are high as well, and it may be difficult to consummate vessel acquisitions at favorable prices. When vessel prices are low, charter rates are also low and any vessel acquisition might require additional investment to cover shortfalls from operations until rates recover. In addition, growing any business by acquisition – especially if acquiring entire companies - presents numerous risks, such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations and difficulty experienced in (1) maintaining and obtaining additional qualified personnel, (2) managing relationships with customers and suppliers, (3) integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures and (4) identifying new and profitable charter opportunities for vessels and complying with new loan covenants. We have not identified further expansion opportunities at this time, and the nature and timing of any such expansion is uncertain. We may not be successful in executing our growth plans or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection with the execution of those growth plans.

A decline in the market value of our vessels could lead to a default under our loan agreements and the loss of our vessels.

We have incurred secured debt under loan agreements for our vessels. 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 on terms that are acceptable to us or at all. If we are unable to pledge additional collateral, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on our fleet.

Our existing loan agreements contain restrictive covenants that may limit our liquidity and corporate activities.

Our existing loan agreements impose operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability to:

	·	incur additional indebtedness;
	·	create liens on our assets;

	·	sell capital stock of our subsidiaries;
	·	make investments;

	·	engage in mergers or acquisitions;
	·	pay dividends;

	·	make capital expenditures;
	·	change the management of our vessels or terminate or materially amend the management agreement relating to each vessel; and

sell our vessels.

Therefore, we may need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate actions. The lenders' interests may be different from our interests, and we may not be able to obtain the lenders' permission when needed. This may prevent us from taking actions that are in our best interest.

Servicing future debt would limit funds available for other purposes.

To finance our fleet, we have incurred secured debt under loan agreements for our vessels. We also currently expect to incur additional secured debt to finance the acquisition of additional vessels. We must 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 expenditures and other purposes. As of December 31, 2010, we had total bank debt of approximately $88.39 million. As of March 31, 2011, we had repaid $2.83 million of our total bank debt leaving us with total bank debt of $85.56 million. Our debt repayment schedule as of December 31, 2010 requires us to repay $26.80 million of debt during the next two years. If we are unable to service our debt, it could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

A rise in interest rates could cause an increase in our costs and have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. To finance vessel purchases, we have borrowed, and may continue to borrow, under loan agreements that provide for periodic interest rate adjustments based on indices that fluctuate with changes in market interest rates. If interest rates increase significantly, it would increase our costs of financing our acquisition of vessels, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. Any increase in debt service would also reduce the funds available to us to purchase other vessels.

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 debt financing that we will require to purchase additional vessels or may significantly increase our costs of obtaining such financing. Our inability to obtain additional financing at all or at a higher than anticipated cost may materially affect our results of operations, cash flows and our ability to implement our business strategy.

As we expand our business, we may need to upgrade our operations and financial systems, and add more staff and crew. If we cannot upgrade these systems or recruit suitable employees, our performance may be adversely affected.

Our current operating and financial systems may not be adequate if we expand the size of our fleet, and our attempts to improve those systems may be ineffective. In addition, if we expand our fleet, we will have to rely on Eurobulk to recruit suitable additional seafarers and shoreside administrative and management personnel. Eurobulk may not be able to continue to hire suitable employees as we expand our fleet. If Eurobulk's unaffiliated crewing agent encounters business or financial difficulties, we may not be able to adequately staff our vessels. If we are unable to operate our financial and operations systems effectively or to recruit suitable employees, our performance may be materially adversely affected.

If we acquire additional ships, whether on the secondhand market or newbuildings, and those vessels are not delivered on time or are delivered with significant defects, our earnings and financial condition could be adversely affected.

We expect to acquire additional vessels in the future either from the secondhand markets or, possibly, by placing newbuilding orders. A delay in the delivery of any of these vessels to us or the failure of the contract counterparty to deliver a vessel at all could cause us to breach our obligations under a related time charter and could adversely affect our earnings, our financial condition and the amount of dividends, if any, that we pay in the future. The delivery of these vessels, whether newbuildings or secondhand vessels, could be delayed or certain events may arise which could result in us not taking delivery of a vessel, such as a total loss of a vessel, a constructive loss of a vessel, or substantial damage to a vessel prior to delivery. In addition, the delivery of any of these vessels with substantial defects could have similar consequences.

Credit market volatility may affect our ability to refinance our existing debt, borrow funds under our revolving credit facility or incur additional debt.

The credit markets have recently experienced extreme volatility and disruption, which has limited credit capacity for certain issuers, and lenders have requested shorter terms and lower loan-to-value ratios. The market for new debt financing is extremely limited and in some cases not available at all. If current levels of market disruption and volatility continue or worsen, we may not be able to refinance our existing debt, draw upon our revolving credit facility or incur additional debt, which may require us to seek other funding sources to meet our liquidity needs or to fund planned expansion.

Labor interruptions could disrupt our business.

Our vessels are manned by masters, officers and crews that are employed by third parties. If not resolved in a timely and cost-effective manner, industrial action or other labor unrest could prevent or hinder our operations from being carried out normally and could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

In the highly competitive international drybulk and container shipping industry, we may not be able to compete for charters with new entrants or established companies with greater resources.

We employ our vessels in highly competitive markets that are capital intensive and highly fragmented. Competition arises primarily from other vessel owners, some of whom have substantially greater resources than us. Competition for the transportation of drybulk and container cargoes can be intense and depends on price, location, size, age, condition and the acceptability of the vessel and its managers to the charterers. Due in part to the highly fragmented market, competitors with greater resources could operate larger fleets through consolidations or acquisitions that may be able to offer better prices and fleets.

We will not be able to take advantage of potentially favorable opportunities in the current spot market with respect to vessels employed on time charters.

As of May 25, 2011, fifteen of the 16 vessels in our fleet are employed under time charters with remaining terms ranging between less than one and 23 months. The percentage of our fleet that is under time charter contracts, voyage charters, or that is otherwise protected from market fluctuations (via Forward Freight Agreement, or FFA, contracts) represents approximately 84% of our vessel capacity in 2011. Although time charters provide relatively steady streams of revenue, vessels committed to time charters may not be available for spot charters during periods of increasing charter hire rates, when spot charters might be more profitable. If we cannot re-charter these vessels on time charters or trade them in the spot market profitably, our results of operations and operating cash flow may suffer. We may not be able to secure charter hire rates in the future that will enable us to operate our vessels profitably. During parts of 2009 and 2010, three of our containerships were laid-up. All of our vessels are currently employed but we may be forced to lay up vessels if rates drop to very low levels for prolonged periods of time. Although we do not receive any revenues from certain of our vessels while such vessels are unemployed, we are required to pay expenses necessary to maintain the vessel in proper operating condition, insure it and service any indebtedness secured by such vessel.

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 operations.

Our success depends to a significant extent upon the abilities and efforts of our management team. Our success will depend upon our ability to hire additional employees and to retain key members of our management team. The loss of any of these individuals could adversely affect our business prospects and financial condition and operating cash flows. Difficulty in hiring and retaining personnel could adversely affect our results of operations. We do not currently intend to maintain "key man" life insurance on any of our officers.

Risks involved with operating ocean-going vessels could affect our business and reputation, which may reduce our revenues.

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

	·	marine disaster;
	·	piracy;

	·	environmental accidents;
	·	grounding, fire, explosions and collisions;

	·	cargo and property losses or damage;
	·	business interruptions caused by mechanical failure, human error, war, terrorism, political action in various countries, labor strikes or adverse weather conditions; and

work stoppages or other labor problems with crew members serving on our vessels including crew strikes and/or boycotts.

Such occurrences could result in death or injury to persons, loss of property or environmental damage, delays in the delivery of cargo, loss of revenues from or termination of charter contracts, governmental fines, penalties or restrictions on conducting business, higher insurance rates, and damage to our reputation and customer relationships generally. Any of these circumstances or events could increase our costs or lower our revenues, which could result in reduction in the market price of our shares of common stock. The involvement of our vessels in an environmental disaster may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.

The operation of drybulk carriers has certain unique operational risks which could affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

The operation of certain ship types, such as drybulk carriers, has certain unique risks. With a drybulk carrier, the cargo itself and its interaction with the ship can be a risk factor. By their nature, drybulk cargoes are often heavy, dense, easily shifted, and react badly to water exposure. In addition, drybulk carriers are often subjected to battering treatment during unloading operations with grabs, jackhammers (to pry encrusted cargoes out of the hold), and small bulldozers. This treatment may cause damage to the vessel. Vessels damaged due to treatment during unloading procedures may be more susceptible to breach to the sea. Hull breaches in drybulk carriers may lead to the flooding of the vessels holds. If a drybulk carrier suffers flooding in its forward holds, the bulk cargo may become so dense and waterlogged that its pressure may buckle the vessels bulkheads leading to the loss of a vessel. If we are unable to adequately maintain our vessels we may be unable to prevent these events. Any of these circumstances or events could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends. In addition, the loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.

The operation of containerships has certain unique operational risks which could affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends.

The operation of containerships has certain unique risks. Containerships operate at high speeds in order to move cargoes around the world quickly and minimize delivery delays. These high speeds can result in greater impact in collisions and groundings resulting in more damage to the vessel when compared to vessels operating at lower speeds. In addition, due to the placement of the containers on a containership, there is a greater risk that containers carried on deck will be lost overboard if an accident does occur. Furthermore, with the highly varied cargo that can be carried on a single containership, there can be additional difficulties with any clean-up operation following an accident. Also, we may not be able to correctly control the contents and condition of cargoes within the containers which may give rise to events such as customer complaints, accidents on-board the ships or problems with authorities due to carriage of illegal cargoes. Any of these circumstances or events could negatively impact our business, financial condition, results of operations and ability to pay dividends. In addition, the loss of any of our vessels could harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel owner and operator.

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

If our vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a drydocking facility. The costs of drydock repairs are unpredictable and may be substantial. We may have to pay drydocking costs that our insurance does not cover. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and reconditioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, would decrease our earnings.

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

Although we inspect the secondhand vessels prior to purchase, this inspection does not provide us with the same knowledge about their condition and cost of any required (or anticipated) repairs that it 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 the age of the vessel. As of May 25, 2011, the average age of our fleet was approximately 17.3 years. As our fleet ages, we will incur increased costs. Older vessels are typically less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain than more recently constructed vessels. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers. Governmental regulations and safety or other equipment standards related to the age of a vessel may also require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which our vessels may engage.

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, we are not certain that the price for which we sell them will equal their carrying amount at that time.

Unless we set aside reserves for vessel replacement, at the end of a vessel's useful life, our revenue will decline, which would adversely affect our cash flows and income.

As of May 25, 2011, the vessels in our current fleet had an average age of approximately17.3 years. Unless we maintain cash reserves for vessel replacement, we may be unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives. We estimate the useful life of our container vessels to be 30 years and for our drybulk vessels 25 years from the date of initial delivery from the shipyard. Our cash flows and income are dependent on the revenues we earn by chartering our vessels to customers. If we are unable to replace the vessels in our fleet upon the expiration of their useful lives, our business, financial condition and results of operations may be materially adversely affected. Any reserves set aside for vessel replacement would not be available for other cash needs or dividends.

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

In general, the costs to maintain a vessel in good operating condition increase with the age of the vessel. As of May 25, 2011, the average age of the vessels in our current fleet was approximately 17.3 years. As our vessels age, they may become less fuel efficient and more costly to maintain and will not be as advanced as more recently constructed vessels due to improvements in design and engine technology. Rates for cargo insurance, paid by charterers, also 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 our 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.

In addition, charterers actively discriminate against hiring older vessels. For example, Rightship, the ship vetting service founded by Rio Tinto and BHP-Billiton that has become the major vetting service in the dry bulk shipping industry, ranks the suitability of vessels based on a scale of one to five stars. Most major carriers will not charter a vessel that Rightship has vetted with fewer than three stars. Rightship automatically downgrades any vessel over 18 years of age to two stars, which significantly decreases its chances of entering into a charter. Therefore, as our vessels approach and exceed 18 years of age, we may not be able to operate these vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives, which could adversely affect our earnings.

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 vessels 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 once their initial charters expire and the resale value of our vessels could significantly decrease. As a result, our available cash could be adversely affected.

We are subject to certain risks with respect to our counterparties on contracts, and failure of such counterparties to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses or otherwise adversely affect our business.

We enter into, among other things, charterparty agreements. Such agreements subject us to counterparty risks. The ability and willingness of each of our counterparties to perform its obligations under a contract 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 maritime and offshore industries, the overall financial condition of the counterparty, charter rates received for specific types of vessels, and various expenses. In addition, in depressed market conditions, our charterers may no longer need a vessel that is currently under charter or may be able to obtain a comparable vessel at lower rates. As a result, charterers may seek to renegotiate the terms of their existing charter parties or avoid their obligations under those contracts and there have been reports of charterers, including some of our charter counterparties, renegotiating their charters counterparties or defaulting on their obligations under charters and our customers 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 time charters would be at lower rates given currently decreased charter rate levels. If our charterers fail to meet their obligations to us or attempt to renegotiate our charter agreements, it may be difficult to secure substitute employment for such vessel, and any new charter arrangements we secure in the spot market or on time charters may be at lower rates given currently decreased charter rate levels, particularly in the dry bulk carrier market and as a result we could sustain significant losses which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and cash flows, as well as our ability to pay dividends in the future and compliance with covenants in our credit facilities.

We may not have adequate insurance to compensate us adequately for damage to, or loss of, our vessels.

We procure insurance for our fleet against risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators which includes hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance (which, in turn, includes environmental damage and pollution insurance) and war risk insurance and freight, demurrage and defense insurance for our fleet. We generally do not maintain insurance against loss of hire which covers business interruptions that result in the loss of use of a vessel except in cases we consider such protection appropriate. We may not be adequately insured against all risks and we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage for our fleet in the future. The insurers may not pay particular claims. Even if our insurance coverage is adequate to cover our losses, 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. Moreover, the insurers may default on any claims they are required to pay. If our insurance is not enough to cover claims that may arise, it may have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flows.

For example risks associated with the radioactive fallout from the Fukushima power plant following the earthquake and resulting tsunami on March, 11 2011 in Japan are specifically excluded from both normal P&I and Hull Insurance and we cannot guarantee that appropriate insurance is available for such matters on the market either on appropriate terms or at all.

Because we obtain some of our insurance through protection and indemnity associations, we may also be subject to calls in amounts based not only on our own claim records, but also the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations.

We may be subject to calls in amounts based not only on our claim records but also the claim records of other members of the protection and indemnity associations through which we receive insurance coverage for tort liability, including pollution-related liability. Our payment of these calls could result in significant expense to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, cash flows, financial condition and ability to pay dividends.

Our international operations expose us to risks of terrorism and piracy that may interfere with the operation of our vessels, which could adversely affect our business.

We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside the United States of America. Changing economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we are engaged in business or where our vessels are registered affect our operations. 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 piracy have historically affected ocean-going vessels trading in regions of the world such as the South China Sea and in the Gulf of Aden off the coast of Somalia. In 2008, 2009 and 2010, the frequency of piracy incidents increased significantly, particularly in the Gulf of Aden, with dry bulk vessels and tankers particularly vulnerable to such attacks.

For example, in November 2008, the Sirius Star, a tanker vessel not affiliated with us, was captured by pirates in the Indian Ocean while carrying crude oil estimated to be worth $100.0 million and was released in January 2009 upon a ransom payment of $3.0 million. In February 2009, the Saldanha, a vessel not affiliated with us, was seized by pirates while transporting coal through the Gulf of Aden and, in April 2009, the Maersk Alabama, a 17,000-ton container ship not affiliated with us, was seized by Somali pirates. Both of these ships were later released. These types of events may result in loss of revenues, increased costs and decreased cash flows to our customers, which could impair their ability to make payments to us under our charters.

On May 12, 2010, one of our vessels, m/v Eleni P, was hijacked by pirates off the East Coast of Africa. This matter was resolved and the m/v Eleni P was released on December 11, 2010. All the crew of the m/v Eleni P was safely repatriated and the vessel had to go into drydock in China for repairs after the seven months of forced lay-up in Somalia, which had caused deterioration to the ship's hull and engines.

If these piracy attacks result in regions (in which our vessels are deployed) being characterized by insurers as "war risk" zones, as the Gulf of Aden temporarily was in May 2008, or Joint War Committee (JWC) "war and strikes" listed areas, premiums payable for such insurance coverage could increase significantly and such insurance coverage may be more difficult to obtain. Crew costs, including those due to employing onboard security guards, could increase in such circumstances. In addition, while we believe the charterer remains liable for charter payments when a vessel is seized by pirates, the charterer may dispute this and withhold charter hire until the vessel is released. A charterer may also claim that a vessel seized by pirates was not "on-hire" for a certain number of days and it is therefore entitled to cancel the charter party, a claim that we would dispute. We may not be adequately insured to cover losses from these incidents, which could have a material adverse effect on us. When our vessels are the targets of such incidents (see next risk factor), this could result in loss or damage of our vessels and a loss of operating revenue. 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, results of operations and cash flows.

The U.S. government recently imposed legislation concerning the deteriorating situation in Somalia, including acts of piracy off the coast of Somalia. On April 13, 2010, the President of the United States issued an Executive Order, which we refer to as the Order, prohibiting, among other things, the payment of monies to or for the benefit of individuals and entities on the list of Specially Designated Nationals, or SDNs, published by U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Certain individuals associated with piracy off the coast of Somalia are currently designated persons under the SDN list. The Order is applicable only to payments by U.S. persons and not by foreign entities such as Euroseas. Notwithstanding this fact, it is possible that the Order, and the regulations promulgated therefrom, may affect foreign private issuers to the extent that such foreign private issuers provide monies, such as ransom payments to secure the release of crews and ships in the event of detention hijackings, to any SDN for which they seek reimbursement from a U.S. insurance carrier. While additional regulations relating to the Order may be promulgated by the U.S. government in the future, we cannot predict what effect these regulations may have on our operations.

If our vessels call on ports located in countries that are subject to restrictions, sanctions or embargoes imposed by the U.S. government, that could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our shares of common stock and its trading price.

From time to time, vessels in our fleet on charterers' instructions may call on ports located in countries subject to sanctions and embargoes imposed by the U.S. government and countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism (Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria). 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. The United States government has recently imposed sanctions with respect to Libya and expanded existing sanctions with respect to Iran.

On February 25, 2011, an executive order titled Blocking Property and Prohibiting Certain Transactions Related to Libya, or the Libya Executive Order, was issued. The Libya Executive Order prohibits U.S. persons from making or receiving contributions or provisions of funds, goods or services to or from certain entities and individuals whose property or interests in property are blocked by the Libya Executive Order. Entities and individuals with whom such transactions are specifically prohibited include, but are not limited to, certain members of the Qadhafi family, the Libyan government (including its senior officials, agencies, instrumentalities and controlled entities) and the Central Bank of Libya.

On July 1, 2010, the U.S. enacted the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions Accountability and Divestment Act of 2010, or CISADA. CISADA applies to both U.S. and non-U.S. persons, which includes our company. CISADA limits the ability of companies and persons to engage in investments and transactions that could directly and significantly contribute to Iran's ability to develop petroleum resources, import refined petroleum products, or facilitate the maintenance or expansion of Iran's domestic production of refined petroleum products.

Although these sanctions and embargoes do not prevent our vessels from making calls to ports in these countries, potential investors could view such port calls negatively, which could adversely affect our reputation and the market for our common stock. In addition, certain institutional investors may have investment policies or restrictions that prevent them from holding securities of companies that have contracts with countries identified by the U.S. government as state sponsors of terrorism. Such investors may decide to divest their interest, or not to invest, in our company simply because we do business with companies that do business in sanctioned countries. The determination by these investors not to invest in or to divest our common shares may adversely affect the price at which our common shares trade. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

Almost all of the Company's revenues are from chartering-out its vessels on time charter contracts. One of the Company's drybulk vessels has also been entered into a pooling arrangement under which an international company and trading house involved in the use and/or transportation of drybulk commodities directs the Company's vessel to carry cargoes on its behalf. In both time charters and pooling arrangements, the Company has no contractual relationship with the owner of the cargo and does not know the identity of the cargo owner. The vessel is directed to a load port to load the cargo, and to a discharge port to offload the cargo, based solely on the instructions of the charterer. Under its time charters and pooling arrangements, the terms of which are consistent with industry standards, the Company may not have the ability to prohibit its charterers from sending its vessels to Iran, Syria, Sudan or Cuba to carry cargoes that do not violate applicable laws.

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 be unclear and may be subject to changing interpretations. Any such violation could result in fines or other penalties and could result in some investors deciding, or being required, to divest their interest, or not to invest, in our company. Moreover, our charterers may violate applicable sanctions and embargo laws and regulations as a result of actions that do not involve us or our vessels, and those violations could in turn negatively affect our reputation. Investor perception of the value of our common stock may also be adversely affected by the consequences of war, the effects of terrorism, civil unrest and governmental actions in these and surrounding countries.

We expect to operate substantially outside the United States, which will expose us to political and governmental instability, which could harm our operations.

We expect that our operations will be primarily conducted outside the United States and may be adversely affected by changing or adverse political and governmental conditions in the countries where our vessels are flagged or registered and in the regions where we otherwise engage in business. Any disruption caused by these factors may interfere with the operation of our vessels, which could harm our business, financial condition and results of operations. Past political efforts to disrupt shipping in these regions, particularly in the Arabian Gulf, have included attacks on ships and mining of waterways. In addition, terrorist attacks outside this region, such as the attacks that occurred against targets in the United States on September 11, 2001, Spain on March 11, 2004, London on July 7, 2005, Mumbai on November 26, 2008 and continuing hostilities in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Middle East and the world may lead to additional armed conflicts or to further acts of terrorism and civil disturbance in the United States and elsewhere. Any such attacks or disturbances may disrupt our business, increase vessel operating costs, including insurance costs, and adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. Our operations may also be adversely affected by expropriation of vessels, taxes, regulation, tariffs, trade embargoes, economic sanctions or a disruption of or limit to trading activities or other adverse events or circumstances in or affecting the countries and regions where we operate or where we may operate in the future.

Obligations associated with being a public company require significant company resources and management attention.

We are subject to the reporting requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange Act"), and the other rules and regulations of the Commission, including the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act requires that we evaluate and determine the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting.

We work with our legal, accounting and financial advisors to identify any areas in which changes should be made to our financial and management control systems to manage our growth and our obligations as a public company. We evaluate areas such as corporate governance, corporate control, internal audit, disclosure controls and procedures and financial reporting and accounting systems. We will make changes in any of these and other areas, including our internal control over financial reporting, which we believe are necessary. However, these and other measures we may take may not be sufficient to allow us to satisfy our obligations as a public company on a timely and reliable basis. In addition, compliance with reporting and other requirements applicable to public companies will create additional costs for us and will require the time and attention of management. Our limited management resources may exacerbate the difficulties in complying with these reporting and other requirements while focusing on executing our business strategy. We may not be able to predict or estimate the amount of the additional costs we may incur, the timing of such costs or the degree of impact that our management's attention to these matters will have on our business.

Derivatives contracts margin requirements might restrict all our funds and significantly affect our operations.

FFA contracts and other derivative instruments may be used to hedge a vessel owner's exposure to the charter market by providing for the sale of a contracted charter rate along a specified route and period of time. Upon settlement, if the contracted charter rate is less than the average of the rates, as reported by an identified index, for the specified route and period, the seller of the FFA contract is required to pay the buyer an amount equal to the difference between the contracted rate and the settlement rate, multiplied by the number of days in the specified period. Conversely, if the contracted rate is greater than the settlement rate, the buyer is required to pay the seller the settlement sum. We have entered into several derivatives contracts, including interest rate swaps as well as a number of FFA contracts, and we may enter into new ones that may require us to post margin if the markets move against our positions. We may not have enough funds to cover such margin requirements and as a result our ability to operate our vessels may be significantly curtailed, we may be forced to close the contracts at a loss, we may be forced to sell some or all of our assets. As of December 31, 2010, our FFA contracts did not require us to post any margin.

Exposure to currency exchange rate fluctuations will result in fluctuations in our cash flows and operating results.

We generate all our revenues in U.S. dollars, but we incur approximately 22% of our vessel operating expenses, voyage expenses and drydocking expenses, all our vessel management fees, and, approximately 18%in 2010 of our general and administrative expenses in currencies other than the U.S. dollar. This difference could lead to fluctuations in our operating expenses, which would affect our financial results. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies increase when the value of the U.S. dollar falls, which would reduce our profitability and cash flows.

Interest rates in most loan agreements in our industry are based on variable components, such as LIBOR, and if such variable components increase significantly, it could affect our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

LIBOR in the past has been volatile, with the spread between LIBOR and the prime lending rate widening significantly at times. These conditions can be the result of disruptions in the international credit markets. Because the interest rates borne by our outstanding indebtedness fluctuate with changes in LIBOR, if this volatility were to continue, it would affect the amount of interest payable to service our debt, which in turn, could have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

Furthermore, interest rates in most loan agreements in our industry have been based on published LIBOR rates. Recently, however, lenders have insisted on provisions that entitle the lenders, in their discretion, to replace published LIBOR as the base for the interest calculation with their cost-of-funds rate if the quoted LIBOR rate does not reflect their true cost-of-funds or if it is unavailable. If we are required to agree to such a provision in future loan agreements, our borrowing costs could increase significantly if there is a market disruption of LIBOR, which could have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

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

We have historically derived a significant part of our revenues from a small number of charterers. During 2010, approximately 71% of our revenues derived from our top five charterers. During 2009 and 2008, approximately 54% and 44%, respectively, of our revenues derived from our top five charterers. If one or more of our charterers chooses not to charter our vessels or is unable to perform under one or more charters with us and we are not able to find a replacement charter, we could suffer a loss of revenues that could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

U.S. tax authorities could treat us as a "passive foreign investment company," which could have adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. holders.

A foreign corporation will be treated as a "passive foreign investment company," or PFIC, for U.S. 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." U.S. shareholders of a PFIC are subject to a disadvantageous U.S. federal income tax regime with respect to the income derived by the PFIC, the distributions they receive from the PFIC and the gain, if any, they derive from the sale or other disposition of their shares in the PFIC. In addition, for taxable years beginning after March 18, 2010, United States shareholders of a PFIC are required to file annual information returns with the IRS.

Based on our current method of operation, we do not believe that we have been, are or will be a PFIC with respect to any taxable year. In this regard, we treat the gross income we derive or are deemed to derive from our time chartering activities as services income, rather than rental income. Accordingly, we believe that our income from our time chartering activities should not constitute "passive income," and the assets that we own and operate in connection with the production of that income should not constitute passive assets.

There is substantial legal authority supporting this position consisting of case law and U.S. Internal Revenue Service, or IRS, pronouncements concerning the characterization of income derived from time charters and voyage charters as services income for other tax purposes. However, it should be noted that there is also authority which characterizes time charter income as rental income rather than services income for other tax purposes. Accordingly, in the absence of legal authority directly relating to PFIC rules, no assurance can be given that the IRS or a court of law will accept this position, and there is a risk that the IRS or a court of law could determine that we are a PFIC. Moreover, no assurance can be given that we would not constitute a PFIC for any future taxable year if the nature and extent of our operations changed.

If the IRS were to find that we are or have been a PFIC for any taxable year, our U.S. shareholders will face adverse U.S. federal income tax consequences. Under the PFIC rules, unless those shareholders make an election available under the United States Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (the "Code") (which election could itself have adverse consequences for such shareholders, as discussed in Item 10 of this annual report under "Taxation — United States Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders"), such shareholders would be subject to U.S. federal income tax at the then prevailing income tax rates on ordinary income plus interest upon excess distributions and upon any gain from the disposition of our shares, as if the excess distribution or gain had been recognized ratably over the United States shareholder's holding period of our shares. See "Taxation — United States Federal Income Taxation of U.S. Holders" in this annual report under Item 10 for a more comprehensive discussion of the U.S. federal income tax consequences to U.S. shareholders if we are treated as a PFIC.

Based on the current and expected composition of our and our subsidiaries' assets and income, it is not anticipated that we will be treated as a PFIC. Our actual PFIC status for any taxable year, however, will not be determinable until after the end of such taxable year. Accordingly there can be no assurances regarding our status as a PFIC for the current taxable year or any future taxable year. See the discussion in the section entitled "Item 10.E. Taxation — Passive Foreign Investment Company Regulations." We urge U.S. Holders to consult with their own tax advisors regarding the possible application of the PFIC rules.

Legislation has previously been proposed in the United States Congress which would prevent dividends on our shares from qualifying for certain preferential rates of U.S. federal income taxation.

"Qualified dividend income" derived by non-corporate U.S. shareholders is currently (through 2012) subject to U.S. federal income taxation at reduced rates. We expect that under current law, so long as our shares are traded on the NASDAQ Capital Market, the NASDAQ Global Select Market or the NASDAQ Global Market and we do not and have not qualified as a "passive foreign investment company" for U.S. federal income tax purposes, distributions treated as dividends for U.S. federal income tax purposes on our shares will potentially be eligible (that is, eligible if certain conditions relating to the United States shareholder are satisfied) for treatment as qualified dividend income. In a previous session of the U.S. Congress, legislation was introduced which would have made it unlikely that such distributions on our shares would be eligible for such treatment. In addition, the provisions relating the "qualified dividend income" are scheduled to expire on December 31, 2012.

If management is unable to provide reports as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with unqualified attestation reports as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock.

Under Section 404 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or Sarbanes-Oxley, we are required to include in each of our annual reports on Form 20-F a report containing our management's assessment of the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting and an attestation report of our independent registered public accounting firm related to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting. If, in such annual reports on Form 20-F, our management cannot provide a report as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting or our independent registered public accounting firm is unable to provide us with an unqualified attestation report as to the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as required by Section 404, investors could lose confidence in the reliability of our financial statements, which could result in a decrease in the value of our common stock.

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

Under the Code, 50% of the gross shipping income of a vessel owning or chartering corporation, such as ourselves and our subsidiaries, that is attributable to transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States may be subject to a 4% United States federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless that corporation qualifies for exemption from tax under Section 883 of the Code and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder.

We believe that we and each of our subsidiaries qualify for this statutory tax exemption of Section 883 of the Code and we have taken this position for United States federal income tax return reporting purposes. However, there are factual circumstances beyond our control that could cause us to lose the benefit of this tax exemption and thereby become subject to United States federal income tax on our United States source shipping income. For example, we would fail to qualify for exemption under Section 883 of the Code for a particular tax year if shareholders, each of whom owned, actually or under applicable constructive ownership rules, a 5% or greater interest in the vote and value of the outstanding shares of our stock, owned in the aggregate 50% or more of the vote and value of the outstanding shares of our stock, and "qualified shareholders" as defined by the Treasury Regulation under Section 883 of the Code did not own, directly or under applicable constructive ownership rules, sufficient shares in our closely-held block of stock to preclude the shares in the closely-held block that are not so owned from representing 50% or more of the value of our stock for more than half of the number of days during the taxable year. Establishing such ownership by qualified shareholders will depend upon the status of certain of our direct or indirect shareholders as residents of qualifying jurisdictions and whether those shareholders own their shares through bearer share arrangements. In addition, such shareholders will also be required to comply with ownership certification procedures attesting that they are residents of qualifying jurisdictions, and each intermediary's or other person's similar compliance in the chain of ownership between us and such shareholders. Due to the factual nature of the issues involved, we may not be able to maintain our tax-exempt status or that of any of our subsidiaries.

If we or our subsidiaries are not entitled to exemption under Section 883 of the Code for any taxable year, we or our subsidiaries could be subject for those years to an effective 2% United States federal income tax on the shipping income we derive during the year that are attributable to the transport or cargoes to or from the United States. The imposition of this taxation would have a negative effect on our business and would result in decreased earnings available for distribution to our shareholders.

Failure to comply with the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act could result in fines, criminal penalties, and an adverse effect on our business.

We may operate in a number of countries throughout 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. We are subject, however, to the risk that we, our affiliated entities or our or their respective officers, directors, employees and agents may take action determined to be in violation of such anti-corruption laws, including the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act of 1977. 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.

We may not be exempt from Liberian taxation which would materially reduce our net income and cash flow by the amount of the applicable tax.

The Republic of Liberia enacted a new income tax act effective as of January 1, 2001 (the "New Act"). In contrast to the income tax law previously in effect since 1977 (the "Prior Law"), which the New Act repealed in its entirety, the New Act does not distinguish between the taxation of a non resident Liberian corporation, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, which conduct no business in Liberia and which were wholly exempted from tax under the Prior Law, and the taxation of ordinary resident Liberian corporations.

In 2004, the Liberian Ministry of Finance issued regulations pursuant to which a non-resident domestic corporation engaged in international shipping, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, will not be subject to tax under the New Act retroactive to January 1, 2001 (the "New Regulations"). In addition, the Liberian Ministry of Justice issued an opinion that the New Regulations were a valid exercise of the regulatory authority of the Ministry of Finance. Therefore, assuming that the New Regulations are valid, our Liberian subsidiaries will be wholly exempt from Liberian income tax as under the Prior Law. In 2009, the Liberian Congress enacted the Economic Stimulus Taxation Act of 2009, which reinstates the treatment of non-resident Liberian corporation, such as our Liberian subsidiaries, under Prior Law retroactive to January 1, 2001. This legislation will become effective when it is finally published by the Liberian government.

If our Liberian subsidiaries were subject to Liberian income tax under the New Act, they would be subject to tax at a rate of 35% on their worldwide income. As a result, their, and subsequently our, net income and cash flow would be materially reduced by the amount of the applicable tax. In addition, we, as shareholder of the Liberian subsidiaries, would be subject to Liberian withholding tax on dividends paid by the Liberian subsidiaries at rates ranging from 15% to 20%.

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

We are a Marshall Islands corporation, and our executive offices are located outside of the United States in Maroussi, Greece. A majority of our directors and officers reside outside of the United States, and a substantial portion of our assets and the assets of our officers and directors are located outside of 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 of 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 or Greece would enter judgments in original actions brought in those courts predicated on U.S. federal or state securities laws.

Risk Factors Relating To Our Common Stock

The trading volume for our common stock has been low, which may cause our common stock to trade at lower prices and make it difficult to sell your common stock.

Although our shares of common stock have traded on the NASDAQ Global Market since January 31, 2007 and on the NASDAQ Global Select Market since January 1, 2008, recently the trading volume has been lower. Our shares may not actively trade in the public market and any such limited liquidity may cause our common stock to trade at lower prices and make it difficult to sell your common stock

The market price of our common stock has been and may in the future be subject to significant fluctuations.

The market price of our common stock has been and may in the future be subject to significant fluctuations as a result of many factors, some of which are beyond our control. Among the factors that have in the past and could in the future affect our stock price are:

	·	actual or anticipated fluctuations in quarterly and annual variations in our results of operations;
	·	changes in market valuations or sales or earnings estimates or publication of research reports by analysts;

changes in earnings estimates or shortfalls in our operating results from levels forecasted by securities analysts;

speculation in the press or investment community about our business or the shipping industry;

	·	changes in market valuations of similar companies and stock market price and volume fluctuations generally;
	·	payment of dividends;

	·	strategic actions by us or our competitors such as mergers, acquisitions, joint ventures, strategic alliances or restructurings;
	·	changes in government and other regulatory developments;

	·	additions or departures of key personnel;
	·	general market conditions and the state of the securities markets; and

domestic and international economic, market and currency factors unrelated to our performance.

The international drybulk and container shipping industry has been highly unpredictable. In addition, the stock markets in general, and the markets for drybulk and container shipping and shipping stocks in general, have experienced extreme volatility that has sometimes been unrelated to the operating performance of particular companies. These broad market fluctuations may adversely affect the trading price of our common stock. Our shares may trade at prices lower than you originally paid for such shares.

The market price of our common stock has dropped below $5.00 per share, and the last reported sale price on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on May 25, 2011 was $4.49 per share. If the market price of our common stock remains below $5.00 per share, under stock exchange rules, our shareholders will not be able to use such shares as collateral for borrowing in margin accounts. This inability to continue to use our common stock as collateral may lead to sales of such shares creating downward pressure on and increased volatility in the market price of our common stock.

In addition, under the rules of the Nasdaq Stock Market, listed companies have historically been required to maintain a share price of at least $1.00 per share and if the share price declines below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business days, then the listed company would have a cure period of at least 180 days to regain compliance with the $1.00 per share minimum. In the event that our share price declines below $1.00 for a period of 30 consecutive business days, we may be required to take action, such as a reverse stock split, in order to comply with Nasdaq rules that may be in effect at the time.

Our Amended and Restated Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws and Shareholders' Rights Plan contain anti-takeover provisions that may discourage, delay or prevent (1) our merger or acquisition and/or (2) the removal of incumbent directors and officers.

Our current amended and restated articles of incorporation and bylaws contain certain anti-takeover provisions. These provisions include blank check preferred stock, the prohibition of cumulative voting in the election of directors, a classified Board of Directors, advance written notice for shareholder nominations for directors, removal of directors only for cause, advance written notice of shareholder proposals for the removal of directors and limitations on action by shareholders. In addition, we adopted a shareholders' rights plan pursuant to which our Board of Directors may cause the substantial dilution of any person that attempts to acquire us without the approval of our Board of Directors. These anti-takeover provisions, including provisions of our shareholders' rights plan, either individually or in the aggregate, may discourage, delay or prevent (1) our merger or acquisition by means of a tender offer, a proxy contest or otherwise, that a shareholder may consider in its best interest (2) the removal of incumbent directors and officers, and (3) the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control. These anti-takeover provisions could substantially impede the ability of shareholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and shareholders' ability to realize any potential change of control premium.

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

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

In 2009, we issued 134,100 new shares as part of our continuous at-the-market offering program which is currently suspended but could be re-activated upon resolution of our Board. Friends, our largest shareholder, and Eurobulk Marine, Inc., our affiliate, have registered for resale all of their shares owned as of July 2, 2008 under our registration statement that was declared effective on July 2, 2008 which has resulted in these shares becoming freely tradable without restriction under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended (the "Securities Act").

We may issue additional shares of our stock in the future and our stockholders may elect to sell large numbers of shares held by them from time to time. Our amended and restated articles of incorporation authorize us to issue up to 200,000,000 shares of common stock and 20,000,000 shares of preferred stock. On March 25, 2010, we entered into the Joint Venture to form Euromar LLC. The Joint Venture provides our joint venture partners the option, exercisable in certain instances and at any time after the two year anniversary of the Joint Venture, to convert all or part of their equity interests in Euromar into common shares of Euroseas at a price to be based on the comparable values of Euromar and Euroseas at the time of exercise, with such conversion happening at not less than the net asset value of each entity. Depending on the value of each entity, it is possible that our joint venture partners will be able to convert into a majority of our common shares.

Sales of a substantial number of any of the shares of common stock mentioned above may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

Issuance of preferred stock may adversely affect the voting power of our shareholders and have the effect of discouraging, delaying or preventing a merger or acquisition, which could adversely affect the market price of our common stock.

Our Board may decide in the future to issue preferred shares in one or more series and to determine the rights, preferences, privileges and restrictions with respect to, among other things, dividends, conversion, voting, redemption, liquidation and the number of shares constituting any series subject to prior shareholders' approval. If our Board determines to issue preferred shares, such issuance may discourage, delay or prevent a merger or acquisition that shareholders may consider favorable. The issuance of preferred shares with voting and conversion rights may also adversely affect the voting power of the holders of common shares. This could substantially impede the ability of public shareholders to benefit from a change in control and, as a result, may adversely affect the market price of our common stock and shareholders' ability to realize any potential change of control premium

Because the Republic of the Marshall Islands, where we are incorporated, does not have a well-developed body of corporate law, shareholders may have fewer rights and protections than under typical United States law, such as Delaware, and shareholders may have difficulty in protecting their interest with regard to actions taken by our Board of Directors.

Our corporate affairs are governed by our amended and restated articles of incorporation and bylaws, as amended, and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act (the "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. For example, under Marshall Islands law, a copy of the notice of any meeting of the shareholders must be given not less than 15 days before the meeting, whereas in Delaware such notice must be given not less than 10 days before the meeting. Therefore, if immediate shareholder action is required, a meeting may not be able to be convened as quickly as it can be convened under Delaware law. Also, under Marshall Islands law, any action required to be taken by a meeting of shareholders may only be taken without a meeting if consent is in writing and is signed by all of the shareholders entitled to vote, whereas under Delaware law action may be taken by consent if approved by the number of shareholders that would be required to approve such action at a meeting. Therefore, under Marshall Islands law, it may be more difficult for a company to take certain actions without a meeting even if a majority of the shareholders approve of such action. 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, public shareholders may have more difficulty in protecting their interests in the face of actions by the management, directors or controlling shareholders than would shareholders of a corporation incorporated in a U.S. jurisdiction.

Item 4.

Information on the Company

A.	History and Development of the Company

Euroseas Ltd. is a Marshall Islands company incorporated under the BCA in May 2005. We are a provider of worldwide ocean-going transportation services. We own and operate drybulk carriers that transport major bulks such as iron ore, coal and grains, and minor bulks such as bauxite, phosphate and fertilizers. We also own and operate containerships and multipurpose vessels that transport dry and refrigerated containerized cargoes, mainly including manufactured products and perishables. As of May 25, 2011, our fleet consisted of five drybulk carriers (comprised of four Panamax drybulk carriers and one Handymax drybulk carrier), ten containerships and one multipurpose vessel. The total cargo carrying capacity of the five drybulk carriers is 331,808 deadweight tons, or dwt, and of the ten containerships is 274,354 dwt and 17,787 teu. Our multipurpose vessel can carry 22,568 dwt and/or 950 teu. Three of our vessels were acquired before January 1, 2004 and were controlled by the Pittas family interests. On June 29, 2005, the shareholders of the three vessels (and of four additional vessels that have since been sold) transferred their ownership in each of the vessels to Euroseas in exchange for shares in Friends, a 100% owner of Euroseas at that time. We have purchased sixteen additional vessels since June 2005, three of which we sold in 2009.

On August 25, 2005, we raised approximately $17.5 million in net proceeds from the private placement of our securities to a number of institutional and accredited investors (the "Private Placement"). In the Private Placement, we issued 2,342,331 shares of common stock at a price of $9.00 per share (adjusted for the 1-for-3 reverse split of our common stock effected on October 6, 2006), as well as warrants to purchase an additional 585,589 shares of common stock. The warrants have a five year term and an exercise price of $10.80 per share (adjusted for the 1-for-3 reverse split of our common stock).

On February 5, 2007, we raised approximately $43.3 million in net proceeds from a follow-on common stock offering. On July 5, 2007, we raised approximately $73.0 million in net proceeds from a follow-on common stock offering. On November 9, 2007, we raised approximately $93.6 million in net proceeds from a follow-on common stock offering. During September 2009 we raised approximately $0.65 million in net proceeds from the sale of 134,100 common shares sold pursuant to our sales agreement with Citigroup, as sales agent.

Our shares originally traded on the OTCBB under the symbol ESEAF.OB until October 5, 2006 and EUSEF.OB from October 6, 2006 to January 30, 2007. Our shares have traded on the NASDAQ Global Market under the symbol ESEA since January 31, 2007 and on the NASDAQ Global Select Market since January 1, 2008.

Our executive offices are located at 4 Messogiou & Evropis Street, 151 25, Maroussi, Greece. Our telephone number is +30-211-1804005.

B.	Business Overview

Our fleet consists of: (i) drybulk carriers that transport iron ore, coal, grain and other dry cargoes along worldwide shipping routes; (ii) containerships that transport container boxes providing scheduled service between ports; and (iii) a multipurpose vessel that can carry either drybulk cargoes or containers. Please see information in the section "Our Fleet", below. During 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010 we had a fleet utilization of 98.9%, 99.7%, 98.0%, 94.8% and 99.2%, respectively, our vessels achieved daily time charter equivalent rates of $14,312, $21,468, $23,695, $13,698 and $11,201, respectively, and we generated revenues of $42.14 million, $86.10 million, $132.24 million, $66.22 million and $54.42 million, respectively.

Our business strategy is focused on providing consistent shareholder returns by carefully selecting the timing and the structure of our investments in drybulk and containership vessels and by reliably, safely and competitively operating the vessels we own, through our affiliate, Eurobulk. Representing a continuous shipowning and management history that dates back to the 19th century, we believe that one of our advantages in the industry is our ability to select and safely operate drybulk and containership vessels of any age. We continuously evaluate sale and purchase opportunities, as well as long term employment opportunities for our vessels.

Our Fleet

As of May 25, 2011, the profile and deployment of our fleet is the following:

Name	Type	Dwt	TEU	Year Built	Employment (*)	TCE Rate ($/day)
Dry Bulk Vessels
PANTELIS	Panamax	74,020		2000	TC 'til Mar-12	$17,500
ELENI P	Panamax	72,119		1997	TC 'til Jan-13	$16,500
IRINI	Panamax	69,734		1988	TC 'til Apr-13	$14,000
ARISTIDES N.P.	Panamax	69,268		1993	TC 'til May-12	$14,950
MONICA P (**)	Handymax	46,667		1998	Bulkhandling Pool
Total Dry Bulk Vessels	5	331,808
Multipurpose Dry Cargo Vessels
TASMAN TRADER	1	22,568	950	1990	TC 'til Mar-12	$9,000 'til Mar-12
Container Carriers
MAERSK NOUMEA	Intermediate	34,677	2,556	2001	TC 'til Jun-11	$16,800 'til Aug 11
TIGER BRIDGE	Intermediate	31,627	2,228	1990	TC 'til Mar-12	$7,500
AGGELIKI P	Intermediate	30,360	2,008	1998	TC 'til May-11	$7,000
DESPINA P	Handy size	33,667	1,932	1990	TC 'til Jan-12	$8,500
JONATHAN P (ex- OEL INTEGRITY)	Handy size	33,667	1,932	1990	TC 'til Nov-11	$11,750
CAPTAIN COSTAS (ex-OEL TRANSWORLD)	Handy size	30,007	1,742	1992	TC 'til Aug-11	$10,250
YM PORT KELANG (ex-MASTRO NICOS, ex- YM XINGANG I)	Handy size	23,596	1,599	1993	TC 'til Oct-11	$5,900
MANOLIS P	Handy size	20,346	1,452	1995	TC 'til May-11	$7,699
NINOS (ex-YM QINGDAO I)	Feeder	18,253	1,169	1990	TC 'til Jun-11 Then 'til Jun-12	$6,800 Then $11,200
KUO HSIUNG	Feeder	18,154	1,169	1993	TC 'til Jun-11 Then 'til Jun-12	$5,300 'til Jun-11 Then $11,200
Total Container Carriers	10	274,354	17,787
Fleet Grand Total	16	628,730	18,737

(*)	TC denotes time charter. All dates listed are the earliest redelivery dates under each TC.

(**)

"Monica P" is employed in the Bulkhandling spot pool that is managed by Klaveness, a major global charterer in the drybulk sector. We have concluded a Forward Freight Agreement(FFA) option contract on the Panamax index for calendar 2011 for a modern Panamax. Such a contract serves as an approximate hedge to "Monica P" for 2011 effectively locking in a rate between $16,500 and $23,500.

We plan to expand our fleet by investing in vessels in the drybulk, containership and multipurpose markets by targeting primarily mid-age vessels at the time of purchase under favorable market conditions. We also intend to take advantage of the cyclical nature of the market by buying and selling ships when we believe favorable opportunities exist. We employ our vessels in the spot and time charter market, through pool arrangements and under contracts of affreightment. As of May 25, 2011, all of our containerships, our multipurpose vessel and our Panamax bulkers are employed under time charters. Our Handymax drybulk vessel is employed in the Bulkhandling pool, managed by Klaveness.

As of May 25, 2011, approximately 84% of our ship capacity days in 2011 accounting for fixed spot employment in the first and second quarter of the year, and approximately 24% of our ship capacity days in 2012, are under time charter contracts or protected from market fluctuations (via FFA contracts).

In "Critical Accounting Policies – Impairment of long-lived assets" below, we discuss our policy for impairing the carrying values of our vessels. During the past few years, the market values of vessels have experienced particular volatility, with substantial declines in many vessel classes. As a result, the charter-free market value, or basic market value, of certain of our vessels may have declined below those vessels' carrying value, even though we would not impair those vessels' carrying value under our accounting impairment policy, due to our belief that future undiscounted cash flows expected to be earned by such vessels over their operating lives would exceed such vessels' carrying amounts. The table set forth below indicates (i) the carrying value of each of our vessels as of December 31, 2010, (ii) which of our vessels we believe has a basic market value below its carrying value, and (iii) the aggregate difference between carrying value and market value represented by such vessels. This aggregate difference represents the approximate analysis of the amount by which we believe we would have to reduce our net income if we sold all of such vessels in the current environment, on industry standard terms, in cash transactions, and to a willing buyer where we are not under any compulsion to sell, and where the buyer is not under any compulsion to buy. For purposes of this calculation, we have assumed that the vessels would be sold at a price that reflects our estimate of their current basic market values. However, we are not holding our vessels for sale, except as otherwise noted in this report.

Our estimates of basic market value assume that our vessels are all in good and seaworthy condition without need for repair and if inspected would be certified in class without notations of any kind. Our estimates are based on information available from various industry sources, including:

	·	reports by industry analysts and data providers that focus on our industry and related dynamics affecting vessel values;
	·	news and industry reports of similar vessel sales;

	·	news and industry reports of sales of vessels that are not similar to our vessels where we have made certain adjustments in an attempt to derive information that can be used as part of our estimates;
	·	approximate market values for our vessels or similar vessels that we have received from shipbrokers, whether solicited or unsolicited, or that shipbrokers have generally disseminated;

	·	offers that we may have received from potential purchasers of our vessels; and
	·	vessel sale prices and values of which we are aware through both formal and informal communications with shipowners, shipbrokers, industry analysts and various other shipping industry participants and observers.

As we obtain information from various industry and other sources, our estimates of basic market value are inherently uncertain. In addition, vessel values are highly volatile; as such, our estimates may not be indicative of the current or future basic market value of our vessels or prices that we could achieve if we were to sell them.

Name	Capacity	Purchase Date	Carrying Value as of December 31, 2010
Dry Bulk Vessels	(dwt)		(million USD)
PANTELIS	74,020	Jul-2009	$25.21
ELENI P	72,119	Mar-2009	16.15
IRINI	69,734	Oct-2002	3.92
ARISTIDES N.P.	69,268	Sep-2006	16.04
MONICA P	46,667	Jan-2009	15.87
Total Dry Bulk Vessels	331,808		$77.19
Multipurpose Dry Cargo Vessels	(dwt/teu)
TASMAN TRADER	22,568	Apr-2006	$8.29
Container Carriers	(teu)
MAERSK NOUMEA	2,556	May-2008	$47.23 (*)
TIGER BRIDGE	2,228	Oct-2007	19.36 (*)
AGGELIKI P	2,008	Jun-2010	15.71
DESPINA P	1,932	Aug-2007	14.32 (*)
JONATHAN P	1,932	Aug-2007	14.21 (*)
CAPTAIN COSTAS	1,742	Jun-2007	19.31 (*)
YM PORT KELANG	1,599	Nov-2006	14.15 (*)
MANOLIS P	1,452	Apr-2007	15.12 (*)
NINOS	1,169	Feb-2001	5.16
KUO HSIUNG	1,169	May-2002	5.36
Total Container Carriers	17,787		$169.93
Fleet Total			$255.41

(*)Indicates container vessels for which we believe, as of May 25, 2011, the basic charter-free market value is lower than the vessel's carrying value as of December 31, 2010. We believe that the aggregate carrying value of these vessels, assessed separately, of $143.70 million as of December 31, 2010 exceeds their aggregate basic charter-free market value of approximately $85 million by approximately $59 million. As further discussed in "Critical Accounting Policies – Impairment of long-lived assets" below, we believe that the carrying values of our vessels as of December 31, 2010 were recoverable.

We note that four of our drybulk vessels and all of our container vessels are currently employed under time charter contracts of lengths from one to 23 months. If we sell those vessels with the charters attached, the sale price may be affected by the relationship of the charter rate to the prevailing market rate for a comparable charter with the same terms.

We refer you to the risk factor entitled "The market value of our vessels can fluctuate significantly which may adversely affect our financial condition, cause us to breach financial covenants, result in the incurrence of a loss upon disposal of a vessel or increase the cost of acquiring additional vessels" and the discussion below under "Critical Accounting Policies – Impairment of long-lived assets".

Management of Our Fleet

The operations of our vessels are managed by Eurobulk Ltd., or Eurobulk, an affiliated company, under a Master Management Agreement with us and separate management agreements with each ship-owning company. Eurobulk was founded in 1994 by members of the Pittas family and is a reputable ship management company with strong industry relationships and experience in managing vessels. Under our Master Management Agreement, Eurobulk is responsible for providing us with executive services and commercial management services, which include obtaining employment for our vessels and managing our relationships with charterers. Eurobulk also performs technical management services, which include managing day-to-day vessel operations, performing general vessel maintenance, ensuring regulatory and classification society compliance, supervising the maintenance and general efficiency of vessels, arranging our hire of qualified officers and crew, arranging and supervising drydocking and repairs, arranging insurance for vessels, purchasing stores, supplies, spares and new equipment for vessels, appointing supervisors and technical consultants and providing technical support and shoreside personnel who carry out the management functions described above and certain accounting services.

Our Master Management Agreement with Eurobulk was amended and restated as of January 1, 2011 and has a term of 5 years until January 1, 2016. The Master Management Agreement cannot be terminated by Eurobulk without cause or under other limited circumstances, such as sale of the Company or Eurobulk or the bankruptcy of either party. This Master Management Agreement will automatically be extended after the initial period for an additional five year period unless terminated on or before the 90th day preceding the initial termination date. Pursuant to the Master Management Agreement, each new vessel we acquire in the future will enter into a separate five year management agreement with Eurobulk.

During 2010, in exchange for providing us with the services described above, we paid Eurobulk a management fee of 665 Euros per vessel per day for any vessel operating and 50% (i.e. 332.5 Euros) of that for any vessel laid-up. The management fee is adjusted annually for inflation every January 1st. Starting January 1, 2011, we pay Eurobulk a fee of 700 Euros per vessel per day in operation and 350 Euros per vessel per day in lay up.

Our Competitive Strengths

We believe that we possess the following competitive strengths:

Experienced Management Team. Our management team has significant experience in all aspects of commercial, technical, operational and financial areas of our business. Aristides J. Pittas, our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, holds a dual graduate degree in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering and Ocean Systems Management from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He has worked in various technical, shipyard and ship management capacities and since 1991 has focused on the ownership and operation of vessels carrying dry cargoes. Dr. Anastasios Aslidis, our Chief Financial Officer, holds a Ph.D. in Ocean Systems Management also from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and has over 20 years of experience, primarily as a partner at a Boston based international consulting firm focusing on investment and risk management in the maritime industry.

Cost Effective Vessel Operations. We believe that because of the efficiencies afforded to us through Eurobulk, the strength of our management team and the quality of our fleet, we are, and will continue to be, a reliable, low cost vessel operator, without compromising our high standards of performance, reliability and safety. Despite the average age of our fleet being approximately 17 years during 2010, our total vessel operating expenses, including management fees and general and administrative expenses but excluding drydocking expenses were $5,191 per day for the year ended December 31, 2010. We consider this amount to be among the lowest of the publicly listed drybulk shipping companies in the U.S. even after accounting for the lower operating expenses of our 2 laid-up vessels during part of the year. Our technical and operating expertise allows us to efficiently manage and transport a wide range of cargoes with a flexible trade route profile, which helps reduce ballast time between voyages and minimize off-hire days. Our professional, well-trained masters, officers and on board crews further help us to control costs and ensure consistent vessel operating performance. We actively manage our fleet and strive to maximize utilization and minimize maintenance expenditures for operational and commercial utilization. For the year ended December 31, 2010, our operational fleet utilization was 99.3% and since 2006 our operational utilization rate has averaged approximately 99.0%. Our commercial utilization rate (without including laid-up vessels) increased to 99.9% in 2010 from 95.5% in 2009.

Strong Relationships with Customers and Financial Institutions. We believe Eurobulk and the Pittas family have developed strong industry relationships and have gained acceptance with charterers, lenders and insurers because of their long-standing reputation for safe and reliable service and financial responsibility through various shipping cycles. Through Eurobulk, we offer reliable service and cargo carrying flexibility that enables us to attract customers and obtain repeat business. We also believe that the established customer base and reputation of Eurobulk and the Pittas family helps us to secure favorable employment for our vessels with well known charterers.

Our Business Strategy

Our business strategy is focused on providing consistent shareholder returns by carefully timing and structuring acquisitions of drybulk carriers and containerships and by reliably, safely and competitively operating our vessels through Eurobulk. We continuously evaluate purchase and sale opportunities, as well as long term employment opportunities for our vessels.

Renew and Expand our Fleet. We expect to grow our fleet in a disciplined manner through timely and selective acquisitions of quality vessels. We perform in-depth technical review and financial analysis of each potential acquisition and only purchase vessels as market conditions and developments present themselves. We continue to be focused on purchasing well-maintained secondhand vessels, which should provide a significant value proposition given the depressed price levels that exist currently. However, we will also consider purchasing newbuildings or newbuilding resales if the value proposition exists at the time. Furthermore, as part of our fleet renewal, we will continue to sell certain vessels when we believe it is in the best interests of the Company and our shareholders.

Maintain Balanced Employment. We intend to strategically employ our fleet between time and spot charters. We actively pursue time charters to obtain adequate cash flow to cover as much as possible of our fleet's fixed costs, consisting of vessel operating expenses, management fees, general and administrative expenses, interest expense and drydocking costs for the upcoming 12-month period. We also use FFA contracts – as a substitute for time charter employment - to partly provide coverage for our drybulk vessels in order to increase the predictability of our revenues. We look to deploy the remainder of our fleet through spot charters, shipping pools or contracts of affreightment depending on our view of the direction of the markets and other tactical or strategic considerations. We believe this balanced employment strategy will provide us with more predictable operating cash flows and sufficient downside protection, while allowing us to participate in the potential upside of the spot market during periods of rising charter rates. As of May 25, 2011, on the basis of our existing time charters and FFA contracts, approximately 84% of our vessel capacity in 2011 and approximately 24% in 2012 are fixed, which will help protect us from market fluctuations, enable us to make significant principal and interest payments on our debt and pay dividends to our shareholders.

Operate a Fleet in Two Sectors. While remaining focused on the dry cargo segment of the shipping industry, we intend to continue to develop a diversified fleet of drybulk carriers and containerships of up to Panamax size. A diversified drybulk fleet profile will allow us to better serve our customers in both major and minor drybulk trades, as well as to reduce any dependency on any one cargo, trade route or customer. We will remain focused on the smaller size ship segment of the container market, which has not experienced the same level of expansion in vessel supply that has occurred with larger containerships. A diversified fleet, in addition to enhancing the stability of our cash flows, will also help us to reduce our exposure to unfavorable developments in any one shipping sector and to benefit from upswings in any one shipping sector experiencing rising charter rates.

Optimize Use of Financial Leverage. We will use bank debt to partly fund our vessel acquisitions and increase financial returns for our shareholders. We actively assess the level of debt we incur in light of our ability to repay that debt based on the level of cash flow generated from our balanced chartering strategy and efficient operating cost structure. Our debt repayment schedule as of December 31, 2010 calls for a reduction of more than 30% of our debt by the end of 2012. We expect this will increase our ability to borrow funds to make additional vessel acquisitions in order to grow our fleet and continue pay dividends to our shareholders.

Our Customers

Our major charterer customers during the last three years include Klaveness (Baumarine and Bulkhandling shipping pools), Maersk Lines, Sun Express, Orient Express Lines, Yang Ming Lines, CMA-CGM and Sinochart amongst others. We are a relationship driven company, and our top five customers in 2010 include two of our top five customers from 2009 (Klaveness and Maersk Lines) and one from 2008 (Klaveness). Our top five customers accounted for approximately 71% of our revenues in 2010, 54% of our total revenues in 2009 and 44% of our total revenues in 2008. In 2010, Klaveness, Maersk Lines and Sun Express accounted for 30.29%, 14.95% and 10.10%, respectively, of our revenues; in 2009, Klaveness, Orient Express Lines and Maersk Lines accounted for 16.84%, 10.33% and 10.25% of our total revenues, respectively; in 2008, Sinochart accounted for 13.80% of our total revenues. As of December 31, 2010, we do not have any material trade receivable from any of our customers that contributed more than 10% of our revenues during 2010. Our dependence on our key charterer customers is moderate as in the event of a charterer default, our vessels can generally be re-chartered at the market rate, in the spot or charter market, although it is likely that such rate will be lower than the charter rate agreed with the charterer.

The Dry Cargo and Containership Industries

Dry cargo shipping refers to the transport of certain commodities by sea between various ports in bulk or containerized form.

The drybulk commodities are often divided into two categories — major bulks and minor bulks. Major bulks include items such as coal, iron ore and grains, while minor bulks include items such as aluminum, phosphate rock, fertilizer raw materials, agricultural and mineral cargo, cement, forest products and some steel products, including scrap.

There are four main classes of drybulk carriers — Handysize, Handymax, Panamax and Capesize. These classes represent the sizes of the vessel carrying the cargo in terms of deadweight ton ("dwt") capacity, which is defined as the total weight including cargo that the vessel can carry when loaded to a defined load line on the vessel. Handysize vessels are the smallest of the four categories and include those vessels weighing up to 40,000 dwt. Handymax carriers are those vessels that weigh between 40,000 and 60,000 dwt, while Panamax vessels are those ranging from 60,000 dwt to 80,000 dwt. Vessels over 80,000 dwt are called Capesize vessels.

Drybulk carriers are ordinarily chartered either through a voyage charter or a time charter, under a longer term contract of affreightment or in pools. Under a voyage charter, the owner agrees to provide a vessel for the transport of cargo between specific ports in return for the payment of an agreed freight rate per ton of cargo or an agreed dollar lump sum amount. Voyage costs, such as canal and port charges and bunker expenses, are the responsibility of the owner. Under a time charter, the ship owner places the vessel at the disposal of a charterer for a given period of time in return for a specified rate (either hire per day or a specified rate per dwt capacity per month) with the voyage costs being the responsibility of the charterer. In both voyage charters and time charters, operating costs (such as repairs and maintenance, crew wages and insurance premiums), as well as drydockings and special surveys, are the responsibility of the ship owner. The duration of time charters varies, depending on the evaluation of market trends by the ship owner and by charterers. Occasionally, drybulk vessels are chartered on a bareboat basis. Under a bareboat charter, operations of the vessels and all operating costs are the responsibility of the charterer, while the owner only pays the financing costs of the vessel.

A contract of affreightment ("COA") is another type of charter relationship where a charterer and a ship owner enter into a written agreement pursuant to which identified cargo will be carried over a specified period of time. COA's benefit charterers by providing them with fixed transport costs for a commodity over an identified period of time. COA's benefit ship owners by offering ascertainable revenue over that same period of time and eliminating the uncertainty that would otherwise be caused by the volatility of the charter market. A shipping pool is a collection of similar vessel types under various ownerships, placed under the care of a single commercial manager. The manager markets the vessels as a single fleet and collects the earnings which are distributed to individual owners under a pre-arranged weighing system by which each entered vessel receives its share. Pools have the size and scope to combine voyage charters, time charters and contracts of affreightment with freight forward agreements for hedging purposes, to perform more efficient vessel scheduling thereby increasing fleet utilization.

Containership shipping refers to the transport of containerized trade which encompasses mainly the carriage of finished goods, but an increasing number of other cargoes in container boxes. Containerized trade is the fastest growing sector of seaborne trade. Containerships are further categorized by their size measured in twenty-foot equivalent units (teu) and whether they have their own gearing. The different categories of containerships are as follows. Post-panamax vessels are generally vessels with carrying capacity of more than 4,000 teu. Panamax vessels are vessels with carrying capacity from 3,000 to 4,000 teu, and, in some designs, even up to 5,000 teu; these vessels are called such because the measurements of their beam and draft are the maximum that allows them to go through the Panama Canal. Intermediate containerships are vessels with carrying capacity from 2,000 to 3,000 teu. Handysize containerships are vessels with carrying capacity from 1,300 to 2,000 teu and are sometimes equipped with cargo loading and unloading gear. Finally, Feeder containerships are vessels with carrying capacity from 500 to 1,300 teu and are usually equipped with cargo loading and unloading gear. Containerships are primarily employed in time charter contracts with liner companies, which in turn employ them as part of the scheduled liner operations. Feeder containership are put in liner schedules feeding containers to and from central regional ports (hubs) where larger containerships provide cross ocean or longer haul service. The length of the time charter contract can range from several months to years.

Our Competitors

We operate in markets that are highly competitive and based primarily on supply and demand. We compete for charters on the basis of price, vessel location, size, age and condition of the vessel, as well as on our reputation. Eurobulk arranges our charters (whether spot charters, time charters or shipping pools) through the use of Eurochart S.A., or Eurochart, an affiliated brokering company who negotiates the terms of the charters based on market conditions. We compete primarily with other shipowners of drybulk carriers in the Handysize, Handymax and Panamax drybulk carrier sectors and the containership sector. Ownership of drybulk carriers and containerships is highly fragmented and is divided among state controlled and independent shipowners. Some of our publicly listed competitors include Diana Shipping Inc. (NYSE: DSX), DryShips Inc. (NASDAQ: DRYS), Excel Maritime Carriers Ltd. (NYSE: EXM), Eagle Bulk Shipping Inc. (NASDAQ: EGLE), Genco Shipping and Trading Limited (NYSE: GNK), Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. (NYSE: NM), Danaos Corporation (NYSE: DAC), Costamare Inc. (NASDAQ: CMRE), Box Ships Inc. (NYSE: TEU), Diana Containerships Inc. (NYSE: DCIX) and Goldenport Holdings Inc. (LSE: GPRT).

Seasonality

Coal, iron ore and grains, which are the major bulks of the drybulk shipping industry, are somewhat seasonal in nature. The energy markets primarily affect the demand for coal, with increases during hot summer periods when air conditioning and refrigeration require more electricity and towards the end of the calendar year in anticipation of the forthcoming winter period. The demand for iron ore tends to decline in the summer months because many of the major steel users, such as automobile makers, reduce their level of production significantly during the summer holidays. Grains are completely seasonal as they are driven by the harvest within a climate zone. Because three of the five largest grain producers (the United States of America, Canada and the European Union) are located in the northern hemisphere and the other two (Argentina and Australia) are located in the southern hemisphere, harvests occur throughout the year and grains require drybulk shipping accordingly.

The containership industry seasonal trends are driven by the import patterns of manufactured goods and refrigerated cargoes by the major importers, such as the United States, Europe, Japan and others. The volume of containerized trade is usually higher in the fall in preparation for the holiday season. During this period of time, container shipping rates are higher and, as a result, the charter rates for containerships are higher. However, fluctuations due to seasonality in the container shipping industry are much less pronounced than in the drybulk shipping industry.

Environmental and Other Regulations

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

A variety of governmental, quasi-governmental and private entities subject our vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include the local port authorities, national authorities, harbor masters or equivalent, classification societies, flag state administrations (countries of registry) and charterers. Certain of these entities require us to obtain permits, licenses, certificates and approvals for the operation of our vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require us to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of the vessels in our fleet, or lead to the invalidation or reduction of our insurance coverage.

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 U.S. and international regulations. We believe that the operation of our vessels is in substantial compliance with applicable environmental laws and regulations and that our vessels have all material permits, licenses, certificates or other approvals necessary for the conduct of our operations. However, because such laws and regulations are frequently changed and may impose increasingly stricter requirements, such future requirements may limit our ability to do business, increase our operating costs, force the early retirement 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 Regulation – International Maritime Organization

The International Maritime Organization, the United Nations agency for maritime safety and the prevention of pollution by ships, or the IMO, has adopted the International Convention for the Prevention of Marine Pollution, 1973, as modified by the related Protocol of 1978 relating thereto, which has been updated through various amendments, or the MARPOL Convention. The MARPOL Convention establishes environmental standards relating to oil leakage or spilling, garbage management, sewage, air emissions, handling and disposal of noxious liquids and the handling of harmful substances in packaged forms. The IMO adopted regulations that set forth pollution prevention requirements applicable to dry bulk carriers. These regulations have been adopted by over 150 nations, including many of the jurisdictions in which our vessels operate.

In September 1997, the IMO adopted Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, Regulations for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, to address air pollution from ships. Effective May 2005, Annex VI sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from all commercial vessel exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances (such as halons and chlorofluorocarbons), emissions of volatile organic compounds from cargo tanks, and the shipboard incineration of specific substances. Annex VI also includes a global cap on the sulfur content of fuel oil and allows for special areas to be established with more stringent controls on sulfur emissions. Our vessel manager has informed us that a plan to conform with the Annex VI regulations is in place and we believe we are in substantial compliance with Annex VI. Additionally, more stringent emission standards could apply in coastal areas designated as Emission Control Areas, or ECAs. The United States ratified the Annex VI amendments, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA, has promulgated equivalent emissions standards.

In March 2010, the IMO accepted the proposal by the United States and Canada to designate the area extending 200 nautical miles from the Atlantic/Gulf and Pacific coasts of the United States and Canada and the Hawaiian Islands as Emission Control Areas under the MARPOL Annex VI amendments, which will subject ocean-going vessels in these areas to stringent emissions controls, expected to begin in August 2012, and may cause us to incur additional costs. The jurisdictions in which our vessels operate may adopt more stringent emissions standards independent of the IMO.

Additional or new conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could require the installation of expensive emission control systems and could adversely affect our business, results of operations, cash flows and financial condition. In October 2008, the IMO adopted amendments to Annex VI regarding particulate matter, nitrogen oxide and sulfur oxide emissions standards which entered into force on July 1, 2010. The amended Annex VI would reduce air pollution from vessels by, among other things, (i) implementing a progressive reduction of sulfur oxide emissions from ships by reducing the global sulfur fuel cap initially to 3.50% (from the current cap of 4.50%), effective from January 1, 2012, then progressively to 0.50%, effective from January 1, 2020, subject to a feasibility review to be completed no later than 2018; and (ii) establishing new tiers of stringent nitrogen oxide emissions standards for new marine engines, depending on their date of installation. On October 9, 2008, the United States ratified the amended Annex VI to the MARPOL Convention, which went into effect on January 8, 2009.

Safety Management System Requirements

IMO also adopted the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, or SOLAS and the International Convention on Load Lines, or the LL Convention, which impose a variety of standards that regulate the design and operational features of ships. The IMO periodically revises the SOLAS and LL Convention standards. We believe that all our vessels are in material compliance with SOLAS and LL Convention standards.

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

The ISM Code requires that vessel operators obtain a safety management certificate for each vessel they operate. This certificate evidences compliance by a vessel's management with the ISM Code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a safety management certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by each flag state, under the ISM Code. Our appointed ship managers have obtained documents of compliance for their offices and safety management certificates for all of our vessels for which the certificates are required by the IMO. The document of compliance, or the DOC, and ship management certificate, or the SMC, are renewed every five years but the DOC is subject to audit verification annually and the SMC at least every 2.5 years.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in, or invalidation of, available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, as the case may be.

Pollution Control and Liability Requirements

IMO has negotiated international conventions that impose liability for oil pollution in international waters and the territorial waters of the signatory to such conventions. For example, IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships' Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention, in February 2004. The BWM Convention's implementing regulations call for a phased introduction of mandatory ballast water exchange requirements (beginning in 2009), to be replaced in time with mandatory concentration limits. The BWM Convention will not become effective until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 nation-states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world's merchant shipping. To date there has not been sufficient adoption of the convention for it to take force. However, the IMO's Marine Environment Protection Committee passed a resolution in March 2010 encouraging the ratification of the Convention and calling upon those countries that have already ratified to encourage the installation of ballast water management systems. If ballast water treatment requirements become mandatory, the cost of compliance could increase for ocean carriers, and these costs may be material. According to the IMO, as of October 2010, 27 countries have ratified the convention, representing 25.32% of the world merchant fleet tonnage.

Although the United States is not a party to these conventions, 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, as amended in 2000, or the CLC. Under this convention and depending on whether the country in which the damage results is a party to the 1992 Protocol to the CLC, a vessel's registered owner is strictly liable, subject to certain defenses, for pollution damage caused in the territorial waters of a contracting state by discharge of persistent oil. The limits on liability outlined in the 1992 Protocol use the International Monetary Fund currency unit of Special Drawing Rights, or SDR. The right to limit liability is forfeited under the CLC where the spill is caused by the ship owner's actual fault and under the 1992 Protocol where the spill is caused by the ship owner's intentional or reckless conduct. Vessels trading with states that are parties to these conventions 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 govern, and liability is imposed either on the basis of fault or in a manner similar to that of the CLC. We believe that our protection and indemnity insurance will cover the liability under the plan adopted by the IMO.

The IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the Bunker Convention, to impose strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of bunker fuel. The Bunker Convention, which became effective on November 21, 2008, requires registered owners of ships over 1,000 gross tons to maintain insurance or other financial security 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). With respect to non-ratifying states, liability for spills or releases of oil carried as fuel in ship's bunkers typically is determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

Noncompliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the shipowner or bareboat charter to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, certain ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively. As of the date of this report, each of our vessels is ISM Code-certified. However, we may not be able to maintain such certification indefinitely.

The IMO continues to review and introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.

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

The OPA established an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills. OPA affects all shipowners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States of America, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in waters of the United States of America, which includes the territorial sea of the United States of America and its 200 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. Both OPA and CERCLA impact our operations.

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

	·	natural resources damage and related assessment costs;
	·	real and personal property damage;

	·	net loss of taxes, royalties, rents, fees and other lost revenues;
	·	lost profits or impairment of earning capacity due to property or natural resources damage;

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

Effective July 31, 2009, the U.S. Coast Guard adjusted the limits of OPA liability for non-tank vessels to the greater of $1,000 per gross ton or $0.85 million per non-tank vessel that is over 3,000 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation). CERCLA, which applies to owners and operators of vessels, contains a similar liability regime and provides for cleanup, removal and natural resource damages. 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 $0.5 million for any other vessel. These OPA and CERCLA 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 and the U.S. Coast Guard also require owners and operators of vessels to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet the limit of their potential liability under OPA and CERCLA.

We currently maintain for each of our vessels pollution liability coverage insurance in the amount of $1 billion per incident. If the damages from a catastrophic spill were to exceed our insurance coverage, it could have an adverse effect on our business and results of operation.

Environmental Regulation – The United States of America Clean Water Act

The U.S. Clean Water Act, or CWA, prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters unless authorized by a duly-issued permit or exemption, and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for any unauthorized discharges. The CWA also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages and complements the remedies available under OPA and CERCLA. In addition, most U.S. states that border a navigable waterway have enacted environmental pollution laws that impose strict liability on a person for removal costs and damages resulting from a discharge of oil or a release of a hazardous substance. These laws may be more stringent than U.S. federal law.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, or the EPA, regulates the discharge of ballast water and other substances in U.S. waters under the CWA. Effective February 6, 2009, EPA regulations require vessels 79 feet in length or longer (other than commercial fishing and recreational vessels) to comply with a Vessel General Permit authorizing ballast water discharges and other discharges incidental to the operation of vessels. The Vessel General Permit imposes technology and water-quality based effluent limits for certain types of discharges and establishes specific inspection, monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting requirements to ensure the effluent limits are met. U.S. Coast Guard regulations adopted and proposed for adoption under the U.S. National Invasive Species Act, or NISA, also impose mandatory ballast water management practices for all vessels equipped with ballast water tanks entering or operating in U.S. waters. Compliance with the EPA and the U.S. Coast Guard 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 or procedures at potentially substantial cost, and/or otherwise restrict our vessels from entering U.S. waters.

Environmental Regulation – The United States of America Clean Air Act

The U.S. Clean Air Act of 1970, as amended by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 and 1990, or the CAA, requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are generally not subject to vapor control and recovery requirements for certain cargoes when loading, unloading, ballasting, cleaning and conducting other operations in regulated port areas. Our vessels that operate in such port areas with restricted cargoes are equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements. The CAA also requires states to draft State Implementation Plans, or SIPs, designed to attain national health-based air quality standards in primarily major metropolitan and/or industrial areas. Several SIPs regulate emissions resulting from vessel loading and unloading operations by requiring the installation of vapor control equipment. Our vessels operating in covered port areas are already equipped with vapor recovery systems that satisfy these requirements. Although a risk exists that new regulations could require significant capital expenditures and otherwise increase our costs, based on the regulations that have been proposed to date, we believe that no material capital expenditures beyond those currently contemplated and no material increase in costs are likely to be required.

European Union Regulations

The European Union has adopted legislation that would: (1) ban manifestly sub-standard vessels (defined as those over 15 years old that have been detained by port authorities at least twice in a six month period) from European waters and create an obligation of port states to inspect vessels posing a high risk to maritime safety or the marine environment; and (2) provide the European Union with greater authority and control over classification societies, including the ability to seek to suspend or revoke the authority of negligent societies.

In October 2009, the European Union amended a previously adopted directive to impose criminal sanctions for illicit ship-source discharges of polluting substances, including minor discharges, if committed with intent, recklessly or with serious negligence and the discharges individually or in the aggregate result in deterioration of the quality of water. Criminal liability for pollution may result in substantial penalties or fines and increased civil liability claims.

Greenhouse Gas Regulation

In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, or UNFCCC, which we refer to as the Kyoto Protocol, entered into force. Pursuant to the Kyoto Protocol, adopting countries are required to implement national programs to reduce emissions of certain gases, generally referred to as greenhouse gases, which are suspected of contributing to global warming. Currently, the emissions of greenhouse gases from international shipping are not subject to the Kyoto Protocol. However, international negotiations are continuing with respect to a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, which sets emission reduction targets through 2012, and restrictions on shipping emissions may be included in any new treaty. In December 2009, more than 27 nations, including the United States and China, signed the Copenhagen Accord, which includes a non-binding commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The European Union has indicated that it intends to propose an expansion of the existing European Union emissions trading scheme to include emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels, if such emissions are not regulated through the IMO or the UNFCCC by December 31, 2010 (which has not occurred yet but it may happen in the future). In the United States, the EPA has issued a final finding that greenhouse gases endanger public health and safety, and has proposed regulations governing the emission of greenhouse gases from motor vehicles and stationary sources. The EPA may decide in the future to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ships and has already been petitioned by the California Attorney General to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going vessels. Other federal and state regulations relating to the control of greenhouse gas emissions may follow, including the climate change initiatives that are being considered in the U.S. Congress. In addition, the IMO is evaluating various mandatory measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping, including market-based instruments. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, the United States or other countries where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases could require us to make significant financial expenditures that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

Compliance Enforcement

Noncompliance with the ISM Code or other IMO regulations may subject the ship owner or bareboat charterer to increased liability, may lead to decreases in available insurance coverage for affected vessels and may result in the denial of access to, or detention in, some ports. The U.S. Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code by the applicable deadlines will be prohibited from trading in U.S. and European Union ports, respectively. As of the date of this report, each of our vessels is ISM Code certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certificates will be maintained in the future.

The IMO continues to introduce new regulations. It is impossible to predict what additional regulations, if any, may be passed by the IMO and what effect, if any, such regulations might have on our operations.

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 U.S. Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002 ("MTSA"), came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States of America. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter became effective in July 2004 and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created ISPS Code. The ISPS Code is designed to protect ports and international shipping against terrorism. After July 1, 2004, to trade internationally, a vessel must attain an International Ship Security Certificate from a recognized security organization approved by the vessel's flag state. Among the various requirements are:

	·	on-board installation of automatic identification systems, or AIS, to provide a means for the automatic transmission of safety-related information from among similarly equipped ships and shore stations, including information on a ship's identity, position, course, speed and navigational status;
	·	on-board installation of ship security alert systems, which do not sound on the vessel but only alert the authorities on shore;

	·	the development of vessel security plans;
	·	ship identification number to be permanently marked on a vessel's hull;

	·	A continuous synopsis record kept onboard showing a vessel's history including the name of the ship and of the state whose flag the ship is entitled to fly, the date on which the ship was registered with that state, the ship's identification number, the port at which the ship is registered and the name of the registered owner(s) and their registered address; and
	·	compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to align with international maritime security standards, exempt from MTSA vessel security measures non-U.S. vessels that have on board, as of July 1, 2004, a valid International Ship Security Certificate attesting to the vessel's compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. Our vessels are in compliance with the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code. We do not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations.

Inspection by Classification Societies

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 SOLAS. Our vessels are currently classed with Lloyd's Register of Shipping, Bureau Veritas and Nippon Kaiji Kyokai. ISM and ISPS certification have been awarded by Bureau Veritas and the Panama Maritime Authority to our vessels and Eurobulk, our ship management company.

A vessel must undergo annual surveys, intermediate surveys, drydockings 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. Every vessel is also required to be drydocked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel. If any vessel does not maintain its class and/or fails any annual survey, intermediate survey, drydocking or special survey, the vessel will be unable to carry cargo between ports and will be unemployable and uninsurable which could cause us to be in violation of certain covenants in our loan agreements. Any such inability to carry cargo or be employed, or any such violation of covenants, could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

The following table lists the next drydocking and special survey for the vessels in our current fleet.

Vessel	Next	Type

TASMAN TRADER	June 2013	Drydocking
NINOS	July 2013	Drydocking
YM PORT KELANG	February 2013	Special Survey
ARISTIDES N.P.	February 2013	Special Survey
KUO HSIUNG	July 2011	Special Survey
IRINI	July 2013	Special Survey
MANOLIS P	May 2013	Drydocking
CAPTAIN COSTAS	June 2012	Special Survey
DESPINA P	December 2013	Drydocking
JONATHAN P	October 2013	Drydocking
TIGER BRIDGE	November 2013	Drydocking
MAERSK NOUMEA	June 2011	Special Survey
MONICA P	April 2013	Special Survey
ELENI P	February 2014	Drydocking
PANTELIS	January 2013	Drydocking
AGGELIKI P	October 2012	Special Survey

——————

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, piracy incidents, hostilities and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon shipowners, operators and bareboat charterers of any vessel trading in the exclusive economic zone of the United States of America for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States of America, has made liability insurance more expensive for shipowners and operators trading in the United States of America market. We carry insurance coverage as customary in the shipping industry. However, not all risks can be insured, specific claims may be rejected, and we might not be always able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

Hull and Machinery Insurance

We procure hull and machinery insurance, protection and indemnity insurance, which includes environmental damage and pollution insurance and war risk insurance and freight, demurrage and defense insurance for our fleet. We generally do not maintain insurance against loss of hire (except for certain charters that we consider it appropriate), which covers business interruptions that result in the loss of use of a vessel.

Protection and Indemnity Insurance

Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations, which covers our third-party liabilities in connection with our shipping activities. This includes third-party liability and other related expenses of injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances, and salvage, towing and other related costs, including wreck removal. Protection and indemnity insurance is a form of mutual indemnity insurance, extended by protection and indemnity mutual associations, or "clubs."

Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for pollution is $1 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. Our vessels are members of the UK Club and The Standard Club. Each P&I Association has capped its exposure to this pooling agreement at $4.5 billion. As a member of a P&I Association, which is a member of the International Group, we are subject to calls payable to the associations based on our claim records as well as the claim records of all other members of the individual associations and members of the shipping pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

C.	Organizational structure

Euroseas is the sole owner of all outstanding shares of the subsidiaries listed in Note 1 of our consolidated financial statements under Item 18 and in Exhibit 8.1 to this annual report.

D.	Property, plants and equipment

We do not own any real property. As part of the management services provided by Eurobulk during the period in which we conducted business to date, we have shared, at no additional cost, offices with Eurobulk. We do not have current plans to lease or purchase office space, although we may do so in the future.

Our interests in our vessels are owned through our wholly-owned vessel owning subsidiaries and these are our only material properties. Our vessels are subject to mortgages. Specifically:

·	Searoute Maritime Ltd. incorporated in Cyprus on May 20, 1992, owner of the Cyprus flag 33,712 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Ariel, which was built in 1977 and acquired on March 5, 1993. Ariel was sold on February 22, 2007.

·	Oceanopera Shipping Ltd. incorporated in Cyprus on June 26, 1995, owner of the Cyprus flag 34,750 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Nikolaos P, which was built in 1984 and acquired on July 22, 1996. Nikolaos P was sold on February 12, 2009.

·	Oceanpride Shipping Ltd. incorporated in Cyprus on March 7, 1998, owner of the Cyprus flag 26,354 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel John P, which was built in 1981 and acquired on March 7, 1998. John P was sold on July 5, 2006.

Alcinoe Shipping Ltd. incorporated in Cyprus on March 20, 1997, owner of the Cyprus flag 26,354 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Pantelis P, which was built in 1981 and acquired on June 4, 1997. Pantelis P was sold on May 31, 2006. On February 22, 2007, Alcinoe Shipping Ltd. acquired the 38,691 dwt Cyprus flag drybulk motor vessel Gregos, which was built in 1984. On June 13, 2007, m/v Gregos was transferred to Gregos Shipping Limited incorporated in the Marshall Islands and its flag was changed to the flag of the Marshall Islands. Gregos was sold on December 16, 2009.

·	Alterwall Business Inc. incorporated in Panama on January 15, 2001, owner of the Panama flag 18,253 dwt container carrier motor vessel Ninos (ex YM Qingdao 1), which was built in 1990 and acquired on February 16, 2001.

·	Allendale Investment S.A. incorporated in Panama on January 22, 2002, owner of the Panama flag 18,154 dwt container carrier motor vessel Kuo Hsiung, which was built in 1993 and acquired on May 13, 2002.

·	Diana Trading Ltd. incorporated in the Marshall Islands on September 25, 2002, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 69,734 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Irini, which was built in 1988 and acquired on October 15, 2002.

·	Salina Shipholding Corp., incorporated in the Marshall Islands on October 20, 2005, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 29,693 dwt container carrier motor vessel Artemis, which was built in 1987 and acquired on November 25, 2005. Artemis was sold on December 17, 2009.

·	Xenia International Corp., incorporated in the Marshall Islands on April 6, 2006, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 22,568 dwt / 950 teu multipurpose motor vessel Tasman Trader, which was built in 1990 and acquired on April 27, 2006.

·	Prospero Maritime Inc., incorporated in the Marshall Islands on July 21, 2006, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 69,268 dwt drybulk motor vessel Aristides N.P., which was built in 1993 and acquired on September 4, 2006.

Xingang Shipping Ltd., incorporated in Liberia on October 16, 2006, owner of the Liberian flag 23,596 dwt container carrier YM Xingang I, which was built in February 1993 and acquired on November 15, 2006. On July 11, 2009, YM Xingang I was renamed Mastro Nicos and on November 5, 2009, it was renamed YM Port Kelang.

·	Manolis Shipping Ltd., incorporated in Marshall Islands on March 16, 2007, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 20,346 dwt container carrier motor vessel Manolis P, which was built in 1995 and acquired on April 12, 2007.

Eternity Shipping Company, incorporated in the Marshall Islands on May 17, 2007, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 30,007 dwt / 1,742 teu container carrier motor vessel OEL Transworld (ex Clan Gladiator), which was built in 1992 and acquired on June 13, 2007. On August 31, 2009, OEL Transworld was renamed Captain Costas.

Emmentaly Business Inc., incorporated in Panama on July 4, 2007, owner of the Panamanian flag 33,667 dwt / 1,932 teu container carrier motor vessel Jonathan P, which was built in 1990 and acquired on August 7, 2007. On April 16, 2008, motor vessel Jonathan P was renamed to OEL Intergrity; OEL Intergrity was renamed back to Jonathan P on March 5, 2009.

·	Pilory Associates Corp., incorporated in Panama on July 4, 2007, owner of the Panamanian flag 33,667 dwt / 1,932 teu container carrier motor vessel Despina P, which was built in 1990 and acquired on August 13, 2007.

·	Tiger Navigation Corp., incorporated in Marshall Islands on August 29, 2007, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 31,627 dwt / 2,228 teu container carrier motor vessel Tiger Bridge, which was built in 1990 and acquired on October 4, 2007.

·	Trust Navigation Corp., incorporated in Liberia on October 1, 2007, owner of the Liberian flag 64,873 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Ioanna P, which was built in 1984 and acquired on November 1, 2007. Ioanna P was sold on January 12, 2009.

·	Noumea Shipping Ltd, incorporated in Marshall Islands on May 14, 2008, owner of the Marshall Islands flag 34,677 dwt / 2,556 teu container vessel motor vessel Maersk Noumea, which was built in 2001 and acquired on May 22, 2008.

·	Saf-Concord Shipping Ltd., incorporated in Liberia on June 8, 2008, owner of the Liberian flag 46,667 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Monica P, which was built in 1998 and acquired on January 19, 2009.

·	Eleni Shipping Ltd., incorporated in Liberia on February 11, 2009, owner of the Liberian flag 72,119 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Eleni P, which was built in 1997 and acquired on March 6, 2009.

Pantelis Shipping Ltd., incorporated in the Republic of Malta on July 2, 2009, was the owner of the Maltese flag 74,020 dwt drybulk carrier motor vessel Pantelis which was built in 2000 and acquired on July 23, 2009. On December 15, 2009, ownership of the vessel was transferred to Pantelis Shipping Corp., incorporated in Liberia, and the vessel changed its flag to the Liberian flag.

·	Aggeliki Shipping Ltd., incorporated in Liberia on May 21, 2010, owner of the Liberian flag 30,306 dwt / 2,008 teu container vessel Aggeliki P which was built in 1998 and acquired on June 21, 2010.

As of December 31, 2010, our vessel(s):

·	m/v Ninos and m/v Kuo Hsiung, were collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $1,900,000.

·	m/v Tasman Trader, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $3,480,000.

·	m/v Aristides N.P., was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $7,975,000

·	m/v YM Port Kelang and m/v Irini, were collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $8,000,000.

·	m/v Monica P, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $8,250,000.

·	m/v Manolis P, to a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $7,760,000.

·	m/v Tiger Bridge, to a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $2,400,000.

·	m/v Eleni P, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $9,400,000.

·	m/v Pantelis, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $10,720,000.

·	m/v Aggeliki P, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $8,500,000.

·	m/v Maersk Noumea, was collateral for a loan with an outstanding principal balance of $20,000,000.

Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments

None.

Item 5.

Operating and Financial Review and Prospects

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our financial statements and footnotes thereto contained in this annual report. This discussion contains forward-looking statements, which are based on our assumptions about the future of our business. Our actual results may differ materially from those contained in the forward-looking statements. Please read "Forward-Looking Statements" for additional information regarding forward-looking statements used in this annual report. Reference in the following discussion to "our" and "us" refer to Euroseas, our subsidiaries and the predecessor operations of Euroseas, except where the context otherwise indicates or requires.

We are a Marshall Islands company incorporated in May 2005. We are a provider of worldwide ocean-going transportation services. We own and operate drybulk carriers that transport major bulks such as iron ore, coal and grains, and minor bulks such as bauxite, phosphate and fertilizers. We also own and operate containerships and multipurpose vessels that transport dry and refrigerated containerized cargoes, mainly including manufactured products and perishables. As of May 25, 2011, our fleet consisted of five drybulk carriers (comprised of four Panamax drybulk carriers and one Handymax drybulk carrier), ten containerships and one multipurpose vessel. The total cargo carrying capacity of the five drybulk carriers is 331,308 deadweight tons, or dwt, and of the ten containerships is 274,354 dwt and 17,787 twenty-foot equivalent units, or teu. Our multipurpose vessel can carry 22,568 dwt and/or 950 teu.

We actively manage the deployment of our fleet between spot market voyage charters, which generally last from several days to several weeks, and time charters, which can last up to several years. Some of our vessels may participate in shipping pools, or, in some cases participate in contracts of affreightment. As of May 25, 2011, one of our vessels participated in shipping pools. We also use FFA contracts to provide partial coverage for our drybulk vessels - as a substitute for time charters - in order to increase the predictability of our revenues.

Vessels operating on time charters provide more predictable cash flows but can yield lower profit margins than vessels operating in the spot market during periods characterized by favorable market conditions. Vessels operating in the spot market generate revenues that are less predictable but may enable us to achieve increased profit margins during periods of high vessel rates although we are exposed to the risk of declining vessel rates, which may have a materially adverse impact on our financial performance. Vessels operating in pools benefit from better scheduling, and thus increased utilization, and better access to contracts of affreightment due to the larger commercial operation of the pool. We are constantly evaluating opportunities to increase the number of our vessels deployed on time charters or to participate in shipping pools (if available for our vessels), however we only expect to enter into additional time charters or shipping pools if we can obtain contract terms that satisfy our criteria. Containerships are employed almost exclusively on time charter contracts. We carefully evaluate the length and the rate of the time charter contract at the time of fixing or renewing a contract considering market conditions, trends and expectations.

We constantly evaluate vessel purchase opportunities to expand our fleet accretive to our earnings and cash flow. Additionally, we will consider selling certain of our vessels when favorable sales opportunities present themselves. If, at the time of sale, the carrying value is less the sales price, we will realize a gain on sale, which will increase our earnings, but if, at the time of sale, the carrying value of a vessel is more than the sales price, we will realize a loss on sale, which will negatively impact our earnings. Please see "Critical Accounting Policies" for a further discussion of the consequences of selling our vessels for amounts below their carrying values.

A.	Operating results

Factors Affecting Our Results of Operations

We believe that the important measures for analyzing trends in the results of our operations consist of the following:

Calendar days. We define calendar days as the total number of days in a period during which each vessel in our fleet was in our possession including off-hire days associated with major repairs, drydockings or special or intermediate surveys. Calendar days are an indicator of the size of our fleet over a period and affect both the amount of revenues and the amount of expenses that we record during that period.

Available days. We define available days as the total number of days in a period during which each vessel in our fleet was in our possession net of off-hire days associated with scheduled repairs, drydockings or special or intermediate surveys. The shipping industry uses available days to measure the number of days in a period during which vessels were available to generate revenues.

Voyage days. We define voyage days as the total number of days in a period during which each vessel in our fleet was in our possession net of off-hire days associated with scheduled and unscheduled repairs, drydockings or special or intermediate surveys or days waiting to find employment. The shipping industry uses voyage days to measure the number of days in a period during which vessels actually generate revenues.

Fleet utilization. We calculate fleet utilization by dividing the number of our voyage days during a period by the number of our available days during that period. The shipping industry uses fleet utilization to measure a company's efficiency in finding suitable employment for its vessels and minimizing the amount of days that its vessels are off-hire either waiting to find employment ("commercial off-hire") or for reasons such as unscheduled repairs or other off-hire time related to the operation of the vessels ("operational off-hire"). We distinguish our fleet utilization into commercial and operational. We calculate our commercial fleet utilization by dividing our available days net of commercial off-hire days during a period by our available days during that period. We calculate our operational fleet utilization by dividing our available days net of operational off-hire days during a period by our available days during that period.

Spot Charter Rates. Spot charter rates are volatile and fluctuate on a seasonal and year to year basis. The fluctuations are caused by imbalances in the availability of cargoes for shipment and the number of vessels available at any given time to transport these cargoes.

Time Charter Equivalent ("TCE"). A standard maritime industry performance measure used to evaluate performance is the daily time charter equivalent, or daily TCE. Daily TCE revenues are voyage revenues minus voyage expenses divided by the number of voyage days during the relevant time period. Voyage expenses primarily consist of port, canal and fuel costs that are unique to a particular voyage, which would otherwise be paid by a charterer under a time charter. We believe that the daily TCE neutralizes the variability created by unique costs associated with particular voyages or the employment of drybulk carriers on time charter or on the spot market (containership are chartered on a time charter basis) and presents a more accurate representation of the revenues generated by our vessels.

Basis of Presentation and General Information

We use the following measures to describe our financial performances:

Voyage 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 drydock undergoing repairs, maintenance and upgrade work, the age, condition and specifications of our vessels, levels of supply and demand in the transportation market, the number of vessels on time charters, spot charters and in pools and other factors affecting charter rates in both the drybulk carrier and containership markets.

Commissions. We pay commissions on all chartering arrangements of 1.25% to Eurochart, one of our affiliates, plus additional commission of usually up to 5% to other brokers involved in the transaction. These additional commissions, as well as changes to charter rates will cause our commission expenses to fluctuate from period to period. Eurochart also receives a fee equal to 1% calculated as stated in the relevant memorandum of agreement for any vessel bought or sold by it on our behalf.

Voyage expenses. Voyage expenses primarily consist of port, canal and fuel costs that are unique to a particular voyage which would otherwise be paid by the charterer under a time charter contract, as well as commissions. Under time charters, the charterer pays voyage expenses whereas under spot market voyage charters, we pay such expenses. The amounts of such voyage expenses are driven by the mix of charters undertaken during the period.

Vessel operating expenses. Vessel operating expenses include crew wages and related costs, the cost of insurance, expenses relating to repairs and maintenance, the costs of spares and consumable stores, tonnage taxes and other miscellaneous expenses. Our vessel operating expenses, which generally represent fixed costs, have historically changed in line with the size of our fleet. Other factors beyond our control, some of which may affect the shipping industry in general (including, for instance, developments relating to market prices for insurance or inflationary increases) may also cause these expenses to increase.

Management fees. These are the fees that we pay to Eurobulk, our affiliated ship manager, under our management agreement with Eurobulk for the technical and commercial management that Eurobulk performs on our behalf. The fee, as of May 25, 2011, is 700 Euros per vessel per day for vessels in operation and is payable monthly in advance adjusted annually for inflation on January 1st. During 2010, we paid 665 Euros per day per vessel in operation. The management fee for laid-up vessels is 50% of the above rates.

Vessel depreciation. We depreciate our vessels on a straight-line basis with reference to the cost of the vessel, age and scrap value as estimated at the date of acquisition. Depreciation is calculated over the remaining useful life of the vessel, which is estimated to range from 25 to 30 years from the date of original construction. We use 25 years of useful life for our drybulk vessels and 30 years for our containerships. Remaining useful lives of property are periodically reviewed and revised to recognize changes in conditions, new regulations or other reasons. Revisions of estimated lives are recognized over current and future periods.

Drydocking and special survey expense. Our vessels are required to be drydocked approximately every 30 to 60 months for major repairs and maintenance that cannot be performed while the vessels are trading. Through the end of 2008, we capitalized the costs associated with drydockings as they occurred and amortized these costs on a straight-line basis over the period between drydockings. Costs capitalized as part of the drydocking included: actual costs incurred at the drydock yard; cost of travel, lodging and subsistence of our personnel sent to the drydocking site to supervise; and the cost of hiring a third party to oversee a drydocking. We believe that these criteria were consistent with industry practice and that our policy of capitalization reflected the economics and market values of the vessels. Starting January 1, 2009, we changed the method of accounting for drydocking and special survey expenses to the direct expense method as this method eliminates the significant amount of time and subjectivity to determine which costs and activities related to drydocking and special survey should be deferred. We reflected this change as a change in accounting principles from an accepted accounting principle to a preferable accounting principles in accordance with guidance relating to Accounting Changes and Error Corrections.

Interest expense and loan costs. We traditionally finance vessel acquisitions partly with debt on which we incur interest expense. The interest rate we pay is generally linked to the 3-month LIBOR rate, although from time to time we utilize fixed rate loans or could use interest rate swaps to eliminate our interest rate exposure. Interest due is expensed in the period it is accrued. Loan costs are deferred and amortized over the period of the loan; the un-amortized portion is written-off if the loan is prepaid early.

Other general and administrative expenses. We incur expenses consisting mainly of executive compensation, professional fees, directors' liability insurance and reimbursement of our directors' and officers' travel-related expenses. General and administrative expenses increased once we became a public company due to the duties typically associated with public companies. We acquire executive services, our Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Administrative Officer, Internal Auditor and Secretary, through Eurobulk as part of our Master Management Agreement.

In evaluating our financial condition, we focus on the above measures to assess our historical operating performance and we use future estimates of the same measures to assess our future financial performance. In addition, we use the amount of cash at our disposal and our total indebtedness to assess our short term liquidity needs and our ability to finance additional acquisitions with available resources (see also discussion under "Capital Expenditures" below). In assessing the future performance of our present fleet, the greatest uncertainty relates to the spot market performance which affects those of our vessels that are not employed under fixed time charter contracts. Decisions about the acquisition of additional vessels or possible sales of existing vessels are based on financial and operational evaluation of such action and depend on the overall state of the drybulk, containership and multipurpose vessel market, the availability of purchase candidates, available employment and our general assessment of economic prospects for the sectors in which we operate.

Results from Operations

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

Voyage revenues. Voyage revenues for the period were $54.42 million, down 17.8% compared to the same period in 2009 during which voyage revenues amounted to $66.22 million. This decrease was primarily due to the lower charter rates our vessels achieved in 2010 as compared to 2009, especially for our containerships. In 2010, we operated an average of 15.53 vessels, a 4.7% decrease over the average of 16.30 vessels we operated during the same period in 2009. Our fleet of 15.53 vessels had 269.4 scheduled off-hire days in 2010 and 446.5 laid-up days as two of our vessels were laid-up for part of the year, m/v Despina P and m/v Jonathan P. We had 3.8 commercial off-hire days and 35.6 operational off-hire days. While employed, our vessels generated a time-charter equivalent ("TCE") rate of $11,201 per day per vessel compared to $13,698 per day per vessel in 2009, a decline of 18.2%. The average TCE rate our vessels achieve is a combination of the time charter rate earned by our vessels under time charter contracts, which is not influenced by market developments during the duration of the charter (unless the two charter parties renegotiate the terms of the charter or the charterer is unable to make the contracted payments), and the TCE rate earned by our vessels employed in the spot market which is influenced by market developments. Charter rates earned by our containership vessels in 2010 were lower compared to 2009. Our containership vessels that came off time charter contracts had to be re-chartered at lower rates. Charter rates earned by our drybulk vessels earned comparable rates in 2010 and 2009.

Commissions. Commissions for the period were $1.94 million. At 3.57% of voyage revenues, commissions as a percentage were slightly lower than in 2009; for the year ended December 31, 2009, commissions amounted to $2.43 million, or 3.68% of voyage revenues. The dollar amount of commissions is lower because revenues in 2010 are lower as compared to 2009.

Voyage expenses. Voyage expenses for the year were $1.60 million and related to expenses for certain voyage charters. For the year ended December 31, 2009, voyage expenses amounted to $1.51 million. Because our vessels are generally chartered under time charter contracts, voyage expenses represent a small fraction (2.9% and 2.3% in each of 2010 and 2009, respectively) of voyage revenues. Voyages expenses are dependent on the number of voyage charters, the cost of fuel, port costs and canal tolls. Higher fuel prices during 2010 and costs incurred during the re-activation of our laid-up vessels contributed to higher voyage costs for the year.

Vessel operating expenses. Vessel operating expenses were $21.51 million in 2010 compared to $23.67 million for 2009. The decline is partly due to the fact that we operated fewer vessels on average in 2010 compared to 2009, (15.53 vessels and 16.30 vessels, respectively), and partly to other costs savings. This was partly offset by the lower number of vessel days in lay-up in 2010 compared to 2009 (446.5 days and 911 days, respectively). Daily vessel operating expenses per vessel decreased between the two periods to $3,794 per day in 2010 compared to $3,979 per day in 2009, a 4.7% decrease, from savings from lower exchange rate of the Euro and other currencies with respect to the U.S. dollar, especially in the first nine months of the year, and further cost savings for the vessels in their second or third year of operations under our management.

Management fees. These are part of the fees we pay to Eurobulk under our Master Management Agreement. During 2010, Eurobulk charged us 665 Euros per day per vessel totalling $4.89 million for the period, or $863 per day per vessel (or, $896 per vessel per operating day if we adjust for the fact that laid-up vessels paid half the daily management fee). In 2009, management fees amounted to $5.07 million, or $853 per day per vessel based on the daily rate per vessel of 655 Euros (or, $924 per vessel per operating day if we adjust for the fact that laid-up vessels paid half the daily management fee). The decrease of the daily management fee in US Dollars on a per operating day basis (from $924 in 2009 to $896 in 2010), despite the increase of the daily management fee in Euros, is due to the lower Euro exchange rate in 2010 as compared to 2009. The decrease in the total management fees paid in 2010 also resulted from the lower average number of vessels operated in 2010 (15.53 vs. 16.30) partly offset by the lower number of days during which vessels were in lay-up as compared to 2009.

Other general and administrative expenses. These are expenses we pay as part of our operation as a public company and include the fixed portion of our management agreement fees, legal and auditing fees, directors' and officers' liability insurance and other miscellaneous corporate expenses. In 2010, we had a total of $3.03 million of general and administrative expenses as compared to $3.64 million in 2009. The decrease is mainly due to lower incentive non-cash compensation of approximately $0.70 million in 2010 as opposed to $0.82 million in 2009 for incentive awards given to certain officers, directors and other key persons partly offset by higher executive management fees, lower vessel inspection costs and other miscellaneous expenses.

Drydocking expenses. These are expenses we pay for our vessels to complete a drydocking as part of an intermediate or special survey. As of January 1, 2009, we use the direct expense method of accounting for such expenses as opposed to the deferral method that we employed previously. In 2010, we had eleven vessels undergoing drydocking for a total of $6.54 million. During 2009, we had two vessels undergoing drydocking for which we incurred $1.91 million of expenses.

Vessel depreciation. Vessel depreciation for 2010 was $17.98 million. Comparatively, vessel depreciation for 2009 amounted to $19.09 million. Vessel depreciation in 2010 was lower compared to 2009 because the m/v Artemis and m/v Gregos, which were sold in the fourth quarter of 2009, contributed about $2.70 million to the depreciation expenses of 2009, partly offset by the depreciation of m/v Aggeliki P, acquired in June 2010, of $0.41 million, and higher depreciation in 2010 of the three vessels we purchased in 2009 (m/v Monica P , m/v Eleni P and m/v Pantelis); the latter were depreciated for a full year in 2010 and only for a partial year in 2009.

Net gain or loss from vessel sales. There were no vessels sold in 2010 compared to two vessels sold in 2009 for a loss of $8.96 million which relate to the sales of m/v Artemis and m/v Gregos.

Interest and other financing costs, net. Interest and other financing cost, net for the period were $0.96 million. Of this amount, $1.50 million relates to interest incurred, loan fees and expenses paid and deferred loan fees written-off during the period, offset by $0.54 million of interest income during the period. Comparatively, during the same period in 2009, net interest and finance income amounted to $0.32 million, comprised of $1.44 million of interest incurred and loan fees and offset by $1.12 million of interest income. Interest incurred and loan fees were higher in 2010 due to the higher average loan amounts outstanding and the higher interest rate margins over LIBOR partly offset by the lower LIBOR interest rates. Interest income was lower in 2010 due to lower average cash balances during the year and lower LIBOR interest rates.

Investments and Foreign Exchange Gains or Losses. In 2010, we had a $3,200 foreign exchange loss compared to a $36,477 foreign exchange gain in 2009. In 2010, we had an unrealized loss of $0.17 million, compared to a realized gain from investments in trading securities of $0.41 million and an unrealized loss of $5,325 in 2009. We had no dividend income in 2010 or 2009.

Derivatives losses. In 2010, we had a realized loss of $1.57 million from two interest rate swap contracts that we entered into in July 2008 and July 2009 and an unrealized loss of $1.47 million from the same interest rate swaps compared to a realized loss of $0.68 million and unrealized gain of $0.28 million in 2009. In 2010, we had realized losses of $10.88 million as well as unrealized gain of $9.69 million from a number of Forward Freight Agreement ("FFA") contracts that we entered into in December 2008, during 2009 and 2010 compared to a realized loss of $7.48 million as well as an unrealized loss of $7.90 million in 2009 from the FFA contracts we entered into in December 2008 and during 2009. We entered into both the interest rate swaps and FFA contracts to mitigate our exposure to possible increases in interest rates and further declines in the drybulk market rates, but to-date the markets have moved against our positions under these contracts.

Equity Loss in Joint Venture. In 2010, we recognized a $0.54 million loss as our share in Euromar LLC, the joint venture we set up in March 2010 with two private equity firms to acquire vessels. We own a 14.286% interest in the joint venture. The losses in 2010 were due primarily to the costs required to setup the venture and drydocking required for some of the vessels acquired. We had no investments in joint venture or other equity investments in 2009.

Net loss / income. As a result of the above, net loss for the year ended December 31, 2010 was $6.61 million compared to net loss of $15.63 million for the same period in 2009.

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

Voyage revenues. Voyage revenues for the period were $66.22 million, down 49.9% compared to the same period in 2008 during which voyage revenues amounted to $132.24 million. This decrease was primarily due to the lower charter rates our vessels achieved in 2009 as compared to 2008, due to the significant decline in rates in both the drybulk and containership markets. In 2009, we operated an average of 16.30 vessels, a 4.4% increase over the average of 15.61 vessels we operated during the same period in 2008. Our fleet of 16.30 vessels had 55.5 scheduled off-hire days in 2009 and 911 laid-up days as three of our vessels were laid-up, m/v Artemis for almost the entire period and m/v Despina P and m/v Jonathan P for the second, third and fourth quarters. We had 223.7 commercial off-hire days and 35 operational off-hire days. While employed, our vessels generated a time-charter equivalent ("TCE") rate of $13,698 per day per vessel compared to $23,695 per day per vessel in 2008, a decline of 42.2%. The average TCE rate our vessels achieve is a combination of the time charter rate earned by our vessels under time charter contracts, which is not influenced by market developments during the duration of the charter (unless the two charter parties renegotiate the terms of the charter or the charterer is unable to make the contracted payments), and the TCE rate earned by our vessels employed in the spot market which is influenced by market developments. Charter rates in 2009 were significantly lower compared to 2008. Our vessels that operated in the spot market or came off time charter contracts and had to be re-chartered were negatively influenced by the depressed market levels during 2009 and had to incur commercial off-hire time.

Commissions. Commissions for the period were $2.43 million. At 3.68% of voyage revenues, commissions as a percentage were slightly lower than in 2008; for the year ended December 31, 2008, commissions amounted to $5.94 million, or 4.49% of voyage revenues. The dollar amount of commissions is lower because revenues in 2009 were significantly lower as compared to 2008.The main reason for this percentage reduction is that voyage revenues in 2009 include a larger contribution from the vessels that operated in pools where commission is paid at the pool level partly offset by the lower amortization of the fair value of below market charters ($3.63 million in 2009 versus $6.14 million in 2008) against which no commission is charged.

Voyage expenses. Voyage expenses for the year were $1.51 million and related to expenses for certain voyage charters. For the year ended December 31, 2008, voyage expenses amounted to $3.09 million. Because our vessels are generally chartered under time charter contracts, voyage expenses represent a small fraction (2.3% in each of 2009 and 2008) of voyage revenues. Voyages expenses are dependent on the number of voyage charters, the cost of fuel, port costs and canal tolls. Lower fuel prices during 2009 contributed to lower voyage costs for the year.

Vessel operating expenses. Vessel operating expenses were $23.67 million in 2009 compared to $27.52 million for 2008. The decline is partly due to the fact that three of our vessels were laid-up for the entire or a greater part of the year (a total of 911 days) and thus incurred significantly lower costs and partly to other cost savings. This was partly offset by the higher average number of vessels we operated in 2009, specifically, an average of 16.30 vessels compared to 15.61 vessels in 2008. Daily vessel operating expenses per vessel decreased between the two periods to $3,979 per day in 2009 compared to $4,816 per day in 2008, a 17.4% decrease, from roughly 55% savings from the laid-up vessels, and the remaining from lower lubricant costs, savings from lower exchange rate of the Euro and other currencies with respect to the U.S. dollar and further cost savings for the vessels in their second year of operations under our management.

Management fees. These are part of the fees we pay to Eurobulk under our Master Management Agreement. During 2009, Eurobulk charged us 655 Euros per day per vessel totalling $5.07 million for the period, or $853 per day per vessel (or, $924 per vessel per operating day if we adjust for the fact that laid-up vessels paid half the daily management fee). In 2008, management fees amounted to $5.39 million, or $943 per day per vessel based on the daily rate per vessel of 630 Euros. The decrease of the daily management fee in US Dollars on a per operating day basis (from $943 in 2008 to $924 in 2009), despite the increase of the daily management fee in Euros, is due to the lower Euro exchange rate in 2009 as compared to 2008. The decrease in the total management fees paid in 2009 also resulted from the lower fee paid by the laid-up vessels partly offset by the higher average number of vessels we owned during 2009, namely 16.30 vessels as compared to an average of 15.61 vessels we owned in 2008.

Other general and administrative expenses. These are expenses we pay as part of our operation as a public company and include the fixed portion of our management agreement fees, legal and auditing fees, directors' and officers' liability insurance and other miscellaneous corporate expenses. In 2009, we had a total of $3.64 million of general and administrative expenses as compared to $4.06 million in 2008. The decrease is mainly due to lower incentive non-cash compensation of approximately $0.82 million in 2009 as opposed to $1.62 million in 2008 for incentive awards given to certain officers, directors and other key persons partly offset by higher executive management fees and other miscellaneous expenses.

Drydocking expenses. These are expenses we pay for our vessels to complete a drydocking as part of an intermediate or special survey. As of January 1, 2009, we use the direct expense method of accounting for such expenses as opposed to the deferral method that we employed previously. In 2009, we had two vessels undergoing drydocking for a total of $1.91 million. During 2008, we had five vessels undergoing drydocking for which we incurred $6.13 million of expenses.

Vessel depreciation. Vessel depreciation for 2009 was $19.09 million. Comparatively, vessel depreciation for 2008 amounted to $28.28 million. Vessel depreciation in 2008 was higher compared to 2009 partly because the m/v Ioanna P and m/v Nikolaos P, which were sold in the first quarter of 2009, contributed about $6.48 million to the depreciation expenses of 2008 (they did not depreciate at all in 2009 as they were classified as "held for sale" as of December 31, 2008); and, partly due to the net changes in estimates of the useful lives of our containerships (from 25 to 30 years based on their intended use and industry practice) and the decrease of the scrap price per ton (from $300 to $250 to better reflect changes in the scrap metal market), depreciation expenses for 2009 were reduced by $6.44 million. These reductions were partly offset by $3.40 million incremental depreciation expenses for the three vessels we purchased in 2009 (m/v Monica P , m/v Eleni P and m/v Pantelis) and the fact the m/v Maersk Noumea, purchased in May 2008, was depreciated for a full year in 2009 as compared to about eight months in 2008.

Impairment loss. This is an impairment loss for two vessels classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2008. The impairment loss of $25.11 million represents the excess carrying values of the vessels over their fair value which was calculated based on the agreed sale prices of the vessels less the cost to sell them. There was no impairment for any other vessel in 2008 or any vessel in 2009, as the undiscounted cash flow test performed as of December 31, 2008 and 2009, respectively, determined that the carrying amounts of our vessels held for use were recoverable.

Net gain or loss from vessel sales. There was no vessel sale in 2008 compared to four vessels sold in 2009 for a loss of $8.96 million which relates to the sale of m/v Artemis and m/v Gregos. Two of the vessels sold in 2009, m/v Ioanna P and m/v Nikolaos, were classified as vessels held for sale as of December 31, 2008 and their result was classified as "Impairment loss" (see discussion above).

Interest and other financing costs, net. Interest and other financing cost, net for the period were $0.32 million. Of this amount, $1.44 million relates to interest incurred, loan fees and expenses paid and deferred loan fees written-off during the period, offset by $1.12 million of interest income during the period. Comparatively, during the same period in 2008, net interest and finance income amounted to $0.24 million, comprised of $2.93 million of interest incurred and loan fees and offset by $3.17 million of interest income. Interest incurred and loan fees were lower in 2009 due to the lower average loan amounts outstanding and lower LIBOR interest rates partly offset by the higher interest rate margins over LIBOR for the three loans drawn during 2009. Interest income was lower in 2009 due to lower average cash balances during the year and lower LIBOR interest rates.

Investments and Foreign Exchange Gains or Losses. In 2009, we had a $36,477 foreign exchange gain compared to a $7,888 foreign exchange gain in 2008. In 2009, we had a realized gain from investments in trading securities of $0.41 million and an unrealized loss of $5,325, compared to a realized gain of $81,193 and an unrealized loss from investments in trading securities of $2.39 million in 2008. Our investments in trading securities produced $0.32 million in dividend income in 2008; we had no dividend income in 2009.

Derivatives losses. In 2009, we had a realized loss of $0.68 million from two interest rate swap contracts that we entered into in July 2008 and July 2009 and unrealized gains of $0.28 million from the same interest rate swaps compared to a realized loss of $77,105 from the July 2008 interest rate swap contract and unrealized losses of $2.18 million in 2008. In 2009, we had realized losses of $7.48 million as well as unrealized losses of $7.90 million from a number of Forward Freight Agreement ("FFA") contracts that we entered into in December 2008 and during 2009. In 2008, we had unrealized losses from FFA contracts we entered into in 2008 of $1.22 million. We entered into both the interest rate swaps and FFA contracts to mitigate our exposure to possible increases in interest rates and further declines in the drybulk market rates, but to-date the markets have moved against our positions under these contracts.

Net loss / income. As a result of the above, net loss for the year ended December 31, 2009 was $15.63 million compared to net income of $21.49 million for the same period in 2008.

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 accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, or 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.

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. We depreciate our vessels on a straight-line basis over their estimated useful lives, estimated to range from 25 to 30 years from date of initial delivery from the shipyard. We believe that the 25 to 30 year range of depreciable life is consistent with that of other ship owners. Depreciation is based on cost less the estimated residual scrap value. In November 2008, the estimated useful life of the containerships and multipurpose vessels was increased to 30 years (from 25 years until then) in line with industry practice and the intended use of such vessels; also, the estimated scrap value of the vessels was reduced from $300 to $250 per light ton to better reflect market price developments in the scrap metal market. An increase in the useful life of the vessel or in the residual value would have the effect of decreasing the 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.

Revenue and expense recognition

Revenues are generated from voyage and time charter agreements. If a charter agreement exists, the price is fixed, service is provided and the collection of the related revenue is reasonably assured, revenues are recorded over the term of the charter as service is provided and recognized on a pro-rata basis over the duration of the voyage or time charter adjusted for the off-hire days that a vessel spends undergoing repairs, maintenance or upgrade work. A voyage is deemed to commence upon the later of the completion of discharge of the vessel's previous cargo or the time it receives a contract that is not cancelable and is deemed to end upon the completion of discharge of the current cargo. A time charter contract is deemed to commence from the time of the delivery of the vessel to an agreed port and is deemed to end upon the re-delivery of the vessel at an agreed port. We generally enter into a charter agreement for the vessel's next voyage or time charter prior to the time of discharge of the previous cargo or completion of previous time charter. We do not begin recognizing voyage or time charter revenue until a charter contract has been agreed to both by us and the customer, even if the vessel has discharged its cargo or completed the previous time charter and it is sailing to the anticipated load port for its next voyage or to the port it will be delivered to the next charterer. Demurrage income, which is included in voyage revenues, represents payments received from the charterer when loading or discharging time exceeded the stipulated time in the voyage charter and is recognized when earned. Probable losses on voyages are provided for in full at the time such losses can be estimated.

For the Company's vessels operating in chartering pools, revenues and voyage expenses are pooled and allocated to each pool's participants on a time charter equivalent basis in accordance with an agreed-upon formula. For vessels that simultaneously participate in spot chartering pools and cargo pools (pools of contracts of affreightment, also called, short funds; in the Company's case, participation in cargo pools requires participation in spot chartering pools), a combined time charter equivalent revenue is provided by the operator of the vessel and cargo pools. Revenues and voyage expenses are recognized during the period services were performed, the collectability has been reasonably assured, an agreement with the pool exists and price is determinable.

Charter fees received in advance are recorded as a liability (deferred revenue) until charter services are rendered.

Vessels operating expenses comprise all expenses relating to the operation of the vessels, including crewing, insurance, repairs and maintenance, stores, lubricants, spares and consumables, professional and legal fees and miscellaneous expenses. Vessel operating expenses are incurred when the vessel is chartered under a voyage charter and are recognized as incurred; payments in advance of services or use are recorded as prepaid expenses. Voyage expenses comprise all expenses relating to particular voyages, including bunkers, port charges, canal tolls, and agency fees. Voyage expenses are recognized on a pro-rata basis over the estimated length of the each voyage. The impact of recognizing voyage expenses on a pro-rata basis over the length of the each voyage is not materially different on a quarterly and annually basis from a method of recognizing such expenses as incurred.

Drydock costs

Our vessels are required to be drydocked approximately every 30 to 60 months for major repairs and maintenance that cannot be performed while the vessels are trading. Up to December 31, 2008, we capitalized the costs associated with drydockings as they occurred and amortized these costs on a straight-line basis over the period between drydockings. Costs capitalized as part of the drydocking included actual costs incurred at the drydock yard, cost of travel, lodging and subsistence of our personnel sent to the drydocking site to supervise and the cost of hiring a third party to oversee a drydocking. These criteria were consistent with industry practice and the policy of capitalization reflected the economics and market values of the vessels. As of January 1, 2009, the Company elected to change the method of accounting for drydocking and special survey expenses to the direct expense method as this method eliminates the significant amount of time and subjectivity to determine which costs and activities related to drydocking and special survey should be deferred. We reflected this change as a change in accounting principles from an accepted accounting principle to a preferable accounting principle in accordance with guidance relating to Accounting Changes and Error Corrections. This accounting principle has been applied retrospectively to all periods presented

Fair value of time charter acquired

We record all identified tangible and intangible assets or any liabilities associated with the acquisition of a vessel at fair value. Where vessels are acquired with existing time charters, the Company determines the present value of the difference between: (i) the contractual charter rate and (ii) the prevailing market rate for a charter of equivalent duration. In discounting the charter rate differences in future periods, the Company uses its Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC) adjusted to account for the credit quality of the charterer. The capitalized above-market (assets) and below-market (liabilities) charters are amortized as a reduction and increase, respectively, to voyage revenues over the remaining term of the charter.

Impairment of long-lived assets

We evaluate the carrying amounts and periods over which long-lived assets are depreciated to determine if events have occurred which would require modification to their carrying values or useful lives. In evaluating useful lives and carrying values of long-lived assets, we review certain indicators of potential impairment, such as undiscounted projected operating cash flows, vessel sales and purchases, business plans and overall market conditions. We determine undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel and compare it to the vessel carrying value. When the estimate of undiscounted cash flows, excluding interest charges, expected to be generated by the use of the asset is less than its carrying amount, we should evaluate the asset for an impairment loss. In the event that impairment occurred, we would determine the fair value of the related asset and we record a charge to operations calculated by comparing the asset's carrying value to the estimated fair market value. We estimate fair market value primarily through the use of third party valuations performed on an individual vessel basis.

The carrying values of the Company's 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.

The Company did not note for 2007, any events or changes in circumstances indicating that the carrying amount of its vessels may not be recoverable. However, in the fourth quarter of 2008, market conditions changed significantly as a result of the credit crisis and resulting slowdown in world trade. Starting at the end of the third quarter and during the fourth quarter of 2008, the charter rates in the drybulk and containership market declined significantly and vessel values also declined (although there were scarce transactions to document that) both as a result of a slowdown in the availability of global credit and the significant deterioration in charter rates. These were conditions that the Company considers to be indicators of potential impairment. The Company performed the undiscounted cash flow test as of December 31, 2008. We determine undiscounted projected net operating cash flows for each vessel and compare it to the vessel's carrying value. This assessment is made at the individual vessel level since separately identifiable cash flow information for each vessel is available. In developing estimates of future cash flows, the Company made assumptions about future charter rates, utilization rates, ship operating expenses, future dry docking costs and the estimated remaining useful lives of the vessels. These assumptions are based on historical trends as well as future expectations in line with the Company's historical performance and our expectations for future fleet utilization under our current fleet deployment strategy. The Company determined that the carrying amounts of its vessels held for use were recoverable. The Company recorded an impairment loss for two of its vessels that were classified as held for sale as of December 31, 2008. The impairment loss for these assets was measured on the basis of their fair market value as per the agreed sale price less cost to sell them and estimated at $25.11 million. This amount is presented in the "Impairment loss" line in the "Operating Expenses" section of the "Consolidated Statements of Operations". During 2009, charter rates and vessel values for drybulk vessels improved significantly from the levels observed (or assessed in the case of vessel values) in the fourth quarter of 2008 and first quarter of 2009. In contrast, charter rates and values in the containership market remained depressed throughout the year. Once again, the Company considered the conditions of the containership market to be indicators of potential impairment. The Company performed the undiscounted cash flow test as of December 31, 2009 and determined that the carrying amounts of its vessels held for use were recoverable. During 2010, charter rates and vessel values for containerships improved significantly while drybulk rates and vessel values generally maintained their 2009 levels. The Company performed the undiscounted cash flow test as of December 31, 2010 and determined that the carrying amounts of its vessels held for use were recoverable.

Our impairment test exercise is highly sensitive on variances in the time charter rates, fleet effective utilization rate, estimated scrap values, future drydocking costs and estimated vessel operating costs. Our current analysis, which involved also a sensitivity analysis by assigning possible alternative values to these inputs, indicates that there is no impairment of individual long lived assets. However, there can be no assurance as to how long term charter rates and vessel values will remain at their currently low levels or whether they will improve by any significant degree. Charter rates may remain at depressed levels for some time which could adversely affect our revenue and profitability, and future assessments of vessel impairment.

Additionally, the Company is constantly evaluating vessel sale opportunities when such sales are aligned with our strategic objectives. Over the last three years, the Company has sold four vessels. In addition to m/v Ioanna P and m/v Nikolaos P discussed above, the Company sold m/v Gregos on December 16, 2009 and m/v Artemis on December 17, 2009, which resulted in combined impairment and loss on sale of $24.8 million, $0.3 million, $0.3 million and $8.7 million, respectively. Whether the Company realizes a gain or loss on the sale of a vessel is primarily a function of the relative market values of vessels at the time the vessel was acquired less the accumulated depreciation versus the relative market values on the date a vessel is sold. For a discussion of the potential loss in the case of sale of all of our vessels with market value below their carrying value, we refer to the "Section B – Business Overview / Our Fleet".

Stock incentive plan awards

We include share-based compensation in "Other general and administrative expenses" in the consolidated statements of operations. Share-based compensation represents vested and nonvested restricted shares granted to employees and to non-employee directors, for their services as directors, as well as to non-employees. These shares are measured at their fair value equal to the market value of the Company's common stock on the grant date. The shares that do not contain any future service vesting conditions are considered vested shares and a total fair value of such shares is expensed on the grant date. The shares that contain a time-based service vesting condition are considered nonvested shares on the grant date and a total fair value of such shares recognized on a straight-line basis over the requisite service period. In addition, nonvested awards granted to non-employees are measured at its then-current fair value as of the financial reporting dates until non-employees complete the service.

Investments

We classify unrestricted publicly traded investments as trading securities and record them at fair value. For trading securities, the Company records unrealized gains or losses resulting from changes in fair value of its investment in trading securities between measurement dates as a component of "Gain (loss) on investments". In accordance with the guidance relating to "Fair Value Measurements", the Company determines the fair value of its investments in trading securities using quoted market prices in active markets for the same securities (Level 1 under the above-said guidance hierarchy (see Note 16 of the Financial Statements)). The Company determines the cost of trading securities sold by using the First-In-First-Out ("FIFO") method. Purchases of, or proceeds from, the sale of trading securities are classified as cash flows from operating activities. The Company has adopted the guidance relating to "The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities" which allows the classification of purchases of, or proceeds from, the sale of trading securities to be classified to cash flows from operating activities or cash flows from investing activities based upon the Company's intent with respect to these securities.

Derivative financial instruments

We record every derivative instrument (including certain derivative instruments embedded in other contracts) in the balance sheet as either an asset or liability measured at its fair value with changes in the instruments' fair value recognized in other comprehensive impact or earnings depending whether specific hedge accounting criteria are met at the inception of the hedge in accordance with the guidance relating to "Accounting for Derivative Instruments and Hedging Activities".

For the years ended December 31, 2008, 2009 and 2010, the interest rate swaps and the Freight Forward Agreement ("FFA") contracts were not designated as hedging instruments and did not qualify for hedge accounting treatment. Accordingly, all gains or losses have been recorded in the consolidated statement of operations.

Equity Investments in Joint Ventures

We record our investment in Euromar LLC, our joint venture with Eton Park and Rhône, using the equity method of accounting. Despite the fact that we are a minority partner (we own 14.286%) in the joint venture, we are considered to have significant influence in the operations and management of Euromar LLC. According to the Equity Method, we record our share of income or loss of Euromar LLC in our Consolidated statement of operations and we record the carrying value of our investment as a non-current asset in our Consolidated balance sheet.

For the year ended December 31, 2010, we recorded a loss of ($0.54) million; our initial $15.00 million investment in the joint venture was recorded as a non-current asset of $14.46 million reflecting the loss recorded during 2010. There was no investment in a joint venture during 2008 and 2009.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

Please refer to Note 2 of the financial statements attached to this report.

B.	Liquidity and Capital Resources

Historically, our sources of funds have been equity provided by our shareholders, operating cash flows and long-term borrowings. Our principal use of funds has been capital expenditures to establish and expand our fleet, maintain the quality of our vessels, comply with international shipping standards and environmental laws and regulations, fund working capital requirements, make principal repayments on outstanding loan facilities, and pay dividends. We expect to rely upon funds on our balance sheet which include remaining funds raised from operating cash flows, long term borrowings, as well as future offerings to implement our growth plan and meet our liquidity needs going forward. In our opinion our working capital is sufficient for our present requirements.

Cash Flows

As of December 31, 2010, we had a cash balance of $34.27 million and $5.78 million of restricted cash and cash in restricted retention accounts. We owe funds to a related company of $1.59 million. Amounts owed to such related company represent net disbursements and collections made by our fleet manager, Eurobulk, on behalf of the ship-owning companies during the normal course of operations for which they have the right of offset. Typically, amounts are due from such related company to us and mainly consist of advances to our fleet manager of funds to pay for all anticipated vessel expenses. We occasionally may owe funds to such related company if the timing of any advance delays disbursement of funds. Interest earned on funds deposited in related party accounts, if any, is credited to the account of the ship-owning companies or Euroseas. We do not owe interest for any funds that we may owe to such related company. Working capital is current assets minus current liabilities, including the current portion of long term debt. We had a working capital surplus of $21.19 million including the current portion of long term debt which was $13.47 million as of December 31, 2010. All of the $6.85 million dividend declared was paid as of December 31, 2010, except for $32,175 that was accrued and will be paid at the time the underlying restricted stock of incentive awards vest. We consider our liquidity sufficient for our operations. We expect to finance all our working capital requirements from cash generated from operations and cash on our balance sheet.

Net cash from operating activities.

Our net cash from operating activities for 2010 was $12.75 million. This represents the net amount of cash, after expenses, generated by chartering our vessels. Eurobulk, on our behalf, collects our chartering revenues and pays our chartering expenses. Net loss for the period was $6.61 million, which was increased by $17.98 million of vessel depreciation and decreased by $8.22 million unrealized gain on derivatives and by $2.11 million of amortization of fair vale of charter contracts; and, further, increased by a $10.19 million of changes of other operating asset and liabilities, which mainly included the release of restricted funds of margin requirements of FFA derivative contracts of $12.38 million. In 2009, net cash flow from operating activities was $7.84 million based on a net loss of $15.63 million, which was increased by $19.09 million of vessel depreciation, $8.96 million loss on the sale of vessels and $7.63 million unrealized loss on derivatives; and, further, it was decreased by $12.38 million increase in margin requirements of FFA derivative contracts.

Net cash from investing activities.

In 2010, we purchased one vessel for a purchase price of $16.12 million and contributed $15.00 million to our Euromar LLC joint venture. We also had a decrease in restricted cash by $1.91 million for total cash used in investment activities of $29.21 million. In 2009, we purchased three vessels for $62.22 million; we had proceeds from the sale of four vessels of $16.67 million in the aggregate, we had to increase restricted cash by $0.71 million and we collected insurance proceeds of $0.67 million resulting in the total cash used in investment activities amounting to $45.60 million. It is our strategy to expand and renew our fleet by pursuing selective acquisitions. At the same time, we sell vessels in order to renew our fleet or take advantage of opportune market conditions.

Net cash from financing activities.

In 2010, net cash provided by financing activities amounted to $9.75 million. These funds consisted primarily of proceeds of new long term borrowings of $28.50 million reduced by $6.86 million of dividends paid and $11.63 million of loan repayments. We also paid $0.26 million for loan arrangement fees and stock offering expenses. In 2009, net cash provided by financing activities amounted to $4.89 million. This is accounted for by the $0.65 million raised through our continuous stock offering program (after selling commissions) and $33.00 million in proceeds from new long term borrowings reduced by $17.50 million of repayments of long-term debt as well as by $10.85 million of dividends paid, $0.20 million of offering expenses paid and $0.21 million of loan arrangement fees paid.

Debt Financing

We operate in a capital intensive industry which requires significant amounts of investment, and we fund a major portion of this investment through long term debt. We maintain debt levels we consider prudent based on our market expectations, cash flow, interest coverage and percentage of debt to capital.

As of December 31, 2010, we had eleven outstanding loans with a combined outstanding balance of $88.39 million. These loans have maturity dates between 2011 and 2017. Our long-term debt as of December 31, 2010 comprises bank loans granted to our vessel-owning subsidiaries. A description of our loans as of December 31, 2010 is provided in Note 9 of our attached financial statements. In 2011, we plan to repay approximately $13.47 million of the above debt based on our loans as of December 31, 2010.

Our loan agreements contain covenants.

Our loans have various covenants such as minimum requirements regarding the hull ratio cover (the ratio of fair value of vessel to outstanding loan less cash in retention accounts) and restrictions as to changes in management and ownership of the vessel shipowning companies, distribution of profits or assets (i.e. limiting dividends in some loans to 60% of profits, or, not permitting dividend payment or other distributions in cases that an event of default has occurred), additional indebtedness and mortgage of vessels without the lender's prior consent, sale of vessels, maximum fleet-wide leverage, sale of capital stock of our subsidiaries, ability to make investments and other capital expenditures, entering in mergers or acquisitions, minimum cash balance requirements and minimum cash retention accounts (restricted cash). If we are found to be in default of any covenants we might be required to provide supplemental collateral to the lenders, usually in the form of restricted cash. Increases in restricted cash required to satisfy loan covenants, would reduce funds available for investment or working capital and could have a negative impact on our operations. If we cannot correct any violated covenants, we might be required to repay all or part of our loans, which, in turn, might require us to sell one or more of our vessels under distressed conditions. We are not in default of any credit facility covenant.

Continuous Equity Offering Program

On September 4, 2009, we established a continuous equity offering program by entering into a sales agreement with Citigroup, as sales agent. In connection therewith, on the same date we filed a prospectus supplement to our existing shelf registration statement on Form F-3 relating to the offer and sale of up to 7,000,000 common shares. We sold 134,100 shares under this program in 2009 with aggregate net proceeds to us of approximately $0.65 million and aggregate commissions paid to Citigroup of approximately $13,250. We have suspended the program as of January 16, 2010.

Capital Expenditures

We make capital expenditures from time to time in connection with our vessel acquisitions. Our most recent vessel acquisition consisted of one containership vessel, m/v Aggeliki P, which was delivered to us in June 2010. We financed m/v Aggeliki P originally with funds from our balance sheet but subsequently drew a loan of $8.50 million to partly finance the acquisition. In 2009, we acquired three dry bulk vessels, two Panamax, m/v Pantelis, which was delivered to us in July 2009 and m/v Eleni P, which was delivered to us in March 2009, and one Handymax drybulk carrier, m/v Monica P, which was delivered to us in January 2009. We financed m/v Monica P and m/v Eleni P with equity and two separate $10.00 million loans and m/v Pantelis with equity and a $13.00 million loan. Of our eight acquisitions during 2007 and 2008, five were financed with 100% equity while the remaining three were financed with equity and debt.

Eleven of the vessels in our operating fleet underwent scheduled drydocking or special survey in 2010 (one of them started its special survey in 2010 and completed it in 2011). By May 25, 2011, two more vessels completed their drydocking or special survey. In the remainder of 2011, two additional vessels are scheduled to undergo a special survey, intermediate survey or drydocking. This process of recertification may require us to reposition these vessels from a discharge port to shipyard facilities, which will reduce our operating days during the period. The loss of earnings associated with the decrease in operating days, together with the capital needs for repairs and upgrades, is expected to result in increased cash flow needs. We expect to fund these expenditures with cash on hand.

Dividends

On May 16, 2011, the Company announced the declaration of its twenty-third consecutive dividend since its private placement in August 2005. This dividend of $0.07 per share of common stock is expected to be paid on or about June 10, 2011 to all shareholders of record as of June 1, 2011.

This follows the Company's prior dividend declarations per share of common stock of:

$0.06 on February 16, 2011,

$0.06 on November 15, 2010,

$0.06 on August 3, 2010,

$0.05 on May 7, 2010,

$0.05 on February 23, 2010,

$0.05 on November 16, 2009,

$0.10 on August 4, 2009,

$0.10 on May 13, 2009,

$0.10 on February 17, 2009,

$0.20 on November 12, 2008,

$0.32 on August 5, 2008,

$0.31 on May 8, 2008,

$0.30 on February 7, 2008,

$0.29 on October 16, 2007,

$0.25 on July 17, 2007,

$0.24 on May 8, 2007,

$0.22 on January 8, 2007,

$0.21 on November 9, 2006,

$0.18 on August 7, 2006,

$0.18 on May 9, 2006,

$0.18 on February 7, 2006, and

$0.21 on November 2, 2005.

The aggregate amount of all such dividends paid was $86.51 million; an additional $2.17 million will be paid on or about June 10, 2011 for the dividend declared on May 16, 2011, and an additional $64,350 will be paid if and when unvested restricted incentive stock awards vest.

C.	Research and development, patents and licenses, etc.

Not applicable.

D.	Trend information

Our results of operations depend primarily on the charter hire rates that we are able to realize. Charter hire rates paid for drybulk, containership and multipurpose carriers are primarily a function of the underlying balance between vessel supply and demand.

The demand for drybulk carrier, containership and multipurpose vessel capacity is determined by the underlying demand for commodities transported in these vessels, which in turn is influenced by trends in the global economy. One of the main reasons for the resurgence in drybulk and containerized trade has been the growth in imports by China of iron ore, coal and steel products during the last five years and exports of finished goods. Demand for drybulk carrier and containership capacity is also affected by the operating efficiency of the global fleet, with port congestion, which was a feature of the market in 2004, the first half of 2005 and again in late 2006, 2007 and most of 2008, absorbing additional tonnage especially in the drybulk market. During the last three months of 2008 and the first three months of 2009, drybulk and containerized trade was severely affected by the world economic slowdown and the lack of bank credit to finance trade. A factor affecting mainly the containership sector, especially during periods of high fuel prices and/or low charter rates, is slow-steaming, (i.e., the practice of running a vessel at lower speeds to economize on fuel costs). Slow-steaming increases the number of ships required to carry a certain amount of trade volume and thus increases demand for ships.

The supply of drybulk carriers, containerships and multipurpose vessels is dependent on the delivery of new vessels and the removal of vessels from the global fleet, either through scrapping or loss. According to industry sources, as of May 1, 2011, the global drybulk carrier orderbook amounted to approximately 254.5 million dwt, or about 46% of the existing fleet, with more than 80% (by capacity) of the vessels on the orderbook scheduled to be delivered by the end of 2012, however, there is the possibility that a number of orders will be delayed or cancelled, following the trend of delays and cancellations of about 40% of the scheduled deliveries during 2009 and 2010. Containership orderbook (including multipurpose vessels) amounted to approximately 4.03 million teu, or about 28% of the existing fleet with most vessels, again, expected to be delivered in 2011 and 2012.

The level of scrapping activity is generally a function of scrapping prices in relation to current and prospective charter market conditions, as well as operating, repair and survey costs. The average age at which a vessel is scrapped over the last ten years has been between 26 and 27 years, with smaller vessels scrapped at later age. During strong markets, the average age at which the vessels are scrapped increases; during 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, and the first nine months of 2008 the majority of the Handysize and Handymax bulkers and Feedership, Handysize and Intermediate size containerships that were scrapped were in excess of 30 years of age. During the same period Panamax drybulk carriers were scrapped at an average age of 29 years. However, the scrapping rate increased significantly and the average age decreased since the beginning of the October of 2008 when daily charter rates declined. Increased charter hire rates in the drybulk market commencing in the second quarter of 2009 resulted in decreased scrapping rates of drybulk vessels throughout 2010. On the contrary, continued weakness of containership charter hire rates resulted in increased scrapping rates at even lower vessel ages. For example, we sold one of our laid-up vessels, m/v Artemis, built in 1987 (a 22-year old vessel) for scrap at the end of 2009. Higher containership scrapping rates continued through 2010.

Declining shipping charter hire rates have a negative impact on our earnings when our vessels are employed in the spot market or when they are to be re-chartered after completing a time charter contract. As of May 25, 2011, approximately 84% of our ship capacity days in 2011, including fixed employment in the first and second quarter of the year, and approximately 24% of our ship capacity days in 2012, are under time charter contracts or protected from market fluctuations via FFA contracts.

E.	Off-balance Sheet Arrangements

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

F.	Tabular Disclosure of Contractual Obligations

Contractual Obligations and Commitments

Contractual obligations are set forth in the following table as of December 31, 2010:

In U.S. dollars	Total		Less Than One Year		One to Three Years		Three to Five Years		More Than Five Years
Bank debt	$	88,385,000	$	13,472,000	$	34,269,000	$	27,724,000	$	12,920,000
Interest Payments (1)	$	14,211,119	$	3,877,102	$	6,547,709	$	2,804,864	$	981,444
Vessel Management fees (2)	$	31,786,553	$	5,927,600	$	12,484,859	$	13,374,093		—
Other Management fees (3)	$	6,569,021	$	1,225,000	$	2,580,126	$	2,763,895		—
Derivative contracts (4)		—		—		—		—		—

(1) Assuming the amortization of the loans as of December 31, 2010 described above and an average calculated interest rate margin over LIBOR of about 2.18%, 2.26%, 2.51% and 2.72% per annum for the four periods, respectively, and based on an underlying assumption for LIBOR calculated from the forward rates of the LIBOR yield curve as of December 31, 2010 of 0.45%, 1.17%, 2.29%, 3.19% and 3.94% for years 1 to 5, respectively and 4.49% for beyond the fifth year. Also includes our obligation to make payments required as of December 31, 2010 under our interest rate swap agreements based on the same LIBOR forward rate assumption (see Item 11).

(2) Refers to our obligation for management fees of 700 Euros per day per vessel (approximately $1,015) starting on January 1, 2011 for the sixteen vessels owned by Euroseas as of that date under the Amended and Restated Master Management Agreement in effect as of January 1, 2011; each shipowning company signs with Eurobulk a management agreement when a vessel is acquired but the rate and term of these agreements is set in the Master Management Agreement as amended and restated on January 1, 2011 the present term of which expires on January 1, 2016. For years two to five we have assumed no changes in the number of vessels, an inflation rate of 3.5% per year and no changes in this US Dollar to Euro exchange rate (assumed at 1.45 USD/Euro).

(3) Refers to our obligation for management fees of $1,225,000 per year under our Master Management Agreement with Eurobulk for the cost of providing management services to Euroseas as a public company. This fee is adjusted for inflation in Greece during the previous calendar year every January 1st. From January 1, 2011 on, we have assumed an inflation rate of 3.5% per year. The agreement expires on January 1, 2016.

(4) Refers to our obligation to make payments required as of December 31, 2010 under our outstanding FFA options contracts. We have used the FFA rates and option contract values as of December 31, 2010 to estimate the payments required under our FFA contracts. As the options contracts are in-the-money, there is no such payment obligation as of December 31, 2010 (see Item 11).

G. Safe Harbor

See section "Forward-Looking Statements" at the beginning of this annual report.

Item 6.

Directors, Senior Management and Employees

A.	Directors and Senior Management

The following sets forth the name and position of each of our directors and executive officers.

Name	Age	Position

Aristides J. Pittas	51	Chairman, President and CEO; Class A Director
Dr. Anastasios Aslidis	59	CFO and Treasurer; Class A Director
Aristides P. Pittas	51	Vice Chairman; Class A Director
Stephania Karmiri	43	Secretary
Panagiotis Kyriakopoulos	50	Class B Director
George Skarvelis	50	Class B Director
George Taniskidis	50	Class C Director
Gerald Turner	63	Class C Director

Aristides J. Pittas has been a member of our Board of Directors and our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer since our inception on May 5, 2005. Since 1997, Mr. Pittas has also been the President of Eurochart, our affiliate. Eurochart is a shipbroking company specializing in chartering and selling and purchasing ships. Since 1997, Mr. Pittas has also been the President of Eurotrade, a ship operating company and our affiliate. Since January 1995, Mr. Pittas has been the President and Managing Director of Eurobulk, our affiliated ship management company. He resigned as Managing Director of Eurobulk in June 2005. Eurobulk is a ship management company that provides ocean transportation services. From September 1991 to December 1994, Mr. Pittas was the Vice President of Oceanbulk Maritime SA, a ship management company. From March 1990 to August 1991, Mr. Pittas served both as the Assistant to the General Manager and the Head of the Planning Department of Varnima International SA, a shipping company operating tanker vessels. From June 1987 until February 1990, Mr. Pittas was the head of the Central Planning department of Eleusis Shipyards S.A. From January 1987 to June 1987, Mr. Pittas served as Assistant to the General Manager of Chios Navigation Shipping Company in London, a company that provides ship management services. From December 1985 to January 1987, Mr. Pittas worked in the design department of Eleusis Shipyards S.A. where he focused on shipbuilding and ship repair. Mr. Pittas has a B.Sc. in Marine Engineering from University of Newcastle - Upon-Tyne and a MSc in both Ocean Systems Management and Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Dr. Anastasios Aslidis has been our Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer and member of our Board of Directors since September 2005. Prior to joining Euroseas, Dr. Aslidis was a partner at Marsoft, an international consulting firm focusing on investment and risk management in the maritime industry. Dr. Aslidis has more than

20 years of experience in the maritime industry. Between 2003 and 2005, he worked on financial risk management methods for shipowners and banks lending to the maritime industry, especially as pertaining to compliance to the Basel II Capital Accords. He also served as consultant to the Boards of Directors of shipping companies (public and private) advising in strategy development, asset selection and investment timing. Between 1993 and 2003, as part of his tenure at Marsoft, he worked on various projects including development of portfolio and risk management methods for shipowners, establishment of investments funds and structuring of private equity investments in the maritime industry and other business development for Marsoft's services. Between 1989 and 1993, Dr. Aslidis worked on economic modeling of the offshore drilling industry and on the development of a trading support system for the drybulk shipping industry on behalf of a major European shipowner. Dr. Aslidis holds a Diploma in Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering from the National Technical University of Athens (1983), M.S. in Ocean Systems Management (1984) and Operations Research (1987) from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and a Ph.D. in Ocean Systems Management (1989) also from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Aristides P. Pittas has been a member of our Board of Directors since our inception on May 5, 2005 and our Vice Chairman since September 1, 2005. Mr. Pittas has been a shareholder in over 70 oceangoing vessels during the last 20 years. Since February 1989, Mr. Pittas has been the Vice President of Oceanbulk Maritime SA, a ship management company. From November 1987 to February 1989, Mr. Pittas was employed in the supply department of Drytank SA, a shipping company. From November 1981 to June 1985, Mr. Pittas was employed at Trust Marine Enterprises, a brokerage house as a sale and purchase broker. From September 1979 to November 1981, Mr. Pittas worked at Gourdomichalis Maritime SA in the operation and Freight Collection department.