UNITED STATES
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

FORM 20-F

(Mark One)

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

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

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

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

		Date of event requiring shell company report

Commission file number

Navios Maritime Holdings Inc.

(Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter)

(Translation of Registrant’s Name into English)

(Jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)

(Address of principal executive offices)

(Name, Telephone, E-mail and/or Facsimile number 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 Stock, par value $.0001 per share		New York Stock Exchange LLC

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

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:

100,874,199 as of December 31, 2009.

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted on its corporate Web site, 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).      Yes þ         No o

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

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

Large accelerated filer o		Accelerated filer þ		Non-accelerated filer o

Indicate by check mark which basis of accounting the registrant has used to prepare the financial statements included in this filing: U.S. GAAP      þ      International Financial Reporting Standards as issued by the International Accounting Standards Board      o      Other      o

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

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

 

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS			3
Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers			4
Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable			4
Item 3. Key Information			4
Item 4. Information on the Company			21
Item 4A. Unresolved Staff Comments			43
Item 5. Operating and Financial Review and Prospects			43
Item 6. Directors, Senior Management and Employees			78
Item 7. Major Shareholders and Related Party Transactions			82
Item 8. Financial Information			84
Item 9. The Offer and Listing			85
Item 10. Additional Information			86
Item 11. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk			90
Item 12. Description of Securities Other than Equity Securities			91
PART II
Item 13. Defaults, Dividend Arrearages and Delinquencies			92
Item 14. Material Modifications to the Rights of Security Holders and Use of Proceeds			92
Item 15. Controls and Procedures			92
Item 16A. Audit Committee Financial Expert			92
Item 16B. Code of Ethics			92
Item 16C. Principal Accountant Fees and Services			92
Item 16D. Exemptions from the Listing Standards for Audit Committees			93
Item 16E. Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer and Affiliated Purchasers			93
Item 16F. Changes in Registrant’s Certifying Accountant			94
Item 16G. Corporate Governance			94
PART III
Item 17. Financial Statements			95
Item 18. Financial Statements			95
Item 19. Exhibits			95
EX-8.1
EX-12.1
EX-12.2
EX-13.1
EX-15.1
EX-8.1
EX-12.1
EX-12.2
EX-13.1
EX-15.1
EX-15.2
EX-15.3

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

     This Annual Report should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in this report.

     Navios Maritime Holdings Inc., 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 document and any other written or oral statements made by us or on our behalf may include forward-looking statements, which reflect our current views with respect to future events and financial performance. The words “believe”, “expect”, “anticipate”, “intend”, “estimate”, “forecast”, “project”, “plan”, “potential”, “will”, “may”, “should” and similar expressions identify forward-looking statements.

     Please note in this annual report, “we”, “us”, “our”, the “Company” and “Navios Holdings” all refer to Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. and its subsidiaries.

     The forward-looking statements in this document are based upon various assumptions, many of which are based, in turn, upon further assumptions, including without limitation, management’s examination of historical operating trends, data contained in our records, and other data available from third parties. Although we believe that these assumptions were reasonable when made, because these assumptions are inherently subject to significant uncertainties and contingencies which are difficult or impossible to predict and are beyond our control, we cannot assure you that we will achieve or accomplish these expectations, beliefs or projections.

     In addition to these important factors and matters discussed elsewhere herein, important factors that, in our view, could cause actual results to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements include the strength of world economies, fluctuations in currencies and interest rates, general market conditions, including fluctuations in charter hire rates and vessel values, changes in demand in the dry-bulk shipping industry, changes in the Company’s operating expenses, including bunker prices, dry docking and insurance costs, changes in governmental rules and regulations or actions taken by regulatory authorities, potential liability from pending or future litigation, general domestic and international political conditions, potential disruption of shipping routes due to accidents or political events, and other important factors described from time to time in the reports filed by the Company with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

     We undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement or statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date on which such statement is made or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events. New factors emerge from time to time, and it is not possible for us to predict all of these factors. Further, we cannot assess the impact of each such factor on our business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to be materially different from those contained in any forward-looking statement.

PART I

Item 1. Identity of Directors, Senior Management and Advisers

     Not Applicable.

Item 2. Offer Statistics and Expected Timetable

     Not Applicable.

Item 3. Key Information

A. Selected Financial Data

          Navios Holdings’ historical successor information is derived from the audited consolidated financial statements of Navios Holdings for the years ended December 31, 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and for the period from August 26, 2005 to December 31, 2005. The Navios Holdings historical predecessor information is derived from the audited consolidated financial statements for the period from January 1, 2005 to August 25, 2005 not included in this document. Navios Holdings’ balance sheet data as of December 31, 2009, 2008, and 2007, and the historical information for the year ended December 31, 2006 and 2005 is derived from the audited financial statements which are not included in this document. The purchase of the net assets of Navios Holdings by International Shipping Enterprises Inc. (“ISE”), through the purchase of all of its outstanding shares of common stock, and the subsequent downstream merger of ISE with and into Navios Holdings took place on August 25, 2005.

          The information is only a summary and should be read in conjunction with the historical consolidated financial statements and related notes contained herein.

          The historical successor and predecessor results included below and elsewhere in this document are not necessarily indicative of the future performance of Navios Holdings.

		Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor					Predecessor
		Year				Year				Year				Year				August 26,					January 1,
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				2005 to					2005 to
		December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,					August 25,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005					2005
		(Expressed in thousands of U.S. Dollars - except per share data)
Statement of Income Data
Revenue		$	598,676			$	1,246,062			$	758,420			$	205,375			$	76,298				$	158,630
Time charter, voyage and logistic business expenses			(353,838	)			(1,066,239	)			(557,573	)			(84,225	)			(39,119	)				(91,806	)
Direct vessel expenses			(31,454	)			(26,621	)			(27,892	)			(19,863	)			(3,137	)				(5,650	)
General and administrative expenses			(43,897	)			(37,047	)			(23,058	)			(15,057	)			(4,582	)				(9,964	)
Depreciation and amortization			(73,885	)			(57,062	)			(31,900	)			(37,129	)			(13,504	)				(3,872	)
Provision for losses on accounts receivable			(2,237	)			(2,668	)			—				(6,242	)			(411	)				—
Gain on sale of assets/partial sale of subsidiary			20,785				27,817				167,511				—				—					—
Interest income from investments in finance lease			1,330				2,185				3,507				—				—					—
Interest income			1,699				7,753				10,819				3,832				1,163					1,350
Interest expense and finance cost, net			(63,618	)			(49,128	)			(51,089	)			(47,429	)			(11,892	)				(1,677	)
Gain (loss) on derivatives			375				8,092				25,100				20,322				(1,980	)				2,684
Other income			6,749				948				445				1,283				52					1,426
Other expense			(20,508	)			(7,386	)			(767	)			(472	)			(1,012	)				(572	)
Income before equity in net earnings of affiliated companies and joint venture			40,177				46,706				273,523				20,395				1,876					50,549

		Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor					Predecessor
		Year				Year				Year				Year				August 26,					January 1,
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				2005 to					2005 to
		December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,					August 25,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005					2005
		(Expressed in thousands of U.S. Dollars - except per share data)
Equity in net earnings of affiliated companies and joint venture			29,222				17,431				1,929				674				285					788
Income before taxes		$	69,399			$	64,137			$	275,452			$	21,069			$	2,161				$	51,337
Income taxes			1,565				56,113				(4,451	)			—				—					—
Net income		$	70,964			$	120,250			$	271,001			$	21,069			$	2,161				$	51,337
Less: Net income attributable to the noncontrolling interest			(3,030	)			(1,723	)			—				—				—					—
Net income attributable to Navios Holdings common stockholders		$	67,934			$	118,527			$	271,001			$	21,069			$	2,161				$	51,337
Less:
Incremental fair value of securities offered to induce warrants exercise			—				—				(4,195	)			—				—					—
Income available to common shareholders		$	67,934			$	118,527			$	266,806			$	21,069			$	2,161				$	51,337
Weighted average number of shares, basic			99,924,587				104,343,083				92,820,943				54,894,402				40,189,356					874,584
Basic earnings per share		$	0.68			$	1.14			$	2.87			$	0.38			$	0.05				$	58.70
Weighted average number of shares, diluted			105,194,659				107,344,748				99,429,533				55,529,688				45,238,554					874,584
Diluted earnings per share		$	0.65			$	1.10			$	2.68			$	0.38			$	0.05				$	58.70
Balance Sheet Data (at period end)
Current assets, including cash		$	427,680			$	505,409			$	848,245			$	195,869			$	114,539
Total assets			2,935,182				2,253,624				1,971,004				944,783				789,383
Current liabilities, including current portion of long term debt			196,080				271,532				450,491				108,979				133,604
Total long term debt, including current portion			1,622,706				887,715				614,049				568,062				493,400
Stockholders’ equity			925,480				805,820				769,204				274,216				207,758

		Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor					Predecessor
		Year				Year				Year				Year				August 26,					January 1,
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				2005 to					2005 to
		December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,					August 25,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005					2005
		(Expressed in thousands of U.S. Dollars - except per share data)
Other Financial Data
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$	216,451			$	(28,388	)		$	128,075			$	56,432			$	24,371				$	71,945
Net cash used in investing activities			(802,538	)			(452,637	)			(16,451	)			(111,463	)			(119,447	)				(4,264	)
Net cash provided by (used in) financing activities			626,396				187,082				216,285				116,952				68,880					(50,506	)
Book value per common share			9.17				8.02				7.23				4.42				4.70					5.67
Cash dividends per common share			0.27				0.38				0.24				0.25				—					—
Cash dividends per preferred share			52.35				—				—				—				—					—
Cash paid for common stock dividend declared			27,154				28,588				26,023				15,382				—					—
Cash paid for preferred stock dividend declared			429				—				—				—				—					—
Adjusted EBITDA (1)		$	206,801			$	165,478			$	349,875			$	103,177			$	26,537				$	55,696

Adjusted EBITDA Reconciliation to Cash from Operations

		Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor				Successor					Predecessor
		Year				Year				Year				Year				August 26,					January 1,
		Ended				Ended				Ended				Ended				2005 to					2005 to
		December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,				December 31,					August 25,
		2009				2008				2007				2006				2005					2005
		(Expressed in thousands of U.S. Dollars - except per share data)
Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities		$	216,451			$	(28,388	)		$	128,075			$	56,432			$	24,371				$	71,945
Net (decrease) increase in operating assets			(30,399	)			(87,797	)			177,755				33,065				5,864					(14,525	)
Net (increase) decrease in operating liabilities			(56,498	)			226,145				(176,510	)			(31,086	)			1,720					21,407
Payments for drydock and special survey costs			3,522				3,653				2,426				2,480				1,710					—
Net interest cost			55,237				39,298				38,414				35,593				9,476					(98	)
Provision for losses on accounts receivable			(2,237	)			(2,668	)			—				(6,024	)			(411	)				880
Gain on sale of assets/partial sale of subsidiary			20,785				27,817				167,511				—				—					—
Unrealized gain (loss) on derivatives, warrants and interest rate swaps			9,311				(15,376	)			10,953				12,625				(16,478	)				(23,728	)
Earnings in affiliates and joint ventures, net of dividends received			1,355				4,517				1,251				92				285					(185	)
Unrealized losses on available for sale securities			(13,778	)			—				—				—				—					—
Non-cash compensation received			6,082				—				—				—				—					—
Noncontrolling interest			(3,030	)			(1,723	)			—				—				—					—
Adjusted EBITDA		$	206,801			$	165,478			$	349,875			$	103,177			$	26,537				$	55,696

B. Capitalization and Indebtedness

     Not applicable.

C. Reasons for the Offer and Use of Proceeds

     Not applicable.

D. Risk Factors

          Some of the following risks relate principally to the industry in which we operate and our business in general. Other risks relate principally to the securities market and ownership of our common stock. You should carefully consider each of the following risks together with the other information incorporated into this Annual Report when evaluating the Company’s business and its prospect. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones the Company faces. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to the Company or that the Company currently considers immaterial may also impair the Company’s business operations. If any of the following risks relating to our business and operations actually occur, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected and in that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline, and you could lose all or part of your investment.

Risks Associated with the Shipping Industry and Our Operations

The cyclical nature of the international drybulk shipping industry may lead to decreases in charter rates and lower vessel values, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

          The shipping business, including the dry cargo market, is cyclical in varying degrees, experiencing severe fluctuations in charter rates, profitability and, consequently, vessel values. For example, during the period from January 4, 2005 to December 31, 2009, the Baltic Exchange’s Panamax time charter average daily rates experienced a low of $3,537 and a high of $94,977. Additionally, during the period from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009, the Baltic Exchange’s Capesize time charter average daily rates experienced a low of $8,997 and a high of $93,197 and the Baltic Exchange Dry Index experienced a low of 772 points and a high of 4,661 points. Navios Holdings anticipates that the future demand for its drybulk carriers and drybulk charter rates will be dependent upon demand for imported commodities, economic growth in the emerging markets, including the Asia Pacific region, India, Brazil and Russia, and in the rest of the world, seasonal and regional changes in demand and changes to the capacity of the world fleet. Recent adverse economic, political, social or other developments have decreased demand and prospects for growth in the shipping industry and thereby could reduce revenue significantly. A decline in demand for commodities transported in drybulk carriers or an increase in supply of drybulk vessels could cause a further decline in charter rates, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition. If we sell a vessel at a time when the market value of our vessels has fallen, the sale may be at less than the vessel’s carrying amount, resulting in a loss.

          The demand for vessels has generally been influenced by, among other factors:

	•		global and regional economic conditions;
	•		developments in international trade;
	•		changes in seaborne and other transportation patterns, such as port congestion and canal closures;
	•		weather and crop yields;
	•		armed conflicts, acts of piracy and terrorist activities;
	•		political developments; and
	•		embargoes and strikes.

     The supply of vessel capacity has generally been influenced by, among other factors:

	•		the number of vessels that are in or out of service;
	•		the scrapping rate of older vessels;
	•		port and canal traffic and congestion;
	•		the number of newbuilding deliveries; and
	•		vessel casualties.

The economic slowdown in the Asia Pacific region has markedly reduced demand for shipping services and has decreased shipping rates, which could adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

          Currently, China, Japan, other Pacific Asian economies and India are the main driving force behind the development in seaborne drybulk trades and the demand for drybulk carriers. Reduced demand from such economies has driven decreased rates and vessel values. A further negative change in economic conditions in any Asian Pacific country, but particularly in China or Japan, as well as India, may have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, by reducing demand and the resultant charter rates. In particular, in recent years, China has been one of the world’s fastest growing economies in terms of gross domestic product. Furthermore, the economic slowdown in the United States, the European Union, and other countries may deepen the economic slowdown in China, among others. While the introduction of a $586 billion economic stimulus package by the Chinese government was designed, in part, to increase consumer spending and reignite the steep growth China experienced before the recent downturn, it remains to be seen whether such a course of action by China will ultimately have the desired effect. Our financial condition and results of operations, as well as our future prospects, would likely be adversely affected by an economic downturn in any of these countries as such downturn would likely translate into reduced demand for shipping services and lower shipping rates industry-wide. As a result, our operating results would be further materially affected.

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 required to expand our business through the acquisition of vessels or new businesses. Furthermore, such a disruption would adversely affect our results of operations, financial condition and cash flows, causing the market price of our common stock to decline.

          The United States and other parts of the world are exhibiting deteriorating economic trends and are currently in a recession. For example, the credit markets worldwide and in the U.S. have experienced significant contraction, de-leveraging and reduced liquidity, and the U.S. federal government, state governments and foreign 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, 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.

          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 U.S. and the rest of the world has resulted in reduced access to credit worldwide. Due to the fact that we intend to cover all or a portion of the cost of vessel acquisition with debt financing, such uncertainty, combined with restrictions imposed by our current debt may hamper our ability to finance vessel or new business acquisition.

          We face risks attendant to changes in economic environments, changes in interest rates, and instability in certain securities markets, among other factors. Major market disruptions and the current adverse changes in market conditions and regulatory climate in the U.S. and worldwide may adversely affect our business or impair our ability to borrow amounts under our existing credit facility or any future financial arrangements. The current market conditions may last longer than we anticipate. These developing economic and governmental factors may have a material adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition or cash flows and could cause the price of our common stock to decline significantly.

When our charters contracts expire, we may not be able to successfully replace them.

          The process for concluding charters contracts and longer term time charters generally involves a lengthy and intensive screening and vetting process and the submission of competitive bids. In addition to the quality and suitability of the vessel, medium and longer term shipping contracts tend to be awarded based upon a variety of other factors relating to the vessel operator, including:

	•		environmental, health and safety record;
	•		compliance with regulatory industry standards;
	•		reputation for customer service, technical and operating expertise;
	•		shipping experience and quality of ship operations, including cost-effectiveness;
	•		quality, experience and technical capability of crews;
	•		the ability to finance vessels at competitive rates and overall financial stability;
	•		relationships with shipyards and the ability to obtain suitable berths;
	•		construction management experience, including the ability to procure on-time delivery of new vessels according to customer specifications;
	•		willingness to accept operational risks pursuant to the charter, such as allowing termination of the charter for force majeure events; and
	•		competitiveness of the bid in terms of overall price.

          As a result of these factors, when our charters contracts expire, we cannot assure you that we will be able to successfully replace them promptly or at all or at rates sufficient to allow us to operate our business profitably, to meet our obligations, including payment of debt service to our lenders, or to pay dividends. Our ability to renew the charter contracts on our vessels on the expiration or termination of our current charters, or, on vessels that we may acquire in the future, the charter rates payable under any replacement charter contracts, will depend upon, among other things, economic conditions in the sectors in which our vessels operate at that time and the financial sector, changes in the supply and demand for vessel capacity and changes in the supply and demand for the transportation of commodities as described above. However, if we are successful in employing our vessels under longer term time charters, our vessels will not be available for trading in the spot market during an upturn in the market cycle, when spot trading may be more profitable. If we cannot successfully employ our vessels in profitable charter contracts, our results of operations and operating cash flow could be materially adversely affected.

We may employ vessels on the spot market and thus expose ourselves to risk of losses based on short-term decreases in shipping rates.

          We periodically employ our some of vessels on a spot basis. The spot charter market is highly competitive and freight rates within this market are highly volatile, while longer-term charter contracts provide income at pre-determined rates over more extended periods of time. We cannot assure you that we will be successful in keeping our vessels fully employed in these short term markets, or that future spot rates will be sufficient to enable such vessels to be operated profitably. A significant decrease in spot market rates or our inability to fully employ our vessels by taking advantage of the spot market would result in a reduction of the incremental revenue received from spot chartering and adversely affect results of operations, including our profitability and cash flows, with the result that our ability to pay debt service and dividends could be impaired.

We are subject to certain credit risks with respect to our counterparties on contracts, and the failure of such counterparties to meet their obligations could cause us to suffer losses on such contracts and thereby decrease revenues.

          We charter-out our vessels to other parties, who pay us a daily rate of hire. We also enter into contracts of affreightment (“COAs”) pursuant to which we agree to carry cargoes, typically for industrial customers, who export or import drybulk cargoes. Additionally, we enter into FFAs, parts of which are traded over-the-counter. We also enter into spot market voyage contracts, where we are paid a rate per ton to carry a specified cargo on a specified route. The FFAs and these contracts and arrangements subject us to counterparty credit risks at various levels. If the counterparties fail to meet their obligations, we could suffer losses on such contracts which could materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, after a charterer defaults on a time charter, we would have to enter into charters at lower rates. It is also possible that we would be unable to secure a charter at all. If we re-charter the vessel at lower rates, our financial condition and results of operations could be materially adversely affected.

          We have insured our charter-out contracts through a “AA+” rated governmental agency of a European Union member state, which provides that if the charterer goes into payment default, the insurer will reimburse us for the charter payments under the terms of the policy for the remaining term of the charter-out contract (subject to applicable deductibles and other customary limitations for insurance).

Trading and complementary hedging activities in freight, tonnage and Forward Freight Agreements (FFAs) subject us to trading risks, and we may suffer trading losses which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

          Due to drybulk shipping market volatility, success in this shipping industry requires constant adjustment of the balance between chartering-out vessels for long periods of time and trading them on a spot basis. A long-term contract to charter a vessel might lock us into a profitable or unprofitable situation depending on the direction of freight rates over the term of the contract. We seek to manage and mitigate that risk through trading and complementary hedging activities in freight, tonnage and forward freight agreements, or FFAs. We are exposed to market risk in relation to our FFAs and could suffer substantial losses from these activities in the event that our expectations are incorrect. We trade FFAs with an objective of both economically hedging the risk on the fleet, specific vessels or freight commitments and taking advantage of short-term fluctuations in market prices. There can be no assurance that we will be able at all times to successfully protect ourselves from volatility in the shipping market. We may not successfully mitigate our risks, leaving us exposed to unprofitable contracts, and may suffer trading losses resulting from these hedging activities.

          In our hedging and trading activities, we focus on short-term trading opportunities in which there are adequate liquidity in order to limit the risk we are taking. There can be no assurance we will be successful in limiting our risk, that significant price spikes will not result in significant losses, even on short term trades, that liquidity will be available for our positions, or that all trades will be done within our risk management policies. Any such risk could be significant. In addition, the performance of our trading activities can significantly increase the variability of our operating performance in any given period and could materially adversely affect our financial condition. The FFA market has experienced significant volatility in the past few years and, accordingly, recognition of the changes in the fair value of FFAs has caused, and could in the future cause significant volatility in earnings.

We are subject to certain operating risks, including vessel breakdowns or accidents, that could result in a loss of revenue from the affected vessels and which in turn could have an adverse effect on our results of operations or financial condition.

          Our exposure to operating risks of vessel breakdown and accidents mainly arises in the context of our owned vessels. The rest of our core fleet is chartered-in under time charters and, as a result, most operating risks relating to these time chartered vessels remain with their owners. If we pay hire on a chartered-in vessel at a lower rate than the rate of hire it receives from a sub-charterer to whom we have chartered out the vessel, a breakdown or loss of the vessel due to an operating risk suffered by the owner will, in all likelihood, result in our loss of the positive spread between the two rates of hire. Although we maintain insurance policies (subject to deductibles and exclusions) to cover us against the loss of such spread through the sinking or other loss of a chartered-in vessel, we cannot assure you that we will be covered under all circumstances or that such policies will be available in the future on commercially reasonable terms. Breakdowns or accidents involving our vessels and losses relating to chartered vessels which are not covered by insurance would result in a loss of revenue from the affected vessels adversely affecting our financial condition and results of operations.

We are subject to various laws, regulations and conventions, including environmental laws that could require significant expenditures both to maintain compliance with such laws and to pay for any uninsured environmental liabilities resulting

from a spill or other environmental disaster.

          The shipping business and vessel operation are materially affected by government regulation in the form of international conventions, national, state and local laws, and regulations in force in the jurisdictions in which vessels operate, as well as in the country or countries of their registration. 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 fair market price or useful life of our vessels. 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 capital and other expenditures. In order to satisfy any such requirements, we may be required to take any of 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 our vessels, particularly older vessels, profitably during the remainder of their economic lives. This could lead to significant asset write-downs. Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business, require capital expenditures or otherwise increase our cost of doing business, which may materially adversely affect our operations, as well as the shipping industry generally. In various jurisdictions, legislation has been enacted or is under consideration that would impose more stringent requirements on air pollution and other ship emissions, including emissions of greenhouse gases and ballast water discharged from vessels. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our operations.

          Additional conventions, laws and regulations may be adopted that could limit our ability to do business, require capital expenditures or otherwise increase our cost of doing business, which may materially adversely affect our operations, as well as the shipping industry generally. For example, in various jurisdictions legislation has been enacted, or is under consideration that would impose more stringent requirements on air pollution and other ship emissions, including emissions of greenhouse gases and ballast water discharged from vessels. We are required by various governmental and quasi-governmental agencies to obtain certain permits, licenses and certificates with respect to our operations.

          The operation of vessels is also affected by the requirements set forth in the International Safety Management Code (“ISM”). The ISM Code requires ship owners 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 vessel operation and describing procedures for dealing with emergencies. Non-compliance 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. For example, the United States Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in ports in the United States and European Union. Currently, each of the vessels in our owned fleet is ISM Code-certified. However, there can be no assurance that such certification will be maintained indefinitely.

          For all vessels, including those operated under our fleet, international liability for oil pollution is currently governed by the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the “Bunker Convention”, adopted by the International Maritime Organization (“IMO”) in 2001. The Bunker Convention imposes strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of “bunker oil.” The Bunker Convention defines “bunker oil” as “any hydrocarbon mineral oil, including lubricating oil, used or intended to be used for the operation or propulsion of the ship, and any residues of such oil.” The Bunker Convention requires registered owners of ships over a certain size to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended, referred to herein as the 1976 Convention). The Bunker Convention became effective on November 21, 2008, and by early 2010 it was in effect in 47 states. In other jurisdictions, liability for spills or releases of oil from ships’ bunkers continues to be determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

          Apart from the drybulk vessels in our fleet, our subsidiary Navios South American Logistics, Inc. (“Navios Logistics”), acquires and operates tankers, which in certain circumstances may be subject to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels. When a tanker is carrying a cargo of “persistent oil’’ as defined by the Civil Liability Convention 1992 (CLC) her owner bears strict liability for any pollution damage caused in a contracting state by an escape or discharge from her cargo or from her bunker tanks. This liability is subject to a financial limit calculated by reference to the tonnage of the ship, and the right to limit liability may be lost if the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Liability may also be incurred under CLC for a bunker spill from the vessel even when she is not carrying such a cargo, but is in ballast.

          When a tanker is carrying clean oil products which do not constitute “persistent oil’’ for the purposes of CLC, liability for any pollution damage will generally fall outside the Bunker Convention and will depend on national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs. The same applies to any pollution from the vessel in a jurisdiction which is not a party to the Bunker Convention. The Bunker Convention applies in over 100 states around the world, but it does not apply in the United States of America, where the corresponding liability laws are noted for being particularly stringent.

          Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than

international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which ship owners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution. Additionally, pursuant to the federal laws, each state may enact more stringent regulations, thus subjecting ship owners to dual liability. Notably, California has adopted regulations that parallel most, if not all of the federal regulations explained below. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

          U.S. federal legislation, including notably the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or the OPA, establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including bunker oil spills from drybulk vessels as well as cargo or bunker oil spills from tankers. The OPA affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under the OPA, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers 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 substantial threats of discharges, of oil from their vessels. In addition to potential liability under the OPA as the relevant federal legislation, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred.

          Outside of the United States, other national laws generally provide for the owner to bear strict liability for pollution, subject to a right to limit liability under applicable national or international regimes for limitation of liability. The most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability is the 1976 Convention referred to above. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited when a spill is caused by a shipowner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Certain states have ratified the IMO’s 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Convention referred to herein as the 1996 LLMC Protocol. The 1996 LLMC Protocol provides for substantially higher the liability limits to apply in those jurisdictions than the limits set forth in the 1976 Convention. Finally, some jurisdictions are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the 1996 LLMC Protocol, and, therefore, a shipowner’s rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be uncertain.

          In some areas of regulation the EU has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment of international law. Notably it adopted in 2005 a directive on ship-source pollution, imposing criminal sanctions for pollution not only where this is caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offence under the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL), but also where it is caused by “serious negligence”. The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where it would not be incurred under international law. Experience has shown that in the emotive atmosphere often associated with pollution incidents, retributive attitudes towards ship interests have found expression in negligence being alleged by prosecutors and found by courts on grounds which the international maritime community has found hard to understand. Moreover, there is skepticism that the notion of “serious negligence” is likely to prove any narrower in practice than ordinary negligence. Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines, but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable.

          We currently maintain, for each of our owned vessels, insurance coverage against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident. The insured risks include penalties and fines as well as civil liabilities and expenses resulting from accidental pollution. However, this insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions. If any liabilities or expenses fall within an exclusion from coverage, or if damages from a catastrophic incident exceed the $1.0 billion limitation of coverage per incident, our cash flow, profitability and financial position could be adversely impacted.

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 capital and other expenditures. For example, if governmental authorities or independent classification societies that inspect the hull and machinery of commercial ships to assess compliance with minimum criteria as set by national and international regulations enact new standards, we may be required to make significant expenditures for alterations of the addition of new equipment. In order to satisfy any such requirements, we may 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 our vessels, particularly older vessels, profitably during the remainder of their economic lives. This could lead to significant asset write-downs.

We are subject to vessel security regulations and will incur costs to comply with recently adopted regulations and may be subject to costs to comply with similar regulations which may be adopted in the future in response to terrorism.

          Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives intended to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, the Maritime Transportation Security Act of 2002, or MTSA, came into effect. 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. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS, created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect in July 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created International Ship and Port Facilities Security, or ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

	•		on-board installation of automatic information systems, or AIS, to enhance vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-shore communications;
	•		on-board installation of ship security alert systems;
	•		the development of vessel security plans; and
	•		compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

          Furthermore, additional security measures could be required in the future which could have a significant financial impact on us. The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures, provided such vessels have on board, a valid International Ship Security Certificate, or ISSC, that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. We have implemented the various security measures addressed by the MTSA, SOLAS and the ISPS Code and take measures for our vessels to attain compliance with all applicable security requirements within the prescribed time periods. Although management does not believe these additional requirements will have a material financial impact on our operations, there can be no assurance that there will not be an interruption in operations to bring vessels into compliance with the applicable requirements and any such interruption, could cause a decrease in charter revenues.

Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels have increased recently in frequency and magnitude, which could adversely affect our business.

          The shipping industry has historically been affected by acts of piracy in regions such as the South China Sea and the Gulf of Aden. In 2008 and continuing through 2009, acts of piracy saw a steep rise, particularly off the coast of Somalia in the Gulf of Aden. One of the most significant examples of the increase in piracy came in November 2008 when the M/V Sirius Star, a crude oil tanker which was not affiliated with us, was captured by pirates in the Indian Ocean while carrying crude oil estimated to be worth approximately $100 million. In December 2009, the M/V Navios Apollon, a vessel owned by our affiliate, Navios Partners, was seized by pirates 800 miles off the coast of Somalia while transporting fertilizer from Tampa, Florida to Rozi, India. The Navios Apollon was released on February 27, 2010. As these piracy attacks result in regions (in which our vessels are deployed) being characterized by insurers as “war risk” zones 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. 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. Acts of piracy on ocean-going vessels have recently increased in frequency, which could adversely affect our business and operations.

Our operations expose us to global political risks, such as wars and political instability that may interfere with the operation of our vessels and thereby cause a decrease in revenues from such vessels.

          We are an international company and primarily conduct our operations outside the United States. Changing economic, political and governmental conditions in the countries where we are engaged in business or where our vessels are registered will affect us. In the past, political conflicts, particularly in the Persian Gulf, resulted in attacks on vessels, mining of waterways and other efforts to disrupt shipping in the area. For example, in October 2002, the vessel Limburg, which was not affiliated with us, was attacked by terrorists in Yemen. Acts of terrorism and piracy have also affected vessels trading in regions such as the South China Sea. Following the terrorist attack in New York City on September 11, 2001, and the military response of the United States, the likelihood of future acts of terrorism may increase, and our vessels may face higher risks of being attacked in the Middle East region and interruption of operations causing a decrease in revenues. In addition, future hostilities or other political instability in regions where our vessels trade could affect our trade patterns and adversely affect our operations by causing delays in shipping on certain routes or making shipping impossible on such routes, thereby causing a decrease in revenues.

          A government could requisition title or seize our vessels during a war or national emergency. Requisition of title occurs when a government takes a vessel and becomes its owner. A government could also requisition our vessels for hire, which would result in the government taking control of a vessel and effectively becoming the charterer at a dictated charter rate. Requisition of one or more of our vessels would have a substantial negative effect on us as we would potentially lose all revenues and earnings from the requisitioned vessels and permanently lose the vessels. Such losses might be partially offset if the requisitioning government compensated us for the requisition.

A failure to pass inspection by classification societies could result in one or more vessels being unemployable unless and until they pass inspection, resulting in a loss of revenues from such vessels for that period and a corresponding decrease in operating cash flows.

          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 United Nations Safety of Life at Sea Convention (“SOLAS”). Navios Holdings’ owned fleet is currently enrolled with Lloyd’s Register of Shipping, Nippon Kaiji Kiokai, Bureau Veritas and American Bureau of Shipping.

          A vessel must undergo an annual survey, or “Annual Survey”, an intermediate survey, or “Intermediate Survey” and a special survey, or “Special Survey”. 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. Navios Holdings’ vessels are on Special Survey cycles for hull inspection and continuous survey cycles for machinery inspection. Every vessel is also required to be dry docked every two to three years for inspection of the underwater parts of such vessel.

          If any vessel fails any Annual Survey, Intermediate Survey, or Special Survey, the vessel may be unable to trade between ports and, therefore, would be unemployable, potentially causing a negative impact on Navios Holdings’ revenues due to the loss of revenues from such vessel until it was able to trade again.

Vessels may suffer damage and we may face unexpected dry docking costs, which could affect our cash flow and financial condition.

          If our owned vessels suffer damage, they may need to be repaired at a dry docking facility. The costs of dry dock repairs are unpredictable and can be substantial. We may have to pay dry docking costs that insurance does not cover. The loss of earnings while these vessels are being repaired and repositioned, as well as the actual cost of these repairs, could decrease our revenues and earnings substantially, particularly if a number of vessels are damaged or dry docked at the same time.

          Crew costs are a significant expense for us under our charters. Recently, the limited supply of and increased demand for well-qualified crew, due to the increase in the size of the global shipping fleet, has created upward pressure on crewing costs, which we generally bear under our period time and spot charters. Increases in crew costs may adversely affect our profitability.

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

          The operation of ocean-going vessels in international trade is inherently risky. Although we carry insurance for our fleet covering risks commonly insured against by vessel owners and operators, such as hull and machinery insurance, war risks insurance and protection and indemnity insurance (which include environmental damage and pollution insurance), all risks may not be adequately insured against, and any particular claim may not be paid. We do not currently maintain off-hire insurance, which would cover the loss of revenue during extended vessel off-hire periods, such as those that occur during an unscheduled dry docking due to damage to the vessel from accidents. Accordingly, any extended vessel off-hire, due to an accident or otherwise, could have a material adverse effect on our business. Any claims covered by insurance would be subject to deductibles, and since it is possible that a large number of claims may be brought, the aggregate amount of these deductibles could be material.

          We may be unable to procure adequate insurance coverage at commercially reasonable rates in the future. For example, more stringent environmental regulations have led in the past to increased costs for, and in the future may result in the lack of availability of, insurance against risks of environmental damage or pollution. A catastrophic oil spill or marine disaster could exceed our insurance coverage, which could harm our business, financial condition and operating results. Changes in the insurance markets attributable to terrorist attacks may also make certain types of insurance more difficult for us to obtain. In addition, the insurance that may be available to us in the future may be significantly more expensive than our existing coverage.

          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. Furthermore, in the future, we may not be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates for our fleet. Our insurance policies also contain deductibles, limitations and exclusions which can result in significant increased overall costs to us.

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

          We may be subject to calls, or premiums, in amounts based not only on our claim records but also on the claim records of all 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 expenses to us, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay interest on, or the principal of, the senior notes.

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 a vessel for unsatisfied debts, claims or damages against such vessel. In many jurisdictions, a maritime lien holder may enforce its lien by arresting a vessel through foreclosure proceedings. The arrest or attachment of one or more of our vessels could interrupt our cash flow and require us to pay large sums of funds to have the arrest lifted. We are not currently aware of the existence

of any such maritime lien on our vessels.

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

The risks and costs associated with vessels increase as the vessels age.

          The costs to operate and maintain a vessel in operation increase with the age of the vessel. The average age of the vessels in our fleet is 4.4 years, and most drybulk vessels have an expected life of approximately 25 years. In some instances, charterers prefer newer vessels that are more fuel efficient than older vessels. Cargo insurance rates also increase with the age of a vessel, making older vessels less desirable to charterers as well. Governmental regulations, safety or other equipment standards related to the age of the vessels may require expenditures for alterations or the addition of new equipment to our vessels and may restrict the type of activities in which these vessels may engage. We cannot assure you that, as our vessels age, market conditions will justify those expenditures or enable us to operate our vessels profitably during the remainder of their useful lives. If we sell vessels, we may have to sell them at a loss, and if charterers no longer charter out vessels due to their age, our earnings could be materially adversely affected.

As we expand our business, we may have difficulty managing our growth, which could increase expenses.

          We have significantly grown our fleet and business since August 2005. We intend to continue to grow our fleet, either through purchases of additional vessels, through chartered-in vessels or through business acquisitions. The addition of vessels to our fleet or the acquisition of new businesses will impose significant additional responsibilities on our management and staff, and may require us to increase the number of our personnel. We will also have to increase our customer base to provide continued employment for the new vessels. 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.

Unrealized losses of “available for sale” securities may negatively affect our results of operations in the future.

          As part of the consideration received from the sale of the Navios Hope to Navios Maritime Partners L.P. (“Navios Partners”) in July 2008, the Company received 3,131,415 common units of Navios Partners (14.4% of the then outstanding units of Navios Partners), which are accounted for under guidance for available-for-sale securities (the “AFS Securities”). Accordingly, unrealized gains and losses on these securities are reflected directly in equity unless an unrealized loss is considered “other-than-temporary,” in which case it is transferred to the statement of income. The Company has no other types of available for sale securities.

          As of December 31, 2009 and 2008, the carrying amounts of the AFS Securities were $46.3 million and $22.4 million, respectively, and the unrealized holding gains/(losses) related to these AFS Securities included in “Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income/ (Loss)” were $15.2 million and $(22.6 million), for the years ended December 31, 2009 and 2008. On June 30, 2009, respectively, the Company recognized in earnings realized losses amounting to $13.8 million following the common unit’s market value being less than their acquisition price for a consecutive period of 12 months. Therefore, this decline was considered as other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”). Management evaluates securities for OTTI on a quarterly basis. Consideration is given to (1) the length of time and the extent to which the fair value has been less than cost, (2) the financial condition and near-term prospects of the investee, and (3) the intent and ability of the Company to retain its investment in the investee for a period of time sufficient to allow for any anticipated recovery in fair value.

          As of December 31, 2009, market valuation of these securities has increased. If the fair value of these AFS Securities declines below their June 30, 2009 value and our OTTI analysis indicates such write down to be necessary, the potential future impairment charges may have a material adverse impact on our results of operations in the period recognized.

Any drought or significant decline in production of soybeans or other agricultural products in the Hidrovia region, including any possible effects of climate change, or any significant change affecting the navigability of certain rivers in the region, would have an adverse effect on our Navios Logistics business.

          A significant portion of our Navios Logistics business is derived from transportation of soybeans and other agricultural products produced in the Hidrovia region. Any drought or other adverse weather conditions, such as floods, including any possible effects of climate change, could result in a decline in production of these products which would likely result in a reduction in demand for our services. This would, in turn, negatively impact our results of operations and financial condition. Further, most of the operations in our Navios Logistics business occur on the Parana and Paraguay Rivers, and any changes adversely affecting navigability of either of these rivers, such as changes in the depth of the water or the width of the navigable channel, could, in the short term, reduce or limit our ability to effectively transport cargo on the rivers.

          A prolonged drought or other turn of events that is perceived by the market to have an impact on the region, including any possible effects of climate change, the navigability of the Parana or Paraguay Rivers or our Navios Logistics business in general may, in the short term, result in a reduction in the market value of the barges and push boats that we operate in the region. These barges and push boats are designed to operate in wide and relatively calm rivers, of which there are only a few in the world. If it becomes difficult or impossible to operate profitably our barges and push boats in the Hidrovia region and we are forced to sell them to a third party located outside of the region, there is a limited market in which we would be able to sell these vessels, and accordingly we may be forced to sell them at a substantial loss.

          Growing any business by acquisition presents numerous risks such as undisclosed liabilities and obligations, difficulty in obtaining additional qualified personnel, and managing relationships with customers and suppliers and integrating newly acquired operations into existing infrastructures. We cannot give any assurance that we will be successful in executing our growth plans or that we will not incur significant expenses and losses in connection therewith or that our acquisitions will perform as expected, which would adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition.

The operation of our ocean-going vessels and Navios Logistics’ fleet entails the possibility of marine disasters including damage or destruction of the vessel due to accident, the loss of a vessel due to piracy or terrorism, damage or destruction of cargo and similar events that may cause a loss of revenue from affected vessels and could damage our business reputation, which may in turn lead to loss of business.

     The operation of our ocean-going vessels and Navios Logistics’ fleet entails certain inherent risks that may adversely affect our business and reputation, including:

	•		damage or destruction of a vessel due to marine disaster such as a collision;
	•		the loss of a vessel due to piracy or terrorism;
	•		cargo and property losses or damage as a result of the foregoing or less drastic causes such as human error, mechanical failure and bad weather;
	•		environmental accidents as a result of the foregoing; and
	•		business interruptions and delivery delays caused by mechanical failure, human error, war, acts of piracy, terrorism, political action in various countries, labor strikes or adverse weather conditions.

          Any of these circumstances or events could substantially increase our costs. For example, the costs of replacing a vessel or cleaning up a spill could substantially lower its revenues by taking vessels out of operation permanently or for periods of time. The involvement of our vessels in a disaster or delays in delivery or damages or loss of cargo may harm our reputation as a safe and reliable vessel operator and could cause us to lose business.

Accidents or operational disruptions in connection with loading, discharging or transiting the rivers in our Navios Logistics business could adversely affect our operations and revenues.

          Our Navios Logistics business is dependent, in part, upon being able to timely and effectively transit the rivers and load and discharge cargoes. Any accidents or operational disruptions to ports, terminals, bridges or the lock on the high Parana River could adversely affect our operations and our revenues in our Navios Logistics business.

Although we have longstanding relationships with certain Japanese ship owners who provide us access to very competitive contracts, we cannot assure you that we will always be able to maintain such relationships or that such contracts will continue to be available in the future.

          We have longstanding relationships with certain Japanese ship owners that give us access to time charters that are currently at favorable rates and which, in some cases, include options to purchase the vessels at favorable prices relative to the current market. We cannot assure you that we will have such relationships indefinitely. In addition, there is no assurance that Japanese ship owners will generally make contracts available on the same or substantially similar terms in the future.

Our Chairman and Chief Executive Officer holds approximately 23% of our common stock and will be able to exert considerable influence over our actions; her failure to own a significant amount of our common stock or to be our Chief

Executive Officer would constitute a default under our secured credit facilities.

          Ms. Angeliki Frangou owns approximately 23% of the outstanding shares of our common stock, and has filed a Schedule 13D indicating that she intends, subject to market conditions, to purchase $20 million of our common stock (as of December 31, 2009, she has purchased approximately $10 million in value of our common stock). As the Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and a significant stockholder, she has the power to exert considerable influence over our actions and the outcome of matters on which our stockholders are entitled to vote including the election of directors and other significant corporate actions. The interests of Ms. Frangou may be different from your interests. Furthermore, if Ms. Frangou ceases to hold a minimum of 20% of our common stock does not remain actively involved in the business or ceases to be our Chief Executive Officer, then we will be in default under our secured credit facilities.

The loss of key members of our senior management team could disrupt the management of our business.

          We believe that our success depends on the continued contributions of the members of our senior management team, including Ms. Angeliki Frangou, our Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and principal stockholder. The loss of the services of Ms. Frangou or one of our other executive officers or senior management members could impair our ability to identify and secure new charter contracts, to maintain good customer relations and to otherwise manage our business, which could have a material adverse effect on our financial performance and our ability to compete.

Certain of our directors, officers, and principal stockholders are affiliated with entities engaged in business activities similar to those conducted by us which may compete directly with us, causing such persons to have conflicts of interest.

          Some of our directors, officers and principal stockholders have affiliations with entities that have similar business activities to those conducted by us. Certain of our directors are also directors of other shipping companies and they may enter similar businesses in the future. These other affiliations and business activities may give rise to certain conflicts of interest in the course of such individuals’ affiliation with us. Although we do not prevent our directors, officers and principal stockholders from having such affiliations, we use our best efforts to cause such individuals to comply with all applicable laws and regulations in addressing such conflicts of interest. Our officers and employee directors devote their full time and attention to our ongoing operations, and our non-employee directors devote such time as is necessary and required to satisfy their duties as directors of a public company.

Because we generate all of our revenues in U.S. dollars but incur a portion of our expenses in other currencies, exchange rate fluctuations could cause us to suffer exchange rate losses, thereby increasing expenses and reducing income.

          We engage in worldwide commerce with a variety of entities. Although our operations may expose us to certain levels of foreign currency risk, our transactions are predominantly U.S. dollar-denominated at the present. Additionally, our South American subsidiaries transact a nominal amount of their operations in Uruguayan pesos, Paraguayan Guaranies, Argentinean pesos and Brazilian Reales, whereas our wholly-owned vessel subsidiaries and the vessel management subsidiary transact a nominal amount of their operations in Euros; however, all of the subsidiaries’ primary cash flows are U.S. dollar-denominated. In 2009, approximately 6.9% of our expenses were incurred in currencies other than U.S. dollars. Transactions in currencies other than the functional currency are translated at the exchange rate in effect at the date of each transaction. Expenses incurred in foreign currencies against which the U.S. dollar falls in value can increase, thereby decreasing our income. For example, for the year ended December 31, 2009, the value of the U.S. dollar decreased by approximately 2.7% as compared to the Euro. A greater percentage of our transactions and expenses in the future may be denominated in currencies other than U.S. dollar. As part of our overall risk management policy, we attempt to hedge these risks in exchange rate fluctuations from time to time. We may not always be successful in such hedging activities and, as a result, our operating results could suffer as a result of non-hedged losses incurred as a result of exchange rate fluctuations.

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.

Risks Relating to Our Debt

We have substantial debt, which could adversely affect our financial health and our ability to obtain financing in the future, react to changes in our business and make payments under the notes.

          As of December 31, 2009, we had $1,622.7 million in aggregate principal amount of debt outstanding of which $1,271.9 was secured. We also have up to $101.0 million available to us to be used for general corporate purposes under our existing and new credit facilities. We may increase the amount of our indebtedness in the future which would further exacerbate the risks listed below.

          Our substantial debt could have important consequences to holders of our common stock. Because of our substantial debt:

	•		our ability to obtain additional financing for working capital, capital expenditures, debt service requirements, vessel or other acquisitions or general corporate purposes and our ability to satisfy our obligations with respect to our debt may be impaired in the future;
	•		a substantial portion of our cash flow from operations must be dedicated to the payment of principal and interest on our indebtedness, thereby reducing the funds available to us for other purposes;
	•		we will be exposed to the risk of increased interest rates because our borrowings under our senior secured credit facility will be at variable rates of interest;
	•		it may be more difficult for us to satisfy our obligations to our lenders, resulting in possible defaults on and acceleration of such indebtedness;
	•		we may be more vulnerable to general adverse economic and industry conditions;
	•		we may be at a competitive disadvantage compared to our competitors with less debt or comparable debt at more favorable interest rates and, as a result, we may not be better positioned to withstand economic downturns;
	•		our ability to refinance indebtedness may be limited or the associated costs may increase; and
	•		our flexibility to adjust to changing market conditions and ability to withstand competitive pressures could be limited, or we may be prevented from carrying out capital expenditures that are necessary or important to our growth strategy and efforts to improve operating margins or our business.

Despite our current indebtedness levels, we and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantially more debt, including secured debt. This could further exacerbate the risks associated with our substantial indebtedness.

          We and our subsidiaries may be able to incur substantial additional indebtedness in the future as the terms of the indenture governing our 9.5% senior notes due 2014, or the “senior notes” and the terms of the new indenture governing our 8.875% first priority ship mortgage notes due 2017, or the “ship mortgage notes”, do not fully prohibit us or our subsidiaries from doing so. If new debt is added to our current debt levels, the related risks that we now face would increase and we may not be able to meet all of our debt obligations, including the repayment of the senior notes.

The agreements and instruments governing our debt will contain restrictions and limitations that could significantly impact our ability to operate our business.

          Our secured credit facilities and our indenture impose certain operating and financial restrictions on us. These restrictions may limit our ability to:

	•		incur or guarantee additional indebtedness;
	•		create liens on our assets;
	•		make new investments;
	•		engage in mergers and acquisitions;
	•		pay dividends or redeem capital stock;
	•		make capital expenditures;
	•		engage in certain FFA trading activities;
	•		change the flag, class or commercial and technical management of our vessels;
	•		enter into long term charter arrangements without the consent of the lender; and
	•		sell any of our vessels.

          Therefore, we will need to seek permission from our lenders in order to engage in some corporate and commercial actions that we believe would be in the best interest of our business, and a denial of permission may make it difficult for us to successfully execute our business strategy or effectively compete with companies that are not similarly restricted. Our lenders’ interests may be different from our interests or those of our holders of common stock, and we cannot guarantee that we will be able to obtain our

lenders’ permission when needed. This may prevent us from taking actions that are in our or our stockholders best interests. Any future credit agreements may include similar or more restrictive restrictions.

Our ability to generate the significant amount of cash needed to pay interest and principal and otherwise service our debt and our ability to refinance all or a portion of our indebtedness or obtain additional financing depend on multiple factors, many of which may be beyond our control.

          Our ability to make scheduled payments on or to refinance our obligations under our debt will depend on our financial and operating performance, which, in turn, will be subject to prevailing economic and competitive conditions and to the financial and business factors, many of which may be beyond our control.

          We will use cash to pay the principal and interest on our debt. These payments limit funds otherwise available for working capital, capital expenditures, vessel acquisitions and other purposes. As a result of these obligations, our current liabilities may exceed our current assets. We may need to take on additional debt as we expand our fleet, which could increase our ratio of debt to equity. The need to service our debt may limit funds available for other purposes, and our inability to service debt in the future could lead to acceleration of our debt and foreclosure on our owned vessels.

We may be unable to raise funds necessary to finance the change of control repurchase offer required by the indenture governing our outstanding notes and our secured credit facilities.

          The indenture governing the senior notes, the ship mortgage notes and our secured credit facilities contain certain change of control provisions. If we experience specified changes of control under the senior notes, we will be required to make an offer to repurchase all of our outstanding notes (unless otherwise redeemed) at a price equal to 101% of the principal amount thereof plus accrued and unpaid interest, if any, to the repurchase date. The occurrence of specified events that would constitute a change of control will constitute a default under our secured credit facilities. In the event of a change of control, we cannot assure you that we would have sufficient assets to satisfy all of our obligations under our secured credit facilities and the senior notes, including but not limited to repaying all indebtedness outstanding under our secured credit facilities or repurchasing the senior notes.

An increase in interest rates would increase the cost of servicing our debt and could reduce our profitability.

          The debt under our secured credit facilities bears interest at variable rates. We may also incur indebtedness in the future with variable interest rates. As a result, an increase in market interest rates would increase the cost of servicing our debt and could materially reduce our profitability and cash flows. The impact of such an increase would be more significant for us than it would be for some other companies because of our substantial debt.

          LIBOR has recently been volatile, with the spread between LIBOR and the prime lending rate widening significantly at times. These conditions are the result of the recent 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 on our debt, which in turn, could have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

          Furthermore, interest in most loan agreements in our industry has 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. Such provisions could significantly increase our lending costs, which would have an adverse effect on our profitability, earnings and cash flow.

The market values of our vessels, which have declined from historically high levels, may fluctuate significantly, which could cause us to breach covenants in our credit facilities and result in the foreclosure of our mortgaged vessels.

     Factors that influence vessel values include:

	•		number of newbuilding deliveries;
	•		changes in environmental and other regulations that may limit the useful life of vessels;
	•		changes in global drybulk commodity supply;
	•		types and sizes of vessels;
	•		development of and increase in use of other modes of transportation;
	•		cost of vessel acquisitions;
	•		cost of newbuilding vessels;
	•		governmental or other regulations;
	•		prevailing level of charter rates; and
	•		general economic and market conditions affecting the shipping industry.

          If the market values of our owned vessels decrease, we may breach covenants contained in our secured credit facilities. If we breach such covenants and are unable to remedy any relevant breach, our lenders could accelerate our debt and foreclose on the collateral, including our vessels. Any loss of vessels would significantly decrease our ability to generate positive cash flow from operations and, therefore, service our debt. In addition, if the book value of a vessel is impaired due to unfavorable market conditions, or a vessel is sold at a price below its book value, we would incur a loss.

We may require additional financing to acquire vessels or business or to exercise vessel purchase options, and such financing may not be available.

          In the future, we may be required to make substantial cash outlays to exercise options or to acquire vessels or business and will need additional financing to cover all or a portion of the purchase prices. We intend to cover the cost of such items with new debt collateralized by the vessels to be acquired, if applicable, but there can be no assurance that we will generate sufficient cash or that debt financing will be available. Moreover, the covenants in our senior secured credit facility, the indenture or other debt, may make it more difficult to obtain such financing by imposing restrictions on what we can offer as collateral.

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

          Our corporate affairs are governed by our amended and restated articles of incorporation and by-laws and by the Marshall Islands Business Corporations Act, or BCA. The provisions of the BCA are intended to 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. 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. Accordingly, you may have more difficulty protecting your interests in the face of actions by management, directors or controlling stockholders than you would in the case of a corporation incorporated in the State of Delaware or other U.S. jurisdictions.

We, and certain of our officers and directors, may be difficult to serve with process as we are incorporated in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and such persons may reside outside of the United States.

          We are a corporation organized under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Several of our directors and officers are residents of Greece or other non-U.S. jurisdictions. Substantial portions of the assets of these persons are located in Greece or other non-U.S. jurisdictions. Thus, it may not be possible for investors to affect service of process upon us, or our non-U.S. directors or officers, or to enforce any judgment obtained against these persons in U.S. courts. Also, it may not be possible to enforce U.S. securities laws or judgments obtained in U.S. courts against these persons in a non-U.S. jurisdiction.

Being a foreign private issuer exempts us from certain Securities and Exchange Commission requirements.

          We are a foreign private issuer within the meaning of rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or the Exchange Act. As such, we are exempt from certain provisions applicable to United States public companies including:

	•		the rules under the Exchange Act requiring the filing with the SEC of quarterly reports on Form 10-Q or current reports on Form 8-K;
	•		the sections of the Exchange Act regulating the solicitation of proxies, consents or authorizations in respect of a security registered under the Exchange Act;
	•		the provisions of Regulation FD aimed at preventing issuers from making selective disclosures of material information; and
	•		the sections of the Exchange Act requiring insiders to file public reports of their stock ownership and trading activities and establishing insider liability for profits realized from any “short-swing” trading transaction (i.e., a purchase and sale, or sale and purchase, of the issuer’s equity securities within less than six months).

          Because of these exemptions, investors are not afforded the same protections or information generally available to investors holding shares in public companies organized in the United States.

We may earn United States source income that is subject to tax, thereby adversely affecting our results of operations and cash flows.

          Under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code of 1986, or the Code, 50% of gross income attributable to shipping transportation that begins or ends, but that does not both begin and end, in the United States is characterized as U.S. source shipping income. Such income generally will be subject to a 4% U.S. federal income tax without allowance for deduction, unless we qualify for an exemption from such tax under section 883 of the Code. Based on our current plans, we expect that our income from sources within the United States will be international shipping income that qualifies for exemption from United States federal income taxation under section 883 of the Code, and that we will have no other income that will be taxed in the United States. Our ability to qualify for the exemption at any given time will depend upon circumstances related to the ownership of our common stock at such time and thus are beyond our control. Accordingly, we can give no assurance that we would qualify for the exemption under Section 883 with respect to any such income we earn. If Navios Holdings’ vessel-owning subsidiaries were not entitled to the benefit of section 883 of the Code, they would be subject to United States taxation on a portion of their income. As a result, depending on the trading patterns of our vessels, we could become liable for tax, and our net income and cash flow could be adversely affected.

We may be taxed as a United States corporation.

          The purchase by International Shipping Enterprises Inc. (“ISE”), our predecessor, of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Navios Holdings, and the subsequent downstream merger of ISE with and into Navios Holdings took place on August 25, 2005. Navios Holdings is incorporated under the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. ISE received an opinion from its counsel for the merger transaction that, while there is no direct authority that governs the tax treatment of the transaction, it was more likely than not that Navios Holdings would be taxed by the United States as a foreign corporation. Accordingly, we take the position that we will be taxed as a foreign corporation by the United States. If Navios Holdings is taxed as a U.S. corporation in the future, its taxes will be significantly higher than they are currently.

Item 4. Information on the Company

A. History and Development of the Company

          The legal and commercial name of the Company is Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. The Company’s office and principal place of business is located at 85 Akti Miaouli Street, Piraeus, Greece 185 38, and its telephone number is (011) +30-210-4595000. The Company is a corporation incorporated under the BCA and the laws of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Trust Company of the Marshall Islands, Inc. serves as the Company’s agent for service of process, and the Company’s registered address and telephone number, as well as address and telephone number of its agent for service of process, is Trust Company Complex, Ajeltake Island P.O. Box 1405, Majuro, Marshall Islands MH96960.

          On August 25, 2005, pursuant to a Stock Purchase Agreement dated February 28, 2005, as amended, by and among International Shipping Enterprises, Inc. (“ISE”), Navios Holdings, and all the shareholders of Navios Holdings, ISE acquired Navios Holdings through the purchase of all of the outstanding shares of common stock of Navios Holdings. As a result of this acquisition, Navios Holdings became a wholly-owned subsidiary of ISE. In addition, on August 25, 2005, simultaneously with the acquisition of Navios Holdings, ISE effected a reincorporation from the State of Delaware to the Republic of the Marshall Islands through a downstream merger with and into its newly acquired wholly-owned subsidiary, whose name was and continued to be Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. As a result of the reincorporation, ISE transitioned from a shell company to an operating business, and the operations of Navios Holdings became those of a publicly-traded company. The Company publicly files its reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission under the rules of Foreign Private Issuers.

          On February 2, 2007, Navios Holdings acquired all of the outstanding share capital of Kleimar N.V. (“Kleimar”) for a cash consideration of $165.6 million (excluding direct acquisition costs), subject to certain adjustments. The purchase of Kleimar was financed by existing cash and the use of $120.0 million revolving credit facility with HSH Nordbank AG and Commerzbank AG. Kleimar is a Belgian maritime transportation company established in 1993. Kleimar is the owner and operator of Capesize and Panamax vessels used in the transportation of dry cargoes and has an extensive COA business.

          The Company operates a fleet of owned Capesize, Panamax and Ultra Handymax vessels and a fleet of time chartered Capesize, Panamax and Ultra Handymax vessels that are employed to provide worldwide transportation of bulk commodities. The Company actively engages in assessing risk associated with fluctuating future freight rates, fuel prices and foreign exchange and, where appropriate, will actively hedge identified economic risk with appropriate derivative instruments. Such economic hedges do not always qualify for accounting hedge treatment, and, as such, the usage of such derivatives could lead to material fluctuations in the Company’s reported results from operations on a period-to-period basis.

          On August 7, 2007, Navios Holdings formed Navios Partners under the laws of Marshall Islands. Navios GP L.L.C. (the “General Partner”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Navios Holdings, was also formed on that date to act as the general partner of Navios Partners and received a 2% general partner interest in Navios Partners.

          In connection with the initial public offering, or an IPO, of Navios Partners, on November 16, 2007, Navios Holdings sold the interests of five of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, each of which owned a Panamax drybulk carrier, as well as interests of three of its wholly-owned subsidiaries that operated and had options to purchase three additional vessels in exchange for: (a) all of the net proceeds from the sale of an aggregate of 10,500,000 common units in the IPO and to a corporation owned by Navios Partners’ Chairman and CEO for a total amount of $193.3 million, plus; (b) $160.0 million of the $165.0 million borrowings under Navios Partners’ revolving credit facility; (c) 7,621,843 subordinated units issued to Navios Holdings; and (d) 2% general partner interest and all incentive distribution rights in Navios Partners to the General Partner.

     On or prior to the closing of the IPO, Navios Holdings entered into the following agreements with Navios Partners: (a) a share purchase agreement pursuant to which Navios Holdings sold the capital stock of a subsidiary that would own the Capesize vessel Navios Bonavis and related time charter, upon delivery of the vessel, which occurred in June 2009; (b) a share purchase agreement pursuant to which Navios Partners had the option, exercisable at any time between January 1, 2009 and April 1, 2009, to acquire the capital stock of the subsidiary that will own the Capesize vessel Navios TBN II and related time charter. On April 2, 2009, Navios Partners announced that it would not be exercising this option given the then-prevailing unfavorable capital market conditions, (c) a management agreement with Navios Partners pursuant to which Navios ShipManagement Inc. (the “Manager”), a wholly-owned subsidiary of Navios Holdings, provides Navios Partners commercial and technical management services; (d) an administrative services agreement with the Manager pursuant to which the Manager provides Navios Partners administrative services; and (e) an omnibus agreement with Navios Partners, governing, among other things, when Navios Partners and Navios Holdings may compete against each other as well as rights of first offer on certain drybulk carriers.

               On July 1, 2008, Navios Holdings sold the Navios Hope, a 75,397 dwt Panamax vessel built in 2005, to Navios Partners in exchange for $79.9 million, consisting of $35.0 million cash and $44.9 million in common units (3,131,415 common units) of Navios Partners. The number of the common units issued was calculated using the $14.3705 volume weighted average trading price for the 10 business days immediately prior to the closing date. Following Navios Partners’ public equity offering of (a) 3,500,000 common units in May 2009; (b) 2,800,000 common units in September 2009 and the completion of the exercise of the overallotment option previously granted to the underwriters in connection with this offering in October 2009; (c) 4,000,000 common units in November 2009; and (d) 3,500,000 common units (plus 525,000 overallotment units) in February 2010, Navios Holdings currently owns 33.2% equity interest in Navios Partners, which includes a 2% general partner interest.

          Navios Partners is engaged in the seaborne transportation services of a wide range of drybulk commodities including iron ore, coal, grain and fertilizer, chartering its vessels under medium to long term charters. The operations of Navios Partners are managed by the Manager from its offices in Piraeus, Greece.

          On January 1, 2008, pursuant to a share purchase agreement, Navios Holdings contributed i) $112.2 million in cash and ii) the authorized capital stock of its wholly owned subsidiary Corporacion Navios Sociedad Anonima (“CNSA”) in exchange for the issuance and delivery of 12,765 shares of Navios South American Logistics Inc. (“Navios Logistics”), representing 63.8% (67.2% excluding contingent consideration) of its outstanding stock. Navios Logistics acquired all ownership interests in the Horamar Group (“Horamar”) in exchange for i) $112.2 million in cash, of which $5.0 million was kept in escrow ($2.5 million as of December 31, 2009) payable upon the attainment of certain EBITDA targets during specified periods through December 2008 (the “EBITDA Adjustment”) and ii) the issuance of 7,235 shares of Navios Logistics representing 36.2% (32.8% excluding contingent consideration) of Navios Logistics outstanding stock, of which 1,007 shares were kept in escrow (504 shares still kept as of December 31, 2009) pending the EBITDA Adjustment.

          In November 2008, part of the contingent consideration for the acquisition of Horamar was released, as Horamar achieved the interim EBITDA target, at which time $2.5 million in cash and 503 shares were released to the shareholders of Horamar. Following this release, Navios Holdings owns 65.5% (excluding 504 shares still kept in escrow at December 31, 2009, pending achievement of final EBITDA target) of the outstanding common stock of Navios Logistics. In accordance with the amended share purchase agreement, the final EBITDA target may be resolved until June 30, 2010.

          Horamar was a privately held Argentina-based group that specializes in the transportation and storage of liquid cargoes and the transportation of drybulk cargoes in South America.

          On July 1, 2008, Navios Holdings completed the IPO of units in its subsidiary, Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation (“Navios Acquisition”), a blank check company. In the offering, Navios Acquisition sold 25,300,000 units for an aggregate purchase price of $253.0 million. Simultaneously with the completion of the IPO, Navios Holdings purchased private placement warrants of Navios Acquisition for an aggregate purchase price of $7.6 million (“Private Placement Warrants”). Prior to the IPO, Navios Holdings had purchased 8,625,000 units of Navios Acquisition (“Sponsor Units”) for a total consideration of $25,000, of which an aggregate of 290,000 units were transferred to the Company’s officers and directors and an aggregate of 2,300,000 Sponsor Units were returned to Navios Acquisition and cancelled upon receipt. Each unit consists of one share of Navios Acquisition’s common stock and one warrant (“Sponsor Warrants”, together with the “Private Placement Warrants”, the “Navios Acquisition Warrants”). Currently, Navios Holdings owns approximately 6,035,000 shares (19%) of the outstanding common stock of Navios Acquisition.

          To the knowledge of the management of the Company, there have been no indications of any public takeover offers by third parties in respect of its shares or by the Company in respect of other companies’ shares during the fiscal years, 2008, 2009 and thus far in 2010.

          For information concerning the Company’s capital expenditures and methods of financing, see “Operating and Financial Review and Prospects.”

B. Business overview

Introduction

          Navios Holdings is a global, vertically integrated seaborne shipping and logistics company focused on the transport and transshipment of drybulk commodities including iron ore, coal and grain. For over 50 years, Navios Holdings has had an in-house technical ship management expertise that has worked with producers of raw materials, agricultural traders and exporters, industrial end-users, ship owners, and charterers. Navios Holdings’ current core fleet (excluding Navios Logistics), the average age of which is approximately 4.4 years, consists of a total of 60 vessels, aggregating approximately 6.6 million dwt. Navios Holdings owns 15 Capesize vessels (169,000-181,000 dwt), 13 modern Ultra Handymax vessels (50,000-59,000 dwt), four Panamax vessels (75,000-83,000 dwt), and one Product Handysize (10,000-30,000 dwt) tanker vessel. It also time charters in and operates a fleet of five Ultra Handymax, two Handysize, 10 Panamax, and 10 Capesize vessels under long-term time charters, 17 of which are currently in operation, with the remaining 10 scheduled for delivery on various dates up to August 2013. Navios Holdings has options to acquire 12 of the 27 time chartered-in vessels (on two of which Navios Holdings holds an initial 50% purchase option). Navios Holdings also has committed to acquire seven newbuilding Capesize vessels which are scheduled for delivery at various times until March 2011.

          Navios Holdings also offers commercial and technical management services to Navios Partners’ fleet which is comprised of 10 Panamax vessels, one Capesize vessel and one Ultra-Handymax vessel and received a fixed daily fee of $4,000 per owned Panamax and $5,000 per owned Capesize vessel until November 15, 2009. The daily fee covers all of the vessels’ operating expenses, including the cost of drydock and special surveys. In October 2009, the fixed fee period was extended for two years and the daily fees were increased to $4,500 per owned Ultra Handymax vessel, $4,400 per owned Panamax vessel and $5,500 per owned Capesize vessel.

          Navios Logistics owns and operates vessels, barges and push boats located mainly in Argentina, the largest bulk transfer and storage port facility in Uruguay, and an upriver liquid port facility located in Paraguay.

          Navios Holdings’ strategy and business model focuses on:

	•		Operation of a high quality, modern fleet. Navios Holdings owns and charters in a modern, high quality fleet, having an average age of approximately 4.4 years that provides numerous operational advantages including more efficient cargo operations, lower insurance and vessel maintenance costs, higher levels of fleet productivity, and an efficient operating cost structure.
	•		Pursue an appropriate balance between vessel ownership and a long-term chartered-in fleet. Navios Holdings controls, through a combination of vessel ownership and long-term time chartered vessels, approximately 6.6 million dwt in tonnage, making Navios Holdings one of the largest independent drybulk operators in the world. Navios Holdings’ ability, through its longstanding relationships with various shipyards and trading houses, to charter-in vessels at favorable rates allows it to control additional shipping capacity without the capital expenditures required by new vessel acquisition. In addition, having purchase options on 12 of the 27 time chartered vessels (including those to be delivered) permits Navios Holdings to determine when is the most commercially opportune time to own or charter-in vessels. Navios Holdings intends to monitor developments in the sales and purchase market to maintain the appropriate balance between owned and long-term time chartered vessels.
	•		Capitalize on Navios Holdings’ established reputation. Navios Holdings believes its reputation and commercial relationships enable it to obtain favorable long term time charters, enter into the freight market and increase its short-term tonnage capacity to complement the capacity of its core fleet, as well as to obtain access to cargo freight opportunities through COA arrangements not readily available to other industry participants. This reputation has also enabled Navios Holdings to obtain favorable vessel acquisition terms as reflected in the purchase options contained in some of its long term charters.
	•		Utilize industry expertise to take advantage of market volatility. The drybulk shipping market is cyclical and volatile. Navios Holdings uses its experience in the industry, sensitivity to trends, and knowledge and expertise as to risk management and FFAs to hedge against, and in some cases, to generate profit from, such volatility.
	•		Maintain high fleet utilization rates. The shipping industry uses fleet utilization to measure a company’s efficiency in finding suitable employment for its vessels and minimizing the days its vessels are off-hire. At 99.3% as of December 31, 2009, Navios Holdings believes that it has one of the highest fleet utilization rates in the industry.
	•		Maintain customer focus and reputation for service and safety. Navios Holdings is recognized by its customers for the high quality of its service and safety record. Navios Holdings’ high standards for performance, reliability, and safety provide Navios Holdings with an advantageous competitive profile.
	•		Enhance vessel utilization and profitability through a mix of spot charters, time charters, and COAs and strategic backhaul and triangulation methods. Specifically, this strategy is implemented as follows:

	•		The operation of voyage charters or spot fixtures for the carriage of a single cargo from load port to discharge port;
	•		The operation of time charters, whereby the vessel is hired out for a predetermined period but without any specification as to voyages to be performed, with the ship owner being responsible for operating costs and the charterer for voyage costs; and
	•		The use of COAs, under which Navios Holdings contracts to carry a given quantity of cargo between certain load and discharge ports within a stipulated time frame, but does not specify in advance which vessels will be used to perform the voyages.

          In addition, Navios Holdings attempts, through selecting COAs on what would normally be backhaul or ballast legs, to enhance vessel utilization and, hence, profitability. The cargoes are in such cases used to position vessels at or near major loading

areas (such as the U.S. Gulf) where spot cargoes can readily be obtained. This reduces ballast time to be reduced as a percentage of the round voyage. This strategy is referred to as triangulation.

          Navios Holdings is one of relatively few major owners and operators of this type in the drybulk market, and has vast experience in this area. In recent years, it has further raised the commercial sophistication of its business model by using market intelligence derived from its risk management operations and, specifically, its freight derivatives hedging desk, to make more informed decisions regarding the management of its fleet.

Competitive Advantages

          Controlling approximately 6.6 million dwt (excluding Navios Logistics) in drybulk tonnage, Navios Holdings is one of the largest independent drybulk operators in the world. Management believes that Navios Holdings occupies a competitive position within the industry in that its reputation in the global drybulk markets permits it to enter into at any time, and take on spot, medium or long term freight commitments, depending on its view of future market trends. In addition, many of the long term charter deals that form the core of Navios Holdings’ fleet were brought to the attention of Navios Holdings prior to ever being quoted in the open market. Even in the open market, Navios Holdings’ solid reputation allows it to take in large amounts of tonnage on a short, medium, or long term basis on very short notice. This ability is possessed by relatively few ship owners and operators, and is a direct consequence of Navios Holdings’ market reputation for reliability in the performance of its obligations in each of its roles as a ship owner, COA operator, and charterer. Navios Holdings, therefore, has much greater flexibility than a traditional ship owner or charterer to quickly go “long” or “short” relative to the drybulk markets.

          Navios Holdings’ long involvement and reputation for reliability in the Asian pacific region have also allowed it to develop privileged relationships with many of the largest trading houses in Japan, such as Marubeni Corporation and Mitsui & Co. Through these institutional relationships, Navios Holdings has obtained relatively low-cost, long term charter-in deals, with options to extend time charters and options to purchase the majority of the vessels. Through its established reputation and relationships, Navios Holdings has had access to opportunities not readily available to most other industry participants who lack Navios Holdings’ brand recognition, credibility, and track record.

          In addition to its long-standing reputation and flexible business model, management believes that Navios Holdings is well-positioned in the drybulk market on the basis of the following factors:

	•		A high-quality, modern fleet of vessels that provides a variety of operational advantages, such as lower insurance premiums, higher levels of productivity, and efficient operating cost structures, as well as a competitive advantage over owners of older fleets, especially in the time charter market, where age and quality of a vessel are of significant importance in competing for business;
	•		A core fleet which has been chartered-in (some through 2023, assuming minimum available charter extension periods are exercised) on attractive terms that allow Navios Holdings to charter-out the vessels at a considerable spread during strong markets and to weather down cycles in the market while maintaining low operating expenses;
	•		Strong cash flows from creditworthy counterparties;
	•		Strong commercial relationships with both freight customers and Japanese trading houses and ship owners, providing Navios Holdings with access to future attractive long term time charters on newbuildings with valuable purchase options;
	•		Strong in-house technical management team who oversee every step of technical management, from the construction of the vessels in Japan or Korea to subsequent shipping operations throughout the life of a vessel, including the superintendence of maintenance, repairs and dry docking, providing efficiency and transparency in Navios Holdings’ owned fleet operations; and
	•		Visibility into worldwide commodity flows through its physical shipping operations and port terminal operations in South America.

          Management intends to maintain and build on these qualitative advantages, while at the same time continuing to benefit from Navios Holdings’ reputation.

Shipping Operations

          Navios Holdings’ Fleet. Navios Holdings controls a core fleet of 33 owned vessels and 27 chartered-in vessels (12 of which have purchase options). The average age of the operating fleet is 4.4 years.

          Owned Fleet. Navios Holdings owns a fleet comprised of 13 modern Ultra Handymax vessels, 15 Capesize vessels, four Panamax vessels and one Product Handysize vessel, whose technical specifications and youth distinguish them in the market,

where, approximately 26% of the drybulk world fleet is composed of 20+ year-old ships. Navios Holdings has committed to acquire seven newbuild Capesize vessels, to be built in South Korea for an aggregate purchase price of approximately $521.4 million.

Owned Vessels

Vessel Name		Vessel Type				Year Built				Deadweight
										(in metric tons)
Navios Ionian		Ultra Handymax					2000				52,067
Navios Vector		Ultra Handymax					2002				50,296
Navios Horizon		Ultra Handymax					2001				50,346
Navios Herakles		Ultra Handymax					2001				52,061
Navios Achilles		Ultra Handymax					2001				52,063
Navios Meridian		Ultra Handymax					2002				50,316
Navios Mercator		Ultra Handymax					2002				53,553
Navios Arc		Ultra Handymax					2003				53,514
Navios Hios		Ultra Handymax					2003				55,180
Navios Kypros		Ultra Handymax					2003				55,222
Navios Ulysses		Ultra Handymax					2007				55,728
Navios Vega		Ultra Handymax					2009				58,792
Navios Celestial		Ultra Handymax					2009				58,063
Navios Magellan		Panamax					2000				74,333
Navios Star		Panamax					2002				76,662
Navios Orbiter		Panamax					2004				76,602
Navios Asteriks		Panamax					2005				76,801
Navios Bonavis		Capesize					2009				180,022
Navios Happiness		Capesize					2009				180,022
Navios Pollux		Capesize					2009				180,727
Navios Lumen		Capesize					2009				180,661
Navios Aurora II		Capesize					2009				169,031
Navios Stellar		Capesize					2009				169,001
Navios Phoenix		Capesize					2009				180,242
Navios Antares		Capesize					2010				169,059
Vanessa(1)		Product Handysize					2002				19,078

Owned Vessels to be delivered

Vessel Name

Vessel Type

Delivery Date

Deadweight

(in metric tons)

Navios Melodia

Capesize

07/2010

180,000

Navios Fulvia

Capesize

08/2010

180,000

Navios Buena Ventura

Capesize

09/2010

180,000

Navios Luz

Capesize

10/2010

180,000

Navios Etoile

Capesize

10/2010

180,000

Navios Hull 1106

Capesize

03/2011

180,000

Navios Bonheur

Capesize

11/2010

180,000

          Long Term Fleet. In addition to the 26 currently operating owned vessels and seven owned vessels to be delivered, Navios Holdings controls a fleet of 10 Capesize, 10 Panamax, five Ultra Handymax, and two Handysize vessels under long term time charters, having an average age of approximately 3.8 years. Of the 27 chartered-in vessels, 17 are currently in operation and 10 are scheduled for delivery at various times up to August 2013, as set forth in the following table:

Long term Chartered-in Fleet in Operation

Year

Purchase

Vessel Name

Vessel Type

Built

Deadweight

Option(1)

(in metric tons)

Navios Astra

Ultra Handymax

2006

53,468

Yes

Navios Primavera

Ultra Handymax

2007

53,464

Yes

Navios Armonia

Ultra Handymax

2008

55,100

No

Navios Cielo

Panamax

2003

75,834

No

Navios Orion

Panamax

2005

76,602

No

Navios Titan

Panamax

2005

82,936

No

Navios Altair

Panamax

2006

83,001

No

Navios Esperanza

Panamax

2007

75,200

No

Torm Antwerp

Panamax

2008

75,250

No

Belisland

Panamax

2003

76,602

No

Golden Heiwa

Panamax

2007

76,662

No

SA Fortius

Capesize

2001

171,595

No

C. Utopia

Capesize

2007

174,000

No

Beaufiks

Capesize

2004

180,181

Yes

Phoenix Beauty

Capesize

2010

169,150

No

Rubena N

Capesize

2006

203,233

No

SC Lotta (Phoenix Grace)

Capesize

2009

170,500

No

Long term Chartered-in Fleet to be Delivered

Purchase

Vessel Name

Vessel Type

Delivery Date

Deadweight

Option(1)

(in metric tons)

Navios TBN

Handysize

02/2011

35,000

Yes(2)

Kleimar TBN

Capesize

04/2010

176,800

No

Navios TBN

Handysize

04/2011

35,000

Yes(2)

Navios TBN

Panamax

09/2011

80,000

Yes

Navios TBN

Capesize

06/2013

180,000

Yes

Navios TBN

Capesize

09/2011

180,200

Yes

Navios TBN

Ultra Handymax

03/2012

61,000

Yes

Kleimar TBN

Capesize

07/2012

180,000

Yes

Navios TBN

Panamax

01/2013

82,100

Yes

Navios TBN

Ultra Handymax

08/2013

61,000

Yes

          Many of Navios Holdings’ current long term chartered-in vessels are chartered from ship owners with whom Navios Holdings has long-standing relationships. Navios Holdings pays these ship owners daily rates of hire for such vessels, and then charters out these vessels to other parties, who pay Navios Holdings a daily rate of hire. Navios Holdings also enters into COAs pursuant to which Navios Holdings has agreed to carry cargoes, typically for industrial customers, who export or import drybulk cargoes. Further, Navios Holdings enters into spot market voyage contracts, where Navios Holdings is paid a rate per ton to carry a specified cargo from point A to point B.

          Short Term Fleet: Navios Holdings’ “short term fleet” is comprised of Capesize, Panamax and Ultra Handymax vessels chartered-in for duration of less than 12 months. The number of short term vessels varies from time to time.

Exercise of Vessel Purchase Options

          Since August 25, 2005, Navios Holdings has executed eleven purchase options consisting of four Ultra Handymax, six Panamax and one Capesize vessel. The Navios Meridian, Navios Mercator, Navios Arc, Navios Galaxy I, Navios Magellan, Navios Horizon, Navios Star, Navios Hyperion, Navios Orbiter, Navios Hope and Navios Fantastiks were delivered at various dates from November 30, 2005 until May 2, 2008. Navios Galaxy I was sold to Navios Partners on November 15, 2007. In addition, on November 15, 2007, the rights to Navios Fantastiks were sold to Navios Partners, while Navios Hope was sold to Navios Partners on July 1, 2008. The acquisition cost of these vessels was approximately $230.4 million. Navios Holdings currently has options to acquire three of the remaining 17 chartered-in vessels currently in operation and nine of the ten long-term chartered-in vessels on order (on two of the eight purchase options Navios Holdings holds a 50% initial purchase option).

          Commercial Ship Management: Commercial management of Navios Holdings’ fleet involves identifying and negotiating charter party employment for the vessels. In addition to its internal commercial ship management capabilities, Navios Holdings uses the services of a related party, Acropolis Chartering & Shipping Inc., based in Piraeus, as well as numerous third-party charter brokers, to solicit, research, and propose charters for its vessels. Charter brokers research and negotiate with different charterers, and propose charters to Navios Holdings for cargoes suitable for carriage by Navios Holdings’ vessels. Navios Holdings then evaluates the employment opportunities available for each type of vessel and arranges cargo and country exclusions, bunkers, loading and discharging conditions, and demurrage.

          Technical Ship Management: The technical management of the owned vessels are conducted out of its Piraeus, Greece office, except for one of Kleimar’s initial owned vessels whose management is performed by an unrelated third party. Navios Holdings provides, through its subsidiary, Navios ShipManagement Inc., technical ship management and maintenance services to its owned vessels and has also provided such services to Navios Partners’ vessels following the management agreement signed at the closing of the IPO of Navios Partners. Based in Piraeus, Greece, this operation is run by experienced professionals who oversee every step of technical management, from the construction of the vessels in Japan to subsequent shipping operations throughout the life of a vessel, including the superintendence of maintenance, repairs and dry docking.

          Operation of the fleet: The operations department, which is located in Greece and Belgium, supervises the post-fixture business of the vessels in Navios Holdings’ fleet (i.e., once the vessel is chartered and being employed) by monitoring their daily positions to ensure that the terms and conditions of the charters are being fulfilled.

          Financial Risk Management: Navios Holdings actively engages in assessing financial risks associated with fluctuating future freight rates, daily time charter hire rates, fuel prices, credit risks, interest rates and foreign exchange rates. Financial risk management is carried out under policies approved and guidelines established by the Company’s executive management.

	•		Freight Rate Risk. Navios Holdings uses FFAs to manage and mitigate its risk to its freight market exposures in shipping capacity and freight commitments and respond to fluctuations in the drybulk shipping market by augmenting its overall long or short position. These FFAs settle monthly in cash on the basis of publicly quoted indices, not physical delivery. These instruments typically cover periods from one month to one year, and are based on time charter rates or freight rates on specific quoted routes. Navios Holdings enters into these FFAs through over-the-counter transactions and over NOS ASA, a Norwegian clearing house, and LCH, the London Clearing House. Navios Holdings’ FFA trading personnel work closely with the chartering group to ensure that the most up-to-date information is incorporated into the company’s commercial ship management strategy and policies. See “Risk Factors — Risks Associated with the Shipping Industry and Our Operations — Trading and complementary hedging activities in freight, tonnages and Forward Freight Agreements (FFAs) subject us to trading risks, and we may suffer trading losses which could adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations” for additional detail on the financial implications, and risks of our use of FFAs.
	•		Credit Risk. Navios Holdings closely monitors its credit exposure to charterers and FFAs counterparties. Navios Holdings has established policies designed to ensure that contracts are entered into with counter-parties that have appropriate credit history. Counter parties and cash transactions are limited to high credit quality collateralized corporations and financial institutions. Most importantly, Navios Holdings has strict guidelines and policies that are designed to limit the amount of credit exposure. We have insured our charter-out contracts through a “AA+” rated governmental agency of a European Union member state, which provides that if the charterer goes into payment default, the insurer will reimburse us for the charter payments under the terms of the policy the remaining term of the charter-out contract (subject to applicable deductibles and other customary limitations for insurance).
	•		Interest Rate Risk. Navios Holdings uses from time to time interest rate swap agreements to reduce exposure to fluctuations in interest rates. Specifically, Navios Holdings has entered into interest rate swap contracts that entitle it to receive interest at floating rates on principal amounts and oblige it to pay interest at fixed rates on the same amounts. Thus, these instruments allow Navios Holdings to raise long term borrowings at floating rates and swap them into fixed rates. Although these instruments are intended to minimize the anticipated financing costs and maximize gains for Navios Holdings that may be set off against interest expense, they may also result in losses, which would increase financing costs. See Note 13 to the audited consolidated financial statements of Navios Holdings for the year ended December 31, 2009, included elsewhere in this document. See also item 11 “Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosure about Market Risks — Interest Rate Risk.”
	•		Foreign Exchange Risk. Although Navios Holdings’ revenues are dollar-based, 13.2% of its expenses related to its Logistics segment are in Uruguayan pesos, Argentinean pesos, Paraguayan Guaranies and Brazilian Reales and 6.2% of its expenses related to operation of its Piraeus and Belgian office are in Euros. Navios Holdings monitors its Euro, Argentinean Peso, Uruguayan Peso, Paraguayan Guarani and Brazilian Real exposure against long term currency forecasts and enters into foreign currency contracts when considered appropriate.

Navios Logistics Operations

          Inception: On January 1, 2008, Navios Holdings formed a South American logistics business through the combination of its existing port operations with a barge and upriver port business that specializes in the transportation and storage of liquid cargoes and the transportation of drybulk cargoes in South America. The combined entity has been named Navios South American Logistics Inc. (“Navios Logistics”).

          Navios Logistics, an end-to-end logistics business which leverages Navios’ transshipment facility in Uruguay with an upriver port facility in Paraguay and dry and wet barge capacity, marked the successful conclusion of an effort Navios Holdings commenced in June 2006, when the Company announced its intention to develop a South American logistics business. Navios Holdings intends to continue growing its South American logistics business by opportunistically acquiring assets complementary to its port terminal and storage facilities.

          Navios Logistics’ initial focus is on the area extending from Brazil to Uruguay on the Paraguay and Parana rivers, considering the region’s growing agricultural and mineral exports, the cost-effectiveness of river transport as compared to available alternatives and its existing transportation infrastructure. We intend to grow the business by capitalizing on the region’s growing agricultural and mineral commodities exports and leveraging the significant cost advantage river transport offers compared to alternatives.

          Water transportation in the Hidrovía Paraguay-Paraná is considered by the governments of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay to be the backbone of plans for integrating regional economies. Expanding navigation of the Paraguay and Parana River system, which is the second largest in South America, will result in an economic boom for the region, drastically reducing transportation costs and providing the resource rich but landlocked areas of Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia and Brazil with direct access to the Atlantic Ocean and thus the entire world.

          Tanker vessels, barges and push boats operations

          Overview: Navios Logistics operates different types of tanker vessels, push boats and wet and dry barges for the delivery of a great range of products meeting the needs of the market between all the ports of the Paraná, Paraguay and Uruguay Rivers System in South America, commonly known as the “Hidrovia” (Waterway). The Hidrovia passes through five countries, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay along its 3,442 kilometers and to maritime facilities of the South American coastline.

          Fleet: Navios Logistics owns or operates more than 230 barges and push boats, including three ocean-going product tanker vessels. Navios Logistics’ fleet consists of the following: three product tanker vessels (ocean-going vessels), 20 push-boats, 157 dry barges, 44 oil barges, three LPG barges, two self-propelled barges and two small oil tankers. Following its formation, Navios Logistics acquired six convoys as of September 2008 for dry cargo transportation, two product tanker vessels (named Estefania H and Makenita H, delivered in July 2008 and June 2009, respectively, with an aggregate capacity of 29,000 dwt. The total vessels’ capability is 38,000 dwt as of December 31, 2009. In February 2010, Navios Logistics took delivery of Sara H, a 9,000 dwt double hulled product oil tanker, which is chartered out for three years. Barges and self-propelled barges provide a total capacity of 327,500 dwt as of December 31, 2009.

          Products transported: Navios Logistics transports through the Hidrovia to maritime facilities of the South American coastline liquid cargo (hydrocarbons such as crude oil, gas oil, naphtha, fuel oil and JP1 and vegetable oils), liquefied cargo (Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG)) and dry cargo (cereals, cotton pellets, soy bean, wheat, limestone (clinker), mineral iron, and rolling stones). During 2009, the company transported more 3.3 million cubic meter of liquids or tons of dry cargo (2.7 million in 2008, 1.9 million in 2007, 1.5 million in 2006), disaggregated in more than 2.6 million cubic meters of liquids, more than 700 thousand tons of dry cargo, and more than 12 thousand cubic meters of LPG.

          Navios Logistics contracts its vessels either on a time charter basis or COA basis.

          Drybulk Cargo — Soybeans: Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay produced more than 40 million tons of

soybeans in 1995 and more than 96.0 million tons in 2009, a compound annual growth rate of more than 10% in that period. These countries accounted for a 45% of world soybean production in 2009, down from 53% in 2008, due to a decrease in South American soybean production in 2009 caused by significant droughts. Their market share has grown from only 30% in 1995. Production for these countries for 2010 is estimated at 129.0 million tons which will represent a 51% of world soybean production for this year. The installation of crushing plants in Bolivia and Paraguay has generated a large volume of vegetable oils and soybean meal that are also shipped via the river for export. Further, with advances in technology, productivity of farmland has also improved.

          Drybulk Cargo — Iron Ore: In the Corumba area in Brazil near the High Paraguay River, there are three large iron ore mines out of which two are owned by the international mining company Vale (following the announced acquisition of Rio Tinto’s assets related to its operation in Corumba) and the third one is owned by MMX Mineração & Metálicos S.A. (MMX). Their combined production of iron ore, which is entirely transported by barges, has grown significantly during past years.

          Oil transportation in Paraguay: Paraguay has no local sources of petroleum, and consequently petroleum must be imported. Barges using the rivers in the Hidrovia are currently the preferred method of supplying Paraguay with crude and petroleum products. All the petroleum products travel north to destinations in Northern Argentina, Paraguay and Bolivia, creating synergies with dry cargo volumes that mostly travel south. Brazil does not yet transport any significant quantity of petroleum products via the rivers in the Hidrovia, mainly due to lack of discharge facilities. Currently, interior regions of Brazil near the Hidrovia are supplied over land by truck. However, incentives exist to switch to barge transportation for petroleum product distribution to Brazilian cities near the river.

          Fleet developments and utilization in the region: In the last ten years the barge fleet in the Hidrovia has more than doubled, while maintaining a high level of utilization. This has occurred not only due to the growth of production in the area, but also because cargo that in the past was transported by truck started to shift to river transport.

          We believe that the available barge fleet in the area consists approximately of 1,500 dry and tank barges, in contrast with approximately 26,500 barges in the Mississippi River System in the United States.

          Oil Tanker Industry Overview

          The demand for tankers is a function of the volume of crude oil and petroleum products to be transported by sea and the distance between areas of oil consumption and oil production. The volume of crude oil and petroleum products transported is affected by overall demand for these products, which in turn is influenced by, among other things, general economic conditions, oil prices, weather, competition from alternative energy sources, and environmental concerns.

          Liquid Port and Terminal Operations

          Overview: In the region of San Antonio, Paraguay, Navios Logistics owns and operates an up-river port terminal containing tank storage for petroleum products, oil and gas. The port facility is used to supply international operators from Paraguay and Bolivia, to serve the growing demand for energy. Earnings derive from a tariff based on storage and logistic services in the plant expressed in dollars per metric ton of liquid products (which are petroleum derivatives such as fuel, oil and gas). The business is carried out through two main types of operations: purchase and sale of petroleum products and storage and handling services which relate mainly to services of inbound, storage and outbound of liquids and gas, or transporting them directly from the barges to the trucks. The company has fiscal tanks approved by the National Custom Office, which becomes a comparative advantage to other suppliers dedicated to the field.

          Sales of products: When international prices of oil market allows to compete with the price of diesel established and regulated by Petropar, PetroSan sells the product. During the year ended December 31, 2009 we have marketed 51.500 m3 of fuel oil.

          Most important clients at the Port are Petrobras Paraguay, Esso Standard Paraguay, Puma Energy Paraguay, Barcos y Rodados and YPFB. As of December 31, 2009 the inflow and outflow of liquids fuels derived from oil (primarily diesel and naphthas) was approximately 207,000 m3 (121,000 m3 in 2008 and 90,000 in 2007). These figures indicate a constant and sustained in the provision of services growth.

          Dry Port and Terminal Operations

          Overview: Navios Logistics owns and operates the largest bulk transfer and storage port terminal in Uruguay, one of the most efficient and prominent operations of its kind in South America. Situated in an international tax free trade zone in the port of Nueva Palmira at the confluence of the Parana and Uruguay rivers, the terminal operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week, and is ideally located to provide customers, consisting primarily of leading international grain and commodity houses, with a convenient and efficient outlet for the transfer and storage of a wide range of commodities originating in the Hidrovia region of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay.

          Navios Logistics has had a lease with the Republic of Uruguay dating back to the 1950’s for the land on which it operates. The lease has been extended and may be extended further until 2045 at Navios Logistics’ option. Navios Holdings believes the terms of the lease reflect Navios Holdings’ relationship within the Republic of Uruguay. Additionally, since the Navios Logistics terminal is located in the Nueva Palmira Tax Free Zone, foreign commodities moving through the terminal are free of Uruguayan taxes. Certificates of deposit are also obtainable for commodities entering into the station facility.

          There is considerable scope for further expansion of this bulk terminal operation. Navios Logistics’ has recently been awarded an additional 15 acres of land. With this, Navios Logistics’ Uruguayan port has approximately 52 acres of available river front land for future development. Navios Logistics is in the process of evaluating several alternatives for developing all available space. The increased flow of commodity products through the Nueva Palmira port has allowed Navios Logistics to steadily increase throughput.

          Although it is one of the smaller countries in South America, Uruguay is regarded as one of the most stable countries in the continent. The population is almost 100% literate, with a large middle class and a well-established democracy. The banking system is modern and efficient by international standards.

          Port Infrastructure: The port terminal stands out in the region because of its sophisticated design, efficiency, and multimodal operations. The Navios Logistics dry port terminal has specially designed storage facilities and conveying systems that provide tremendous flexibility in cargo movements that help to avoid delays to trucks, vessels and barge convoys. The port terminal offers 350,000 tons (soybean basis) of clean and secure grain silo capacity. With eight silos (some with internal separations) available for storage, customers are assured their commodities will be naturally separated. The port terminal has the latest generation, high precision, independent weigh scales, both for discharging and loading activity.

          The port terminal has two docks. The main outer dock is 240 meters long and accommodates vessels of up to 85,000 dwt loading to the maximum permitted draft of the Martin Garcia Bar and Mitre Canal. The dock has three modern ship loaders capable of loading vessels at rates of up to 20,000 tons per day, depending on commodity. The inner face of this dock is equipped for discharging barge convoys. The secondary inner dock measures 170 meters long and is dedicated to the discharge of barge convoys. This activity is carried out on both sides of the dock. The terminal is capable of discharging barge convoys at rates averaging 10,000 to 14,000 tons per day, depending on the type of barges and commodity. Fixed duty cycle cranes located on each dock carry out the discharging of barge convoys. The process is optimized through the selection of the most appropriate size and type of buckets according to the commodity to be discharged.

          Port Operation: The commodities most frequently handled include grain and grain by-products, as well as some ores and sugar. The port terminal receives bulk cargoes from barges, trucks, and vessels, and either transfers them directly to drybulk carriers or stores them in its own modern silos for later shipment.

          Dedicated professionals operate the port terminal, taking pride in the quality of service and responsiveness to customer requirements. Management is attentive to commodity storage conditions seeking to maintain customer commodity separation at all times and minimize handling losses. The port terminal operates 24 hours per day, seven days per week, to provide barge and ship traffic with safe and fast turnarounds. The ability to conduct multiple operations simultaneously involving ocean vessels, barges, trucks, and grain silos further enables the port terminal to efficiently service customers’ needs.

          The port terminal has a uniquely simple pricing policy using a fixed fee structure for its clients. Other regional competitors charge clients a complicated fee structure, with many variable add-on charges. Navios’ pricing policy provides clients with a transparent, comprehensive, and hassle-free quote that has been extremely well-received by port patrons. The Uruguay port terminal operations present the additional advantage of generating revenue in U.S. dollars, whereas the majority of its costs are in local currency.

          Future Growth: The table below highlights the gradual development of export volumes through the Navios Logistics facility in Nueva Palmira, and Navios Logistics believes this growth will continue as countries in the region continue to drive for larger hard currency income.

          Navios Logistics’ Uruguay Annual Throughput Volumes (metric tones in million)

          Navios Logistics’ Uruguay Export Market: Over the past few years, Uruguay has begun to develop its grain exports that, historically, were very small because land was allocated to cattle and sheep farming. The rapid rise in Uruguayan exports is apparent from the chart below. Most importantly for the Navios Logistics port terminal, the natural growth area for grain in Uruguay is in the western region of the country on land that is located in close proximity to Nueva Palmira.

          Uruguay Wheat and Soy Actual and Projected Exports

          

          Source: MGAYP — Uruguayan Agricultural Ministry and Blasina & Tardáguila Consultores Asociados.

          In 2004, the construction of four new cylindrical silos was completed. The silos were designed specifically to receive Uruguayan commodities. Before these silos had been completed, local exporters had booked their total capacity for a period of three years. This was the first time in the terminal’s history that additional silo capacity was booked before completion of construction. As a result of yet further significant new customer demand from companies such as ADM, Cargill, Louis Dreyfus, and Bunge, as well as from a number of smaller local grain merchandisers, in September 2005 and June 2009, respectively, two new silos, 90,000 metric tons and 80,000 metric tons storage capacity, respectively, were constructed, and are currently the largest in Uruguay.

Customers

Fleet

The international drybulk shipping industry is highly fragmented and, as a result, there are numerous charterers. Navios Holdings’ assessment of a charterer’s financial condition and reliability is an important factor in negotiating employment of its vessels. Navios Holdings generally charters its vessels to major trading houses (including commodities traders), major producers and government- owned entities rather than to more speculative or undercapitalized entities. Navios Holdings’ customers under charter parties, COAs, and its counterparties under FFAs, include national, regional and international companies, such as BHP Billiton Marketing, Arcelor

Mittal, Oldendorff Carriers GmbH & Co, Cargill International SA, COSCO Bulk Carriers Ltd., Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd., Korea Line Corporation, Daichi Chuokisen, STX Pan Ocean Co., Baosteel, Sanko Steamship and Sangamon Transportation. For the year ended December 31, 2009, one customer accounted for 13.2% of the Company’s revenue. For the year ended December 31, 2008 and 2007 none of the customers accounted for more than 10% of the Company’s revenue

Tanker vessels, barges and push boats operations

          Navios Logistics has a diverse customer base including large and well-known petroleum and agricultural companies. Some of the significant customers in the last three years include Shell Argentina, Shell Paraguay, Exxon Mobil, Cargill, Molinos, Vicentin, Petrobras (the national oil company of Brazil), Petropar (the national oil company of Paraguay), Glencore, Repsol YPF, Repsol YPF Bolivia and Louis Dreyfus. In 2009, the four largest customers were Petropar, Terminales Paraguayas S.R.L, a subsidiary of Petrobras, Esso Petrolera Argentina, a subsidiary of Exxon Mobil Corporation, and Shell, a subsidiary of Royal Dutch Shell plc, which accounted for 11.5%, 10.7%, 10.4% and 10.2% of Navios Logistics’ freight revenue, respectively (15.2%, 3.7%, 9.0% and 5.4% in 2008, respectively).

Dry Port Terminal

          Navios Logistics’ port terminal at Nueva Palmira, Uruguay conducts business with customers engaged in the international sales of agricultural commodities, which book portions of the port terminal’s silo capacity and transship cargoes through the terminal. In 2009, Agrograin a subsidiary of Archer Daniels Midland group (ADM), Cargill, and Uruagri a subsidiary of Louis Dreyfus (LDC) were the customers accounting for the larger movements in volume. In 2009, ADM accounted for 30.7%, LDC accounted for 17.4% and Cargill accounted for 7.3% of the port terminal’s revenue. In 2008, the three largest customers of the port terminal were too Agrograin, Cargill and Uruagri, which accounted for 35.1%, 19.2%, and 13.1% of the port terminal’s revenue, respectively.

Competition

          The drybulk shipping markets are extensive, diversified, competitive and highly fragmented, divided among approximately 1,400 independent drybulk carrier owners. The world’s active drybulk fleet consists of approximately 7,000 vessels, aggregating approximately 460 million dwt. As a general principle, the smaller the cargo carrying capacity of a drybulk carrier, the more fragmented is its market, both with regard to charterers and vessel owner/operators. Even among the larger drybulk owners and operators, whose vessels are mainly in the larger sizes, only five companies are known to have fleets of 100 vessels or more: the two largest Chinese shipping companies, China Ocean Shipping and China Shipping Group and the three largest Japanese shipping companies, Mitsui O.S.K. Lines, Kawasaki Kisen and Nippon Yusen Kaisha. There are about 40 owners known to have fleets of between 20 and 100 vessels. However, vessel ownership is not the only determinant of fleet control. Many owners of bulk carriers charter their vessels out for extended periods, not just to end users (owners of cargo), but also to other owner/operators and to tonnage pools. Such operators may, at any given time, control a fleet many times the size of their owned tonnage. Navios Holdings is one such operator; others include Cargill, Pacific Basin Shipping, Bocimar, Zodiac Maritime, Louis Dreyfus/Cetragpa, Cobelfret and Torvald Klaveness.

          It is likely that we will face substantial competition for long term charter business from a number of experienced companies. Many of these competitors will have significantly greater financial resources than we do. It is also likely that we will face increased numbers of competitors entering into our transportation sectors, including in the drybulk sector. Many of these competitors have strong reputations and extensive resources and experience. Increased competition may cause greater price competition, especially for long term charters.

Intellectual Property

          We consider NAVIOS to be our proprietary trademark, service mark and trade name. We hold several U.S. trademark registrations for our proprietary logos and the domain name registration for our website.

Governmental and Other Regulations

          Sources of applicable rules and standards: Shipping is one of the world’s most heavily regulated industries, and in addition it is subject to many industry standards. Government regulation significantly affects the ownership and operation of vessels. These regulations consist mainly of rules and standards established by international conventions, but they also include national, state, and local laws and regulations in force in jurisdictions where vessels may operate or are registered, and which are commonly more stringent that international rules and standards. This is the case particularly in the United States and, increasingly, in Europe.

          A variety of governmental and private entities subject vessels to both scheduled and unscheduled inspections. These entities include local port authorities (the U.S. Coast Guard, harbor masters or equivalent entities), classification societies, flag state administration (country vessel of registry), state and local governmental pollution control agencies and charterers, particularly terminal operators. Certain of these entities require vessel owners to obtain permits, licenses, and certificates for the operation of their vessels. Failure to maintain necessary permits or approvals could require a vessel owner to incur substantial costs or temporarily suspend operation of one or more of its vessels.

          Heightened levels of environmental and quality concerns among insurance underwriters, regulators, and charterers continue

to lead 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 stricter environmental standards. Vessel owners are required to maintain operating standards for all vessels that will emphasize operational safety, quality maintenance, continuous training of officers and crews and compliance with U.S. and international regulations.

          International environmental regulations: The International Maritime Organization, or IMO, has negotiated a number of international conventions concerned with preventing, reducing or controlling pollution from ships. These fall into two main categories, one consisting of those concerned generally with ship safety standards, and the other of those specifically concerned with measures to prevent pollution.

          Ship safety standards: In the former category, the primary international instrument is the Safety of Life at Sea Convention 1974, as amended, (SOLAS), together with the regulations and codes of practice that form part of its regime. Much of SOLAS is not directly concerned with preventing pollution, but some of its safety provisions are intended to prevent pollution as well as promote safety of life and preservation of property. These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended as new and higher safety standards are introduced with which we are required to comply.

          An amendment of SOLAS introduced the ISM Code, which has been effective since July 1998. Under the ISM Code the party with operational control of a vessel is required 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. 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 code requirements for a safety management system. No vessel can obtain a certificate unless its manager has been awarded a document of compliance, issued by the respective flag state for the vessel, under the ISM Code. Noncompliance with the ISM Code and other IMO regulations may subject a ship owner 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. For example, the United States Coast Guard and European Union authorities have indicated that vessels not in compliance with the ISM Code will be prohibited from trading in ports in the United States and European Union.

          Another amendment of SOLAS, made after the terrorist attacks in the United States on September 11, 2001, introduced special measures to enhance maritime security, including the International Ship and Port Facilities Security Code (ISPS Code).

          Our owned fleet maintains ISM and ISPS certifications for safety and security of operations. In addition, we voluntarily implement and maintain certifications pursuant to the International Organization for Standardization, or ISO, for its office and ships covering both quality of services and environmental protection (ISO 9001 and ISO 14001, respectively).

          Regulations to prevent pollution from ships: In the secondary main category of international regulation, the primary instrument is the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, or MARPOL, which imposes environmental standards on the shipping industry set out in Annexes I-VI of the Convention. These contain regulations for the prevention of pollution by oil (Annex I), by noxious liquid substances in bulk (Annex II) by harmful substances in packaged forms within the scope of the International Maritime Dangerous Goods Code (Annex III), by sewage (Annex IV), by garbage (Annex V), and by air emissions (Annex VI).

          These regulations have been and continue to be regularly amended as new and higher standards of pollution prevention with which we are required to comply are introduced.

          For example, MARPOL Annex VI, together with the NOx Technical Code established thereunder, sets limits on sulfur oxide and nitrogen oxide emissions from ship exhausts and prohibits deliberate emissions of ozone depleting substances, such as chlorofluorocarbons. It 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. Originally adopted in September 1997, Annex VI came into force in May 2005 and was amended in October 2008 (as was the NOx Technical Code) to provide for progressively more stringent limits on such emissions from 2010 onwards. Pursuant to Annex VI, the United States and Canada have applied jointly to have all waters within 200 nautical miles of the coast of these countries deemed an ECA, which would require the use of lower sulfur fuels in these waters. These regulations are enforced by the member states. We anticipate incurring costs in complying with these more stringent standards.

          Greenhouse Gas Emissions: In February 2005, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change entered into force. Pursuant to the 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 greenhouse gas emissions from international shipping do not come under the Kyoto Protocol. The European Union confirmed in April 2007 that it plans to expand the European Union emissions trading scheme by adding vessels. In the United States (which did not join the Protocol), the California Attorney General and a coalition of environmental groups petitioned the EPA in October 2007 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going ships under the Clean Air Act. While the petition was originally denied, the new EPA Administration is reconsidering the petition in its entirety. The UN Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen resulted in only very limited international accord on the subject of greenhouse gas emissions from ships, with no agreement reached speficially in relation to shipping, but emissions from ships were the subject of considerable debate, when expectations were voiced that the IMO continue its examination of such emissions with a view to introducing measures to reduce and control them. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, or individual

countries where we operate that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels could require us to make significant financial expenditures that we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

          Other international regulations to prevent pollution: In addition to MARPOL, more specialized international instruments have been adopted to prevent different types of pollution or environmental harm from ships. In February 2004, the IMO adopted an International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments, or the BWM Convention. 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 enter into force until 12 months after it has been adopted by 30 states, the combined merchant fleets of which represent not less than 35% of the gross tonnage of the world’s merchant shipping. To date, there has not been sufficient adoption of this standard by governments that are members of the convention for it to take force. Moreover, the IMO has supported deferring the requirements of this convention that would first come into effect to December 31, 2011, even if it were to be adopted earlier.

          European regulations: European regulations in the maritime sector are generally based on international law. However, since the Erika incident in 1999, the European community has become increasingly active in the field of regulation of maritime safety and protection of the environment. It has been the driving force behind a number of amendments of MARPOL (including, for example, changes to accelerate the time-table for the phase-out of single hull tankers, and to prohibit the carriage in such tankers of heavy grades of oil), and if dissatisfied either with the extent of such amendments or with the time-table for their introduction, has been prepared to legislate on a unilateral basis. In some instances where it has done so, international regulations have subsequently been amended to the same level of stringency as that introduced in Europe, but the risk is well established that EU regulations may from time to time impose burdens and costs on ship owners and operators which are additional to those involved in complying with international rules and standards.

          In some areas of regulation, the European Union has introduced new laws without attempting to procure a corresponding amendment of international law. A directive on ship-source pollution was adopted in 2005, imposing criminal sanctions for pollution not only caused by intent or recklessness (which would be an offense under MARPOL), but also caused by “serious negligence”. The directive could therefore result in criminal liability being incurred in circumstances where criminal liability would not be otherwise incurred under international law. Experience has shown that in the emotive atmosphere often associated with pollution incidents, the negligence alleged by prosecutors has often been found by courts on grounds which the international maritime community has found hard to understand. Moreover, there is skepticism that “serious negligence” is likely to prove any narrower in practice than ordinary negligence. Criminal liability for a pollution incident could not only result in us incurring substantial penalties or fines, but may also, in some jurisdictions, facilitate civil liability claims for greater compensation than would otherwise have been payable.

          United States Environmental Regulations and laws governing civil liability for pollution: Environmental legislation in the United States merits particular mention as it is in many respects more onerous than international laws, representing a high-water mark of regulation with which ship owners and operators must comply, and of liability likely to be incurred in the event of non-compliance or an incident causing pollution. Additionally, pursuant to the federal laws, each state may enact more stringent regulations, thus subjecting ship owners to dual liability. Notably, California has adopted regulations that parallel most, if not all of the federal regulations explained below. We intend to comply with all applicable state regulations in the ports where our vessels call.

          U.S. federal legislation, including notably the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, or OPA 90, establishes an extensive regulatory and liability regime for the protection and cleanup of the environment from oil spills, including bunker oil spills from drybulk vessels as well as cargo or bunker oil spills from tankers. OPA 90 affects all owners and operators whose vessels trade in the United States, its territories and possessions or whose vessels operate in United States waters, which includes the United States’ territorial sea and its 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone. Under OPA 90, vessel owners, operators and bareboat charterers 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 substantial threats of discharges, of oil from their vessels. In addition to potential liability under OPA 90 as the relevant federal legislation, vessel owners may in some instances incur liability on an even more stringent basis under state law in the particular state where the spillage occurred. For example, California regulates oil spills pursuant to California Government Code section 8670 et seq. These regulations prohibit the discharge of oil, require an oil contingency plan be filed with the state, require that the ship owner contract with an oil response organization and require a valid certificate of financial responsibility, all prior to the vessel entering state waters.

          Title VII of the Coast Guard and Maritime Transportation Act of 2004, or the CGMTA, amended OPA 90 to require the owner or operator of any non-tank vessel of 400 gross tons or more that carries oil of any kind as a fuel for main propulsion, including bunkers, to prepare and submit a response plan for each vessel on or before August 8, 2005. Prior to this amendment, these provisions of OPA 90 applied only to vessels that carry oil in bulk as cargo. However, before the federal requirements took effect, many of the individual states had previously adopted requirements for response plans for both non-tank and vessels. The vessel response plans must include detailed information on actions to be taken by vessel personnel to prevent or mitigate any discharge or substantial threat of such a discharge of ore from the vessel due to operational activities or casualties. OPA 90 had historically limited liability of responsible parties to the greater of $600 per gross ton or $0.5 million per containership that is over 300 gross tons (subject to possible adjustment for inflation). Amendments to OPA 90 which came into effect on July 11, 2006 increased the liability limits for responsible parties for any vessel other than a tank vessel to $950 per gross ton or $0.8 million, whichever is greater. For tank vessels the limit depends on the size and construction of the vessel, and can be up to $3,000 per gross ton or $22 million, whichever is greater.

          These limits of liability do not apply if an incident was directly caused by violation of applicable United States federal safety, construction or operating regulations or by a responsible party’s gross negligence or willful misconduct, or if the responsible party fails or refuses to report the incident or to cooperate and assist in connection with oil removal activities. In addition, liability under some state laws do not include any limits, and thus, while limitation may be available under federal law, liability under state law is considered unlimited forcing a vessel owner or operator to first pay under state law and then possibly seek reimbursement from the federal government under the limitation provisions of OPA 90.

          In addition, 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, 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 $0.5 million for vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue, unless the incident is caused by gross negligence, willful misconduct, or a violation of certain regulations, in which case liability is unlimited.

          We currently maintain, for each of our owned vessels, insurance coverage against pollution liability risks in the amount of $1.0 billion per incident. The insured risks include penalties and fines as well as civil liabilities and expenses resulting from accidental pollution. However, this insurance coverage is subject to exclusions, deductibles and other terms and conditions. If any liabilities or expenses fall within an exclusion from coverage, or if damages from a catastrophic incident exceed the $1.0 billion limitation of coverage per incident, our cash flow, profitability and financial position could be adversely impacted.

          OPA 90 requires owners and operators of all vessels over 300 gross tons, even those that do not carry petroleum or hazardous substances as cargo, to establish and maintain with the U.S. Coast Guard evidence of financial responsibility sufficient to meet their potential liabilities under OPA 90. The U.S. Coast Guard has implemented regulations requiring evidence of financial responsibility in the amount of $900 per gross ton, which includes the OPA 90 limitation on liability of $600 per gross ton and the CERCLA liability limit of $300 per gross ton for vessels not carrying hazardous substances as cargo or residue. Under the regulations, vessel owners and operators may evidence their financial responsibility by showing proof of insurance, surety bond, self-insurance or guaranty. On February 6, 2008, the U.S. Coast Guard proposed amendments to the financial responsibility regulations to increase the required amount of such COFRs to $1,250 per gross ton to reflect the 2006 increases in limits on OPA 90 liability. The increased amounts will become effective 90 days after the proposed regulations are finalized. We believe our insurance coverage as described above meets the requirements of OPA 90.

          Under OPA 90, an owner or operator of a fleet of vessels is required only to demonstrate evidence of financial responsibility in an amount sufficient to cover the vessel in the fleet having the greatest maximum liability under OPA 90. Under the self-insurance provisions, the ship owner or operator must have a net worth and working capital, measured in assets located in the United States against liabilities located anywhere in the world, that exceeds the applicable amount of financial responsibility. We have complied with the U.S. Coast Guard regulations by providing a certificate of responsibility from third party entities that are acceptable to the U.S. Coast Guard evidencing sufficient self-insurance.

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

          The United States Clean Water Act prohibits the discharge of oil or hazardous substances in U.S. navigable waters and imposes strict liability in the form of penalties for unauthorized discharges. The Clean Water Act also imposes substantial liability for the costs of removal, remediation and damages, and complements the remedies available under CERCLA. Pursuant to regulations promulgated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (the “EPA”), in the early 1970s, the discharge of sewage and effluent from properly functioning marine engines was exempted from the permit requirements of the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System. This exemption allowed vessels in U.S. ports to discharge certain substances, including ballast water, without obtaining a permit to do so. However, on March 30, 2005, a U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted summary judgment to certain environmental groups and U.S. states that had challenged the EPA regulations, arguing that the EPA exceeded its authority in promulgating them. On September 18, 2006, the U.S. District Court issued an order invalidating the exemption in the EPA’s regulations for all discharges incidental to the normal operation of a vessel and directing the EPA to develop a system for regulating all discharges from vessels by that date.

          To comply with this court mandate, EPA issued a final vessel general permit (“VGP”), that establishes effluent discharge limits for 28 different vessel discharges. We are required to comply with the terms of the permit, including the state specific conditions imposed by the individual states in certifying the permit. In addition, we will be required to file a notice of intent to continue operations under the VGP, or file for an individual permit. We are required to install the necessary controls to meet these limitations and/or otherwise restrict our vessel traffic in U.S. waters. The installation, operation and upkeep of these systems increase

our costs of operating in the United States and other jurisdictions where similar requirements might be adopted. In addition, states have enacted legislation or regulations to address invasive species through ballast water and hull cleaning management and permitting requirements.

          The Federal Clean Air Act (“CAA”), requires the EPA to promulgate standards applicable to emissions of volatile organic compounds and other air contaminants. Our vessels are subject to CAA vapor control and recovery standards for cleaning fuel tanks and conducting other operations in regulated port areas and emissions standards for so-called “Category 3” marine diesel engines operating in U.S. waters. The marine diesel engine emission standards are currently limited to new engines beginning with the 2004 model year. TheEPA recently adopted new final emission standards under the Clean Air Act for Category 3 marine diesel engines installed on U.S.-flagged vessels. The final engine standards are equivalent to those adopted in the amendments to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships. The EPA has also been required pursuant to litigation, to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. EPA has just begun the process and recently published the mandatory greenhouse gas reporting regulation. While these regulations currently require engine manufacturers to report engine emissions, EPA has made it clear that they intend to continue gathering information on whether it should require engine operators to also report. EPA may also adopt regulations near-term, to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These regulations would add to the operational and control equipment costs incurred in complying with criteria pollutant regulations.

          The last few years have seen an increase in air pollution regulations by U.S. state and local authorities applying to the shipping industry. California, in particular, has adopted regulations requiring the use of Shoreside power for shipping fleets, banning incineration within local waters, requiring the use of low sulfur fuels, and proposals to reduce vessel speeds. These regulations impose standards and monitoring requirements on vessel owners and operators. These regulations require expenditures to add controls or operating methods as well as liabilities for noncompliance.

          As noted above, in the United States, the California Attorney General and a coalition of environmental groups petitioned the EPA in October 2007 to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from ocean-going ships under the Clean Air Act. Any passage of climate control legislation or other regulatory initiatives by the IMO, European Union, or individual countries where we operate, including the U.S., that restrict emissions of greenhouse gases from vessels could require us to make significant financial expenditures, the amount of which we cannot predict with certainty at this time.

          Security Regulations: Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, there have been a variety of initiatives implemented to enhance vessel security. On November 25, 2002, MTSA came into effect. To implement certain portions of the MTSA, in July 2003, the United States Coast Guard issued regulations requiring the implementation of certain security requirements aboard vessels operating in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Similarly, in December 2002, amendments to SOLAS created a new chapter of the convention dealing specifically with maritime security. The new chapter went into effect on July 1, 2004, and imposes various detailed security obligations on vessels and port authorities, most of which are contained in the newly created ISPS Code. Among the various requirements are:

	•		on-board installation of automatic information systems to enhance vessel-to-vessel and vessel-to-shore communications;
	•		on-board installation of ship security alert systems;
	•		the development of vessel security plans; and
	•		compliance with flag state security certification requirements.

          The U.S. Coast Guard regulations, intended to be aligned with international maritime security standards, exempt non-U.S. vessels from MTSA vessel security measures provided such vessels have on board, by July 1, 2004, a valid ISSC Certificate that attests to the vessel’s compliance with SOLAS security requirements and the ISPS Code. The vessels in our initial fleet have on board valid ISSC Certificates and, therefore, are exempt from obtaining U.S. Coast Guard-approved MTSA security plans.

International laws governing civil liability to pay compensation or damages:

          In 2001, the IMO adopted the International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage, or the “Bunker Convention”, which imposes strict liability on ship owners for pollution damage in jurisdictional waters of ratifying states caused by discharges of “bunker oil.” The Bunker Convention defines “bunker oil” as “any hydrocarbon mineral oil, including lubricating oil, used or intended to be used for the operation or propulsion of the ship, and any residues of such oil.” The Bunker Convention also requires registered owners of ships over a certain size to maintain insurance for pollution damage in an amount equal to the limits of liability under the applicable national or international limitation regime (but not exceeding the amount calculated in accordance with the Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims of 1976, as amended). The Bunker Convention became effective on November 21, 2008, and by early 2010 was in effect in 47 states. In other jurisdictions, liability for spills or releases of oil from ships’ bunkers continues to be determined by the national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the events or damages occur.

          Apart from the drybulk vessels in our fleet, Navios Logistics acquires and operates tankers, which in certain circumstances may be subject to national and international laws governing pollution from such vessels. When a t tanker is carrying a cargo of

“persistent oil” as defined by the Civil Liability Convention 1992 (CLC) her owner bears strict liability for any pollution damage caused in a contracting state by an escape or discharge from her cargo or from her bunker tanks. This liability is subject to a financial limit calculated by reference to the tonnage of the ship, and the right to limit liability may be lost if the spill is caused by the shipowner’s intentional or reckless conduct. Liability may also be incurred under CLC for a bunker spill from the vessel even when she is not carrying such a cargo, but is in ballast.

          When a tanker is carrying clean oil products which do not constitute “persistent oil” for the purposes of CLC, liability for any pollution damage will generally fall outside the Convention and will depend on national or other domestic laws in the jurisdiction where the spillage occurs. The same applies to any pollution from the vessel in a jurisdiction which is not a party to the Convention. The Convention applies in over 100 states around the world, but it does not apply in the United States of America, where the corresponding liability laws are noted for being particularly stringent.

          Outside the United States, national laws generally provide for the owner to bear strict liability for pollution, subject to a right to limit liability under applicable national or international regimes for limitation of liability. The most widely applicable international regime limiting maritime pollution liability is the 1976 Convention. Rights to limit liability under the 1976 Convention are forfeited where a spill is caused by a ship-owners intentional or reckless conduct. Some states have ratified the 1996 Protocol to the 1976 Convention, which provides for liability limits substantially higher than those set forth in the 1976 Convention to apply in such states. Finally, some jurisdictions are not a party to either the 1976 Convention or the 1996 Protocol, and, therefore, ship-owners’ rights to limit liability for maritime pollution in such jurisdictions may be uncertain.

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

          The classification society also undertakes, on request, other surveys and checks that are required by regulations and requirements of the flag state. These surveys are subject to agreements made in each individual case or to the regulations of the country concerned. For maintenance of the class, regular and extraordinary surveys of hull, machinery (including the electrical plant) and any special equipment classed are required to be performed as follows:

	•		Annual Surveys: For sea-going ships, annual surveys are conducted for the hull and the machinery (including the electrical plant) and, where applicable, for special equipment classed, at intervals of 12 months from the date of commencement of the class period indicated in the certificate.
	•		Intermediate Surveys: Extended annual surveys are referred to as intermediate surveys and typically are conducted two and one-half years after commissioning and each class renewal. Intermediate surveys may be carried out on the occasion of the second or third annual survey.
	•		Class Renewal Surveys: Class renewal surveys, also known as special surveys, are carried out for the ship’s hull, machinery (including the electrical plant), and for any special equipment classed, at the intervals indicated by the character of classification for the hull. At the special survey, the vessel is thoroughly examined, including audio-gauging, to determine the thickness of its steel structure. Should the thickness be found to be less than class requirements, the classification society would prescribe steel renewals. The classification society may grant a one-year grace period for completion of the special survey. Substantial amounts of money may have to be spent for steel renewals to pass a special survey if the vessel experiences excessive wear and tear. In lieu of the special survey every four or five years, depending on whether a grace period was granted, a ship owner has the option of arranging with the classification society for the vessel’s integrated hull or machinery to be on a continuous survey cycle, in which every part of the vessel would be surveyed within a five-year cycle.

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, business interruption due to political circumstances in foreign countries, hostilities, and labor strikes. In addition, there is always an inherent possibility of marine disaster, including oil spills and other environmental mishaps, and the liabilities arising from owning and operating vessels in international trade. OPA 90, which imposes virtually unlimited liability upon owners, operators and demise charterers of any vessel trading in the United States exclusive economic zone for certain oil pollution accidents in the United States, has made liability insurance more expensive for ship owners and operators trading in the U.S. market. While we believe that our present insurance coverage is adequate, not all risks can be insured against, and there can be no guarantee that any specific claim will be paid, or that we will always be able to obtain adequate insurance coverage at reasonable rates.

          Hull and Machinery and War Risk Insurances: We have marine hull and machinery and war risk insurance, which include coverage of the risk of actual or constructive total loss, for all of our owned vessels. Each of the owned vessels is covered up to at least

fair market value, with a deductible of $0.1 million per Panamax, $0.2 million per Capesize and $0.8 million per Ultra-Handymax vessel for the hull and machinery insurance. There are no deductibles for the war risk insurance. We have also arranged increased value insurance our owned vessels. Under the increased value insurance, in case of total loss of the vessel, we will be able to recover the sum insured under the increased value policy in addition to the sum insured under the hull and machinery policy. Increased value insurance also covers excess liabilities that are not recoverable in full by the hull and machinery policies by reason of under-insurance.

          Protection and Indemnity Insurance: Protection and indemnity insurance is provided by mutual protection and indemnity associations, or P&I Associations. This insurance covers third-party liabilities in connection with its shipping activities. This includes third party liability and other related expenses for injury or death of crew, passengers and other third parties, loss of or damage to cargo, claims arising from collisions with other vessels, damage to other third-party property, pollution arising from oil or other substances, 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.” Subject to the “capping” discussed below for pollution, our coverage is $5.4 billion per incident. Our current protection and indemnity insurance coverage for each owned vessel for pollution is $1.0 billion per vessel per incident. The 13 P&I Associations that comprise the International Group insure approximately 90% of the world’s commercial tonnage and have entered into a pooling agreement to reinsure each association’s liabilities. 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 pool of P&I Associations comprising the International Group.

          Uninsured Risks: Not all risks are insured and not all risks are insurable. The principal insurable risks which nonetheless remain uninsured across our fleet are “loss of hire” and “strikes.” Navios Holdings does not insure these risks because the costs are regarded as disproportionate. These insurances provide, subject to a deductible, a limited indemnity for hire that would not be receivable by the ship-owner for reasons set forth in the policy. Should a vessel on time charter, where the vessel is paid a fixed hire day-by-day, suffer a serious mechanical breakdown, the daily hire will no longer be payable by the charterer. The purpose of the loss of hire insurance is to secure the loss of hire during such periods. In the case of strikes insurance, if a vessel is being paid a fixed sum to perform a voyage and the ship becomes strike bound at a loading or discharging port, the insurance covers the loss of earnings during such periods.

          Credit Risk Insurance: Receivables under our charter-out contracts have been insured through a “AA+” rated governmental agency of a European Union member state, which provides that if the charterer goes into payment default, the insurer will reimburse us for the charter payments under the terms of the policy for the remaining term of the charter-out contract (subject to applicable deductibles and other customary limitations for such insurance).

Risk Management

          Risk management in the shipping industry involves balancing a number of factors in a cyclical and potentially volatile environment. Fundamentally, the challenge is to appropriately allocate capital to competing opportunities of owning or chartering vessels. In part, this requires a view of the overall health of the market, as well as an understanding of capital costs and returns. Thus, stated simply, one may charter-in part of a fleet as opposed to owning the entire fleet to maximize risk management and economic results. This is coupled with the challenge posed by the complex logistics of ensuring that the vessels controlled by Navios Holdings are fully employed.

          Navios Holdings seeks to manage risk through a number of strategies, including vessel control strategies (chartering and ownership), freight carriage and FFA trading. Navios Holdings’ vessel control strategies include seeking the appropriate mix of owned vessels, long- and short term chartered-in vessels, coupled with purchase options, when available, and spot charters. Navios Holdings also enters into COAs, which gives Navios Holdings, subject to certain limitations, the flexibility to determine the means of getting a particular cargo to its destination. Navios Holdings’ FFA trading strategies include taking economic hedges to manage and mitigate risk on vessels that are on-hire or coming off-hire to protect against the risk of movement in freight market rates.

Legal Proceedings

          Navios Holdings is not involved in any legal proceedings that it believes will have a significant effect on its business, financial position, and results of operations or liquidity.

          On November 30, 2006, we received notification that one of our FFA trading counter-parties filed for bankruptcy in Canada. Our exposure to such counter-party was estimated to be approximately $7.7 million. While the recovery we may obtain in any liquidation proceeding cannot be presently estimated, based on management’s current expectations and assumptions, we have provided for $5.4 million in our 2006 financial statements, $0.5 million additional provision in our 2008 financial statements and $0.3 million in our 2009 financial statements. As of December 31, 2009, an amount of $1.4 million has been recovered. No further information has developed since then which would change our expectations and assumptions either to increase or decrease the provision. However, we do not believe that this will have a material impact on our liquidity, or on our ability to make payments of principal and interest or otherwise service our debt.

          From time to time, Navios Holdings may be subject to legal proceedings and claims in the ordinary course of business. It is expected that these claims would be covered by insurance if they involved liabilities such as arise from a collision, other marine casualty, damage to cargoes, oil pollution, death or personal injuries to crew, subject to customary deductibles. Those claims, even if

lacking merit, could result in the expenditure of significant financial and managerial resources.

Crewing and Shore Employees

          Navios Holdings crews its vessels primarily with Greek, Ukrainian, Georgian officers and Filipino, Georgian, Bulgarian, Polish and Ukrainian seamen. Navios Holdings’ fleet manager is responsible for selecting its Greek officers, who are hired by Navios Holdings’ vessel-owning subsidiaries. Other nationalities are referred to Navios Holdings’ fleet manager by local crewing agencies. Navios Holdings is also responsible for travel and payroll of the crew. The crewing agencies handle each seaman’s training. Navios Holdings requires that all of its seamen have the qualifications and licenses required to comply with international regulations and shipping conventions.

          Navios Logistics crews its fleet with Argentinean and Paraguayan officers and seamen. Navios Logistics’ fleet managers are responsible for selecting the crew.

          With respect to shore-side employees, Navios Holdings employs 12 employees in its South Norwalk, Connecticut office, 95 employees in its Piraeus, Greece office, and 12 employees in its Antwerp, Belgium office. Navios Logistics employs 39 employees in its Asuncion, Paraguay offices, with 78 employees at the port facility in San Antonio, 99 office employees in the Buenos Aires, Argentina office and seven employees in its Montevideo, Uruguay office, with an additional 105 employees working at the port facility in Nueva Palmira.

Facilities

          Navios Holdings and its affiliates currently lease the following properties:

	•		Navios Corporation leases approximately 12,458 square feet of space at 20 Marshall Street, South Norwalk, CT, 06820 pursuant to a lease that expires on May 15, 2011. Navios Holdings sublets approximately 2,000 square feet of space to a third party, pursuant a sub-lease that expires on May 15, 2011.
	•		Navios ShipManagement Inc. and Navios Corporation lease approximately 2,034 square meters of space at 85 Akti Miaouli, Piraeus, Greece, pursuant to a lease that expires in 2017.
	•		Kleimar N.V. leases approximately 387 square meters of space at 5 Suikerui 2000 Antwerp, Belgium, pursuant to a lease that expires in April 2011.
	•		Navios ShipManagement Inc. leases approximately 1,368 square meters of space at 85 Akti Miaouli, Piraeus, Greece, pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in 2019.
	•		Navios Corporation leases approximately 11,923 square feet of space at 825 Third Avenue, New York, pursuant to a lease that expires on April 29, 2019. Navios Holdings sublets the 34th floor in the building know as and located at 825 3rd Avenue, New York, which premises comprise a portion of the premises under the main lease, to a third party pursuant a sub-lease that expires on April 28, 2019.

          Navios Logistics and its subsidiaries currently lease the following premises:

	•		CNSA leases the land on which it operates its port and transfer facility, located at Zona Franca, Nueva Palmira, Uruguay. This lease is between Uruguayan National Authority of Free Zones and CNSA, which expires on November 29, 2025, with an option to extend for another 20 years.
	•		Navegacion Guarani S.A. leases approximately 640 square meters of space at Jejuí 324 corner Chile — Edificio Grupo General, Asuncion, Paraguay, pursuant to a lease that expires in November 2010.
	•		Mercofluvial S.A. leases approximately 91 square meters of space at Ayolas 451 casi Estrella, Asuncion, Paraguay, pursuant to a lease that expires in April 2010.
	•		Mercopar S.A. leases approximately 220 square meters of space at Ygatimy 459 casi 14 de Mayo, Asuncion, Paraguay, pursuant to a lease that expires in July 2010.
	•		Compania Naviera Horamar S.A. leases approximately 70 square meters at Dorrego 21 bis 7° A street in the locality of Rosario, Argentina pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in September 2010.
	•		Compania Naviera Horamar S.A. leases approximately 450 square meters at Cepeda 429 street, San Nicolas, Buenos Aires Argentina pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in November 2011.

•

Hidronave S.A. leases approximately 195 square meters at Av. General Rondon 1473, Corumba, Brazil of pursuant to a lease agreement that expires in March 2013.

•       CNSA owns premises in Montevideo, Uruguay. This space is approximately 112 square meters and is located at Juan Carlos Gomez 1445, Oficina 701, Montevideo 1100, Uruguay.

•       Petrolera San Antonio S.A. owns the premises from which it operates in San Antonio, Paraguay. This space is approximately 146,744 square meters large and is located between Avenida San Antonio and Virgen de Caacupé, San Antonio, Paraguay.

•       Compania Naviera Horamar S.A. owns two storehouses located at 880 Calle California, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina and at 791/795 Calle General Daniel Cerri, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina of approximately 259 and 825 square meters, respectively.

•       Compania Naviera Horamar S.A. owns the premises from which it operates in Buenos Aires, Argentina. This space is approximately 2,300 square meters and is located in 846 Avenida Santa Fe, Ciudad Autonoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina.

C. Organizational structure

          Navios Holdings maintains offices in Piraeus, Greece, South Norwalk, Connecticut and Antwerp, Belgium. Navios Holdings’ corporate structure is functionally organized: commercial ship management and risk management are conducted through Navios Corporation and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, while the operation and technical management of Navios Holdings’ owned vessels are conducted through Navios Maritime Holdings Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiaries, except for one of Kleimar’s initial owned vessels whose management is outsourced. Navios Logistics maintains offices in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Asuncion, Paraguay and Montevideo, Uruguay and Corumba, Brazil. Navios Logistics conducts the commercial and technical management of its vessels, barges and push boats through its wholly-owned subsidiaries. Navios Logistics also owns the Nueva Palmira port and transfer facility indirectly through its Uruguayan subsidiary, CNSA, and the San Antonio port facility through its Paraguayan subsidiary, Petrolera San Antonio S.A.

          All of Navios Holdings’ subsidiaries are wholly-owned, except for Navios Logistics and its subsidiaries, Navios Partners and its subsidiaries, Navios Acquisition and Acropolis Chartering & Shipping Inc. (“Acropolis”). Navios Holdings owns: (a) 63.8% (65.5% excluding the 504 shares kept in escrow at December 31, 2009) of Navios Logistics following the acquisition of Horamar and the partial sale of CNSA in January 2008, (b) 33.2% of Navios Partners following Navios Partners’ public offering of common units in February 2010, and (c) 19% of Navios Acquisition following its IPO in July 2008. Acropolis is a charter broker that acts on behalf of Navios Holdings and third parties and of which Navios Holdings owns 50% of the outstanding equity. The disclosures below include our interests in the publicly traded limited partnership, Navios Maritime Partners L.P. The chart below sets forth Navios Holdings’ current corporate structure following the acquisition and reincorporation (all corporations are domiciled in the Republic of the Marshall Islands except for Acropolis, Shikhar Ventures S.A. and Sizzling Ventures Inc., which are Liberian corporations, Hestia Shipping Ltd and Nav Holdings Limited, which are Maltese corporations, Kleimar NV, which is a Belgian corporation, Bulkinvest S.A., which is a Luxembourg corporation, White Narcissus Marine S.A., which is a Panamanian corporation, and Navios Logistics’ subsidiaries which are incorporated in Uruguay, Argentina, Paraguay, Brazil and Panama):

Subsidiaries included in the consolidation:

Effective

Nature /

Ownership

Country of

Statement of operations

Company Name

Vessel Name

Interest

Incorporation

2009

2008

2007

Navios Maritime Holdings Inc.

Holding Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Navios Corporation

Sub-Holding Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Navios International Inc.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Navimax Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Navios Handybulk Inc.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Hestia Shipping Ltd.

Operating Company

100%

Malta

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Anemos Maritime Holdings Inc.

Sub-Holding Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Navios ShipManagement Inc.

Management Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

NAV Holdings Limited

Sub-Holding Company

100%

Malta

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

2/2-12/31

Kleimar N.V.

Operating Company/Vessel Owning Company

100%

Belgium

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

2/2-12/31

Kleimar Ltd.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

9/13-12/31

Bulkinvest S.A.

Operating Company

100%

Luxembourg

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

2/2-12/31

Navios Maritime Acquisition Corporation

Sub-Holding Company

100%

Marshall Is.

—

3/14 – 6/30

—

Primavera Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

10/15 – 12/31

—

Effective

Nature /

Ownership

Country of

Statement of operations

Company Name

Vessel Name

Interest

Incorporation

2009

2008

2007

Ginger Services Co.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

12/22 – 12/31

—

Astra Maritime Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

10/15 – 12/31

—

Achilles Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Apollon Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Herakles Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Hios Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Ionian Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Kypros Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Meridian Shipping Enterprises Inc.

Navios Meridian

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Libra Shipping Enterprises Corporation

Navios Libra II

100%

Marshall Is.

—

—

1/1-11/15

Alegria Shipping Corporation

Navios Alegria

100%

Marshall Is.

—

—

1/1-11/15

Felicity Shipping Corporation

Navios Felicity

100%

Marshall Is.

—

—

1/1-11/15

Gemini Shipping Corporation

Navios Gemini S

100%

Marshall Is.

—

—

1/1-11/15

Mercator Shipping Corporation

Navios Mercator

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Arc Shipping Corporation

Navios Arc

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Galaxy Shipping Corporation

Navios Galaxy I

100%

Marshall Is.

—

—

1/1-11/15

Horizon Shipping Enterprises Corporation

Navios Horizon

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Magellan Shipping Corporation

Navios Magellan

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Aegean Shipping Corporation

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Star Maritime Enterprises Corporation

Navios Star

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

Aurora Shipping Enterprises Ltd.

Navios Hope (ex Navios Aurora I)

100%

Marshall Is.

—

1/21 – 6/30

—

Corsair Shipping Ltd.

Navios Ulysses

100%

Marshall Is

1/1 – 12/31

6/11 – 12/31

—

Rowboat Marine Inc.

Navios Vega

100%

Marshall Is

1/1 – 12/31

6/11 – 12/31

—

Hyperion Enterprises Inc.

Navios Hyperion

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

2/26-12/31

Beaufiks Shipping Corporation

Vessel Owning Company

100%

Marshall Is

1/1 – 12/31

6/19 – 12/31

—

Sagittarius Shipping Corporation

Vessel Owning Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 — 6/10

3/6 – 12/31

—

Nostos Shipmanagement Corp.

Navios Bonavis

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

7/4-12/31

Portorosa Marine Corporation

Navios Happiness

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

7/4-12/31

Shikhar Ventures S.A

Navios Stellar

100%

Liberia

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/12 – 12/31

Sizzling Ventures Inc.

Operating Company

100%

Liberia

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/12– 12/31

Rheia Associates Co.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/12 – 12/31

Taharqa Spirit Corp.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/12 – 12/31

Rumer Holding Ltd.(i)

Vessel Owning Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/10 – 12/31

Chilali Corp.

Navios Aurora II

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/10 – 12/31

Pharos Navigation S.A.(i)

Vessel Owning Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

12/11 – 12/31

Pueblo Holdings Ltd.

Navios Lumen

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

8/8 – 12/31

—

Surf Maritime Co.

Navios Pollux

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

8/8 – 12/31

—

Quena Shipmanagement Inc.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

7/29 – 12/31

—

Orbiter Shipping Corp.

Navios Orbiter

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

9/13 – 12/31

Aramis Navigation

Vessel Owning Company

100%

Marshall Is.

12/14-12/31

—

—

White Narcissus Marine S.A.

Navios Asteriks

100%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

4/19 – 12/31

Navios G.P. L.L.C.

Operating Company

100%

Marshall Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

8/7-12/31

				Effective
		Nature /		Ownership		Country of		Statement of operations
Company Name		Vessel Name		Interest		Incorporation		2009		2008		2007
Navios South American Logistics Inc.		Sub-Holding Company		100%		Marshall Is.		—		—		12/17-12/31
Navios Maritime Partners L.P.		Sub-Holding Company		100%		Marshall Is.		—		—		8/7-11/15
Prosperity Shipping Corporation		Navios Prosperity		100%		Marshall Is.		—		—		10/8-11/15
Aldebaran Shipping Corporation		Navios Aldebaran		100%		Marshall Is.		—		—		10/8-11/15
Fantastiks Shipping Corporation		Navios Fantastiks		100%		Marshall Is.		—		—		10/23-11/15
Pandora Marine Inc. (i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Marshall Is.		6/11-12/31		—		—
Floral Marine Ltd. (i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Marshall Is.		6/11-12/31		—		—
Red Rose Shipping Corp. (i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Marshall Is.		6/11-12/31		—		—
Customized Development S.A.(i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Liberia		6/22-12/31		—		—
Highbird Management Inc.		Navios Celestial		100%		Marshall Is.		7/14-12/31		—		—
Ducale Marine Inc. (i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Marshall Is.		6/22-12/31		—		—
Kohylia Shipmanagement S.A. (i)		Vessel Owning Company		100%		Marshall Is.		7/14-12/31		—		—
Corporacion Navios S.A.		Operating Company		100%		Uruguay		—		—		1/1-12/31
Navios Maritime Finance (US) Inc.		Operating Company		100%		Delaware		10/20-12/31		—		—

Navios South American Logistics and Subsidiaries:

Effective

Nature /

Ownership

Country of

Statement of operations

Company Name

Vessel Name

Interest

Incorporation

2009

2008

2007

Navios South American Logistics Inc.

Sub-Holding Company

65.48%

Marshal Is.

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Corporacion Navios SA (v)

Operating Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Nauticler SA

Sub-Holding Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Compania Naviera Horamar SA

Operating Company

65.48%

Argentina

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Compania de Transporte Fluvial Int SA

Operating Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Ponte Rio SA

Operating Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Thalassa Energy SA

Barge Owning Company

40.93%

Argentina

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

HS Tankers Inc.

Makenita H

33.39%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

HS Navegation Inc.

Estefania H

33.39%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

HS Shipping Ltd Inc.

Malva H

40.93%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

HS South Inc. (ii)

Vessel Owning Company

40.93%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Mercopar Internacional S.A.(iii)

Holding Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1-12/9

1/1 – 12/31

—

Nagusa Internacional S.A. (iii)

Holding Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1-12/9

1/1 – 12/31

—

Hidrovia OSR Internacional S.A. (iii)

Holding Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1-12/9

1/1 – 12/31

—

Petrovia Internacional S.A.

Holding Company

65.48%

Uruguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Mercopar S.A.

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Navegation Guarani S.A.

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Hidrovia OSR S.A.

Oil Spill Response & Salvage Services

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Petrovia S.A.(iv)

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1-1/20

1/1 – 12/31

—

Mercofluvial S.A.

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Petrolera San Antonio S.A. (PETROSAN)

Oil Storage Plant and Dock Facilities

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1 – 12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Flota Mercante Paraguaya S.A.(iv)

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1-2/13

1/1 – 12/31

—

Compania de Transporte Fluvial S.A. (iv)

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1-12/31

1/1 – 12/31

—

Hidrogas S.A. (iv)

Shipping Company

65.48%

Paraguay

1/1-1/20

1/1 – 12/31

—

Stability Oceanways S.A.

Barge and Pushboat Owning Shipping Company

65.48%

Panama

1/1 – 12/31

4/16 – 12/31

—

Hidronave S.A.

Pushboat Owning Company

33.39%

Brazil

1/11-12/31

—

—