Sotherly Hotels Inc. - Annual Report: 2007 (Form 10-K)

Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

FORM 10-K

FOR ANNUAL AND TRANSITION REPORTS

PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 13 OR 15(d) OF THE

SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

(Mark One)

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

OR

For the transition from              to            

Commission file number 001-31906

MHI HOSPITALITY CORPORATION

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in Its Charter)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code 757/229-5648

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

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

(Title of Class)

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

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act.    Yes  ¨    No  x

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  x    No  ¨

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K.  ¨

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. (See definition of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and smaller reporting company in Rule 12b-2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934).

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).    Yes  ¨    No  x

The aggregate market value of the registrant’s common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant as of June 29, 2007, the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter, was approximately $72,578,200 based on the closing price quoted on the American Stock Exchange.

As of March 14, 2008, there were 6,939,613 shares of the registrant’s common stock issued and outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Part III of this Form 10-K incorporates by reference certain portions of the registrant’s proxy statement for its 2008 annual meeting of stockholders to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report.

Table of Contents

MHI HOSPITALITY CORPORATION

INDEX

2

Table of Contents

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

Information included and incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and as such may involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to be materially different from future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements, which are based on certain assumptions and describe our future plans, strategies and expectations, are generally identified by our use of words, such as “intend,” “plan,” “may,” “should,” “will,” “project,” “estimate,” “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “continue,” “potential,” “opportunity,” and similar expressions, whether in the negative or affirmative. All statements regarding our expected financial position, business and financing plans are forward-looking statements. Factors, which could have a material adverse effect on our operations and future prospects, include, but are not limited to:

Additional factors that could cause actual results to vary from our forward-looking statements are set forth under the Section titled “Risk Factors” in Item 1A of this report.

These risks and uncertainties should be considered in evaluating any forward-looking statement contained in this report or incorporated by reference herein. All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report or, in the case of any document incorporated by reference, the date of that document. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking statements attributable to us or any person acting on our behalf are qualified by the cautionary statements in this section. We undertake no obligation to update or publicly release any revisions to forward-looking statements to reflect events, circumstances or changes in expectations after the date of this report.

3

Table of Contents

PART I

Item 1. Business

Organization

MHI Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) is a self-advised real estate investment trust (“REIT”) that was formed in August 2004 to own and manage a portfolio of full-service upper up-scale, up-scale and mid-scale hotels located in primary and secondary markets in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southeastern United States. On December 21, 2004, we successfully completed our initial public offering and elected to be treated as a self-advised real estate investment trust (“REIT”) for federal income tax purposes. We conduct our business through MHI Hospitality, L.P., our operating partnership, of which we are the general partner. Our Company owns approximately 64.9% of the partnership units in our operating partnership. Limited partners (including our officers and certain of our directors) own the remaining operating partnership units.

As of March 14, 2008, our portfolio consists of eight full-service upper up-scale and mid-scale hotels with 1,971 rooms. Six hotels, with a total of 1,537 rooms, operate under well-known brands such as Hilton, Crowne Plaza and Holiday Inn. Two properties are under development. The first property, a 186-room full-service upper up-scale hotel is expected to re-open as a Sheraton in April 2008. The other property, a 250-room full-service upper up-scale hotel is expected to re-open as a Crowne Plaza in the first quarter 2009. We own a minority interest in a Crowne Plaza hotel through a joint venture as well as leasehold interests in the commercial spaces of the Shell Island Resort, a condominium resort property.

Our initial public offering consisted of the sale of 6,000,000 shares of common stock at a price of $10.00 per share resulting in gross proceeds of $60.0 million and net proceeds (after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses) of approximately $54.8 million. On January 19, 2005, the Company sold an additional 700,000 shares of common stock at a price of $9.30 per share, net of the underwriting discount, as a result of the exercise of the underwriter’s over-allotment option, resulting in additional net proceeds of approximately $6.5 million. The total net proceeds from the initial public offering and the exercise of the underwriter’s over-allotment option were approximately $61.3 million.

In order for us to qualify as a REIT, we cannot directly manage or operate our hotels. Therefore, our hotel properties are leased to MHI Hospitality TRS, LLC, our TRS Lessee, which in turn has engaged MHI Hotels Services, LLC (“MHI Hotels Services”), an eligible independent management company, to manage our hotels. Our TRS Lessee is a wholly owned subsidiary of MHI Hospitality TRS Holding, Inc. (“MHI Holding”, and collectively, “MHI TRS”). MHI TRS is a taxable REIT subsidiary for federal income tax purposes.

Our corporate office is located at 4801 Courthouse Street, Suite 201, Williamsburg, Virginia 23188. Our telephone number is (757) 229-5648.

Our Properties

In connection with our initial public offering, the Company acquired six hotel properties for aggregate consideration of approximately $15.0 million in cash, 3,817,036 units of interest in our operating partnership and the assumption of approximately $50.8 million in debt. The six initial hotel properties, the Hilton Philadelphia Airport, the Holiday Inn Brownstone, the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg, the Hilton Wilmington Riverside, the Hilton Savannah DeSoto and the Holiday Inn Laurel West (formerly the Best Western Maryland Inn), are located in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Georgia, Virginia and North Carolina. On July 22, 2005, we acquired our seventh hotel, the Crowne Plaza Jacksonville (formerly, the Hilton Jacksonville Riverfront) located in Jacksonville, Florida, for $22.0 million.

During 2006, we sold the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg for $4.75 million. We also purchased the Louisville Ramada Riverfront Inn located in Jeffersonville, Indiana for approximately $7.7 million including transfer costs and are conducting extensive renovations with plans to re-open the property in April 2008 as the Sheraton Louisville Riverside.

4

Table of Contents

During 2007, through our joint venture with The Carlyle Group (“Carlyle”), we acquired a 25% indirect, non-controlling interest in the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort, a newly renovated 311-room hotel in Hollywood, Florida for approximately $75.8 million including transfer costs. We also purchased a hotel formerly known as the Tampa Clarion Hotel in Tampa, Florida for approximately $13.8 million including transfer costs and are conducting extensive renovation with plans to re-open the property in the first quarter 2009 as the Crowne Plaza Tampa Westshore.

The Company also owns two leasehold interests in the Shell Island Resort, a 160-unit condominium resort property in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina, which were purchased for $3.5 million with the proceeds of the initial public offering. Our operating partnership entered into sublease arrangements to sublease our entire leasehold interests in the property at Shell Island to affiliates of our management company. The management company operates the property as a hotel and manages a rental program for the benefit of the condominium unit owners. Our operating partnership receives fixed annual rent and incurs annual lease expenses in connection with the subleases of such property.

See Item 2 of this Form 10-K for additional detail on our properties.

Our Strategy

We intend to enhance stockholder value by pursuing attractive lodging investments, whereby we can achieve superior risk-adjusted returns. Our core “turnaround” growth strategy involves purchasing, renovating and up-branding under-performing, full-service hotels. We believe that under-performing hotels that are poorly managed, that suffer from significant deferred maintenance and capital improvement, and that are not properly positioned in their respective markets can be acquired at attractive prices—well below the cost of new construction or performing hotels. By acquiring such properties, we believe we can create significant value and superior, risk-adjusted returns.

Investment Strategy. We intend to focus our investment activities on the following types of opportunities that involve the acquisition, renovation and up-branding of under-performing or functionally obsolete hotels with the goal of achieving a total investment that is substantially less than replacement cost of a hotel or the acquisition cost of a market performing hotel:

By pursuing deep and shallow turn opportunities and implementing our up-branding strategy, we hope to improve revenue and cash flow and increase the long-term value of the hotels we acquire.

Acquisition Strategy. The acquisition strategy for our portfolio focuses on the pursuit of opportunities that (i) are in identified geographic “growth” markets, (ii) represent full-service mid-scale to upper upscale hotel properties, and (iii) have significant barriers to entry for new product delivery. Our acquisition strategy is further detailed below:

5

Table of Contents

Investment Vehicles. In pursuit of our investment strategy we will employ various traditional and non-traditional investment vehicles:

6

Table of Contents

Portfolio Management Strategy. Our core strategy for our portfolio is intended to create value for stockholders by renovating, rehabilitating, repositioning, and up-branding hotel properties. Once these assets have benefited from this “turnaround” strategy, they become part of our core portfolio. We believe we can optimize performance within the portfolio by superior management practices and by timely and recurring capital expenditures to maintain and enhance the physical property.

In addition, we will seek to leverage our portfolio management expertise by investing in portfolios of hotel properties together with institutional investors with whom we would enter into a joint venture. We expect that our investment into any such venture will not exceed 25% of the equity of such entity. Such portfolios may or may not include properties that fit with our acquisition strategy. However, we believe the portfolio management fee that such an arrangement would generate together with returns from well-positioned and well-managed properties offers the prospect of additional value and superior, risk-adjusted returns for our stockholders.

In April 2007, we entered into a program agreement and related operating agreements with Carlyle that provide for the formation of entities to be jointly owned by us and Carlyle, which will source, underwrite, acquire, develop and operate hotel assets and/or hotel portfolios. Under these agreements, we will offer the joint venture the first right to acquire potential investment opportunities identified by us with total capitalization requirements in excess of $30.0 million. Carlyle has agreed to commit $100.0 million of equity capital to the joint venture through April 2010. Carlyle will fund up to 90% of the equity of an acquisition, and we will provide between 10% and 25%.

We have engaged MHI Hotels Services, an eligible independent management company, to operate our hotels. MHI Hotels Services and its predecessors have been in continuous operation since 1957. By using MHI Hotels Services as our manager, we intend to capitalize on their extensive experience to seek above-average operating results. MHI Hotels Services operates in markets where we have had a presence for many years and its operations are driven by a focused sales, marketing and food and beverage strategy that is critical to the success of a full-service hotel.

Asset Disposition Strategy. When a property no longer fits with our investment objectives, we will pursue traditional and non-traditional means of disposal:

Our Principal Agreements

Strategic Alliance Agreement

MHI Hotels Services is currently the management company for each of our hotels and our leased condominium resort property.

On December 21, 2004, we entered into a ten-year strategic alliance agreement with MHI Hotels Services pursuant to which (i) MHI Hotels Services agrees to refer to us (on an exclusive basis) hotel acquisition opportunities in the United States presented to MHI Hotel Services, and (ii) unless a majority of our independent

7

Table of Contents

directors in good faith concludes for valid business reasons that another management company should manage a hotel owned by us, we agree to offer MHI Hotels Services or its subsidiaries the right to manage hotel properties that we acquire in the United States.

In addition, during the term of the agreement, MHI Hotels Services has the right to nominate one person for election to our board of directors at our annual meeting of stockholders, subject to the approval of such nominee by our Nominating, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committee for so long as certain of our officers and directors, Andrew Sims, Kim Sims, and Christopher Sims, and their families and affiliates, hold, in the aggregate, not less than 1.5 million units or shares of our common stock.

Joint Venture Program Agreement

On April 26, 2007, we entered into a program agreement and related operating agreements with CRP/MHI Holdings, LLC, an affiliate of Carlyle Realty Partners V, L.P., and The Carlyle Group. The agreements provide for the formation of entities to be jointly owned by Carlyle and us, which will source, underwrite, acquire, develop and operate hotel assets and/or hotel portfolios. Under the agreement, we will offer the joint venture the first right to acquire potential investment opportunities identified by the Company with total capitalization requirements in excess of $30.0 million. Carlyle has agreed to commit $100.0 million of equity capital to the joint venture through April 2010. Carlyle will fund up to 90% of the equity of an acquisition, and we will provide between 10% and 25%.

We will receive an asset management fee of 1.5% of the gross revenues of the hotels owned by the venture. In addition, we will have a first right of offer with respect to any investment disposed by the joint venture. It is expected that hotels acquired by the joint venture will be managed by MHI Hotels Services.

Lease Agreements

In order for us to qualify as a REIT, neither our company nor the operating partnership or its subsidiaries can operate our hotels directly. Our hotels are leased to our TRS Lessee, which has engaged MHI Hotels Services to manage the hotels. Each lease for the hotels will have a non-cancelable term of five years, subject to earlier termination upon the occurrence of certain contingencies described in the lease.

During the term of each lease, the TRS Lessee will be obligated to pay a fixed annual base rent plus a percentage rent and certain other additional charges. Base rent will accrue and be paid monthly. Percentage rent is calculated by multiplying fixed percentages by gross room revenues, in excess of certain threshold amounts and other revenues for each of the initial hotels and will be paid quarterly.

Management Agreement

Pursuant to the terms of a management agreement, we, through our TRS Lessee, have engaged MHI Hotels Services as the property manager for our existing hotel portfolio. Except as described below, we intend to offer MHI Hotels Services the opportunity to manage any future hotels that we lease to our TRS Lessee and have already engaged MHI Hotels Services as the property manager of the Sheraton Louisville Riverside which we anticipate will re-open April 2008. The joint venture entity which leases the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort has also entered into a management agreement with MHI Hotels Services on terms that vary from those described below. The following terms apply only to those hotels in our existing portfolio that are 100% owned by subsidiaries of our operating partnership.

Term

The management agreement with MHI Hotels Services has an initial term of 10 years for each of the initial hotels and a term of 10 years for each hotel we directly acquire subsequent to our initial public offering. The term of the management agreement with respect to each hotel may be renewed by MHI Hotels Services, upon the

8

Table of Contents

mutual agreement of MHI Hotels Services and our TRS lessee, subject to the satisfaction of certain performance tests, for two successive periods of five years each, provided that at the time the option to renew is exercised, MHI Hotels Services is not then in default under the management agreement. If at the time of the exercise of any renewal period MHI Hotels Services is in default, then the exercise of the renewal option will be conditional on timely cure of such default, and if such default is not timely cured, then our TRS Lessee may terminate the management agreement. If MHI Hotels Services desires to exercise any option to renew, it must give our TRS Lessee written notice of its election to renew the management agreement no less than 90 days before the expiration of the then current term of the management agreement.

Any amendment, supplement or modification of the management agreement must be in writing signed by all parties and approved by a majority of our independent directors.

Amounts Payable under the Management Agreement

MHI Hotels Services receives a base management fee, and if the hotels exceed certain financial thresholds, an additional incentive management fee for the management of our hotels.

The base management fee for each of our initial hotels and for any subsequent hotels we directly acquire will be a percentage of the gross revenues of the hotel and will be due monthly. The applicable percentage of gross revenue for the base management fee for each of our hotels is as follows:

Hotel Properties

The base management fee for a future hotel first leased other than on the first day of the fiscal year will be 2.0% for the partial year such hotel is first leased and for the first full fiscal year such hotel is managed. There is no fee cap on the base management fee.

Subsequently Acquired Hotel Properties

The incentive management fee, if any, will be due annually in arrears within 90 days of the end of the fiscal year and will be equal to 10% of the amount by which the gross operating profit of the hotels on an aggregate basis for a given year exceeds the gross operating profit for the same hotels, on an aggregate basis, for the prior year. The incentive fee may not exceed 0.25% of the aggregate gross revenue of all of the hotels included in the incentive fee calculation for the year in which the incentive fee is earned. The calculation of the incentive fee will not include results of hotels for the fiscal year in which they are initially leased, or for the fiscal year in which they are sold, and newly acquired or leased hotels will be included in the calculation beginning in the second full

9

Table of Contents

year such hotel is managed. In fiscal year 2007, only our Savannah, Philadelphia and Jacksonville properties qualified for inclusion in the incentive management fee calculation. In fiscal year 2006, all of our properties qualified for inclusion in the incentive management fee calculation with the exception of the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg and the Crowne Plaza Jacksonville. In fiscal year 2005, all of our properties qualified for inclusion in the incentive management fee calculation with the exception of the Holiday Inn Laurel West and the Crowne Plaza Jacksonville.

Early Termination

The management agreement may be terminated with respect to one or more of the hotels earlier than the stated term, if certain events occur, including:

Termination Fees

In certain cases of early termination of the management agreement with respect to one or more of the hotels, we must pay MHI Hotels Services a termination fee, plus any amounts otherwise due to MHI Hotels Services pursuant to the terms of the management agreement. We will be obligated to pay termination fees in such circumstances provided that MHI Hotels Services is not then in default, subject to certain cure and grace periods.

New Acquisitions; Strategic Alliance Agreement

Pursuant to the strategic alliance agreement with MHI Hotels Services, we have agreed to engage MHI Hotels Services for the management of any future hotels unless a majority of our independent directors in good faith concludes, for valid business reasons, that another management company should manage these hotels. If the management agreement terminates as to all of the hotels covered in connection with a default under the management agreement, the strategic alliance agreement will also terminate.

Franchise Agreements

Our hotels operate under franchise licenses from national hotel companies.

We anticipate that most of the additional hotels we acquire will be operated under franchise licenses. We believe that the public’s perception of quality associated with a franchisor is an important feature in the operation of a hotel. Franchisors provide a variety of benefits for franchisees, which include national advertising, publicity and other marketing programs designed to increase brand awareness, training of personnel, continuous review of quality standards and centralized reservation systems.

Our TRS Lessee holds the franchise licenses for our wholly-owned hotels. MHI Hotels Services must operate each of our hotels it manages in accordance with and pursuant to the terms of the franchise agreement for the hotel.

The franchise licenses generally specify certain management, operational, record keeping, accounting, reporting and marketing standards and procedures with which the franchisee must comply. Under the franchise licenses, the franchisee must comply with the franchisors’ standards and requirements with respect to:

10

Table of Contents

Additionally, as the franchisee, our TRS Lessee will be required to pay the franchise fees described below.

The following table sets forth certain information for the franchise licenses of our wholly-owned hotel properties:

Tax Status

We have elected to be taxed as a REIT under Sections 856 through 860 of the Internal Revenue Code. To maintain our qualification as a REIT, we must meet a number of organizational and operational requirements, including a requirement that we currently distribute at least 90% of our taxable income (excluding net capital gains) to our stockholders. It is our current intention to adhere to these requirements and maintain our qualification for taxation as a REIT. As a REIT, we generally will not be subject to federal corporate income tax on that portion of our net income that is distributed to stockholders. If we fail to qualify for taxation as a REIT in any taxable year, and no relief provision applies, we will be subject to federal income taxes at regular corporate rates (including any applicable alternative minimum tax) and we would be disqualified from re-electing treatment as a REIT until the fifth calendar year after the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT. Even if we qualify for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain state and local taxes on our income and property, and to federal income and excise taxes on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, taxable income from non-REIT activities managed through taxable REIT subsidiaries is subject to federal, state and local income taxes.

11

Table of Contents

Environmental Matters

In connection with the ownership and operation of the hotels, we are subject to various federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations relating to environmental protection. Under these laws, a current or previous owner or operator of real estate may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of certain hazardous or toxic substances on, under, or in such property. Such laws often impose liability without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of hazardous or toxic substances. In addition, the presence of contamination from hazardous or toxic substances, or the failure to remediate such contaminated property properly, may adversely affect the owner’s ability to borrow using such property as collateral. Furthermore, a person who arranges for the disposal or treatment of a hazardous or toxic substance at a property owned by another, or who transports such substance to or from such property, may be liable for the costs of removal or remediation of such substance released into the environment at the disposal or treatment facility. The costs of remediation or removal of such substances may be substantial, and the presence of such substances may adversely affect the owner’s ability to sell such real estate or to borrow using such real estate as collateral. In connection with the ownership and operation of the hotels, we may be potentially liable for such costs.

We believe that our hotels are in compliance, in all material respects, with all federal, state and local environmental ordinances and regulations regarding hazardous or toxic substances and other environmental matters, the violation of which would have a material adverse effect on us. We have not received written notice from any governmental authority of any material noncompliance, liability or claim relating to hazardous or toxic substances or other environmental matters in connection with any of our present hotel properties.

Employees

As of March 14, 2008, we employed ten persons, six of whom work at our corporate office in Williamsburg, Virginia and four of whom work in our offices in Greenbelt, Maryland. All persons employed in the day-to-day operations of the hotels are employees of MHI Hotels Services, the management company engaged by our TRS Lessee to operate such hotels.

Available Information

We maintain an Internet site, http://www.mhihospitality.com, which contains additional information concerning MHI Hospitality Corporation. We make available free of charge through our Internet site all our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and other reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission. We have also posted on this website our Code of Business Conduct and the charters of our Audit and Nominating, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committees of our board of directors. We intend to disclose on our website any changes to, or waivers from, our Code of Business Conduct. Information on our Internet site is neither part of nor incorporated into this Form 10-K.

12

Table of Contents

Item 1A. Risk Factors

The risks discussed herein can adversely affect our business, liquidity, operating results, and financial condition. The risk factors described below are not the only risks that may affect us. Additional risks and uncertainties not presently known to us also may adversely affect our business, liquidity, operating results, and financial condition.

Risks Related to Our Business and Properties

Failure of the lodging industry to exhibit improvement would adversely affect our business plan and cause a decline in the value of our common stock.

A substantial part of our business plan is based on our belief that the lodging markets in which we invest are experiencing and/or will experience stable or improving economic fundamentals. However, there can be no assurance that lodging industry fundamentals will improve. In the event conditions in the industry or in the lodging markets in which we invest do not improve, our cash available for distribution would be less than anticipated.

Conflicts of interest could result in our executive officers and certain of our directors acting in a manner other than in our stockholders’ best interest.

Conflicts of interest relating to MHI Hotels Services, the entity that manages the properties, and the terms of its management agreement may lead to management decisions that are not in the stockholders’ best interest.

Conflicts of interest relating to MHI Hotels Services may lead to management decisions that are not in the stockholders’ best interest. MHI Hotels Services is owned and controlled by members of the Sims family, including Andrew Sims, our chairman, president and chief executive officer, Kim Sims and Christopher Sims, who serve on our board of directors, William Zaiser, our executive vice president and chief financial officer, and Steven Smith who is the Executive Vice President of MHI Hotels Services. MHI Hotels Services manages our hotel properties. In addition, unless a majority of independent directors concludes otherwise, MHI Hotels Services has a right of first offer to manage hotels we acquire in the future, subject to certain exceptions, and receives substantial management fees based on the revenues and operating profit of our hotels. Our management agreement with MHI Hotels Services, including the financial terms thereof, was not negotiated on an arm’s-length basis and may be less favorable to us than we could have obtained from third parties.

Our management agreement establishes the terms of MHI Hotels Services’ management of our hotels. Under certain circumstances, if we terminate our management agreement as to one of the hotels, we will be required to pay MHI Hotels Services a termination fee. If we were to terminate the management agreement with respect to all our hotels in connection with a sale of those hotels, the aggregate termination fee would be approximately $13.0 million. As majority owners of MHI Hotels Services, which would receive any management and management termination fees payable by us under the management agreement, Andrew Sims, William Zaiser, Kim Sims and Christopher Sims may influence our decisions to sell a hotel or acquire or develop a hotel when it is not in the best interests of our stockholders to do so. In addition, Andrew Sims and William Zaiser will have conflicts of interest with respect to decisions to enforce provisions of the management agreement, including any termination thereof.

There can be no assurance that provisions in our bylaws will always be successful in mitigating conflicts of interest.

Under our bylaws, a committee consisting of only independent directors must approve any transaction between us and MHI Hotels Services or its affiliates or any interested director. However, there can be no assurance that these policies always will be successful in mitigating such conflicts, and decisions could be made that might not fully reflect the interests of all of our stockholders.

13

Table of Contents

Certain of our officers and directors hold units in our operating partnership and may seek to avoid adverse tax consequences, which could result from transactions that would otherwise benefit our stockholders.

Holders of units, including members of our management team, may suffer adverse tax consequences upon our sale or refinancing of certain properties. Therefore, holders of units, including Andrew Sims, William Zaiser, Kim Sims, Christopher Sims, and Edward Stein may have different objectives than holders of our common stock regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of a property’s sale, or the timing and amount of a property’s refinancing. These officers and directors may influence us not to sell or refinance certain properties, even if such sale or refinancing might be financially advantageous to our stockholders, or they may influence us to enter into tax-deferred exchanges with the proceeds of such sales when such a reinvestment might not otherwise be in our best interest. Our tax indemnification obligations, which were not the result of arm’s-length negotiations and which apply in the event that we sell certain properties, could subject us to liability, which, as of December 31, 2007, were estimated to be $46.0 million, and limit our operating flexibility and reduce our returns on our investments.

Contractual obligations require us to nominate affiliates of the Sims family as two of our directors.

Pursuant to a strategic alliance agreement we entered into in December 2004, MHI Hotels Services has a contractual right to nominate one person for election as a director, to our Company’s Board of Directors, and, pursuant to his employment agreement with us, Andrew Sims has the right to be nominated as a director. These provisions in effect provide the Sims family and their affiliates the right to nominate two of our directors. As discussed herein, such persons have conflicts of interest with our company.

Our executive officers and certain of our directors may experience conflicts of interest in connection with their ownership interests in our operating partnership.

Our executive officers and certain of our directors, which include Andrew Sims, Williams Zaiser, Kim Sims, Christopher Sims and Ed Stein, may experience conflicts of interest relating to their ownership interests in our operating partnership. These individuals, together with their affiliates owned as of December 31, 2007, in the aggregate, approximately 21.68% of the outstanding units in our operating partnership. Conflicts may arise as a result of these persons’ ownership interests as limited partners diverge from the interests of MHI Hospitality Corporation, particularly with regard to transactions such as sales of assets or the repayment of indebtedness, that could be in the best interests of MHI Hospitality Corporation and its stockholders, but may have adverse tax consequences to the limited partners in our operating partnership.

Our tax indemnification obligations, which were not the result of arm’s-length negotiations and which apply in the event that we sell certain properties, could subject us to liability, which we currently estimate to be approximately $46.0 million, and limit our operating flexibility and reduce our returns on our investments.

If we dispose of certain of our initial hotels, we would be obligated to indemnify the original contributors (including their permitted transferees and persons who are taxable on the income of a contributor or permitted transferee) against certain tax consequences of the sale pursuant to the tax indemnity agreements, the terms of which were not the result of arm’s-length negotiations. These original contributors include Andrew Sims, our chairman, president and chief executive officer, William Zaiser, our executive vice president and chief financial officer, and Kim and Christopher Sims, two of our directors. We have agreed to pay a certain amount of the contributor’s tax liability with respect to gain allocated to the contributor under Section 704(c) of the Internal Revenue Code if we dispose of a property contributed by the contributor in a taxable transaction during a “protected period,” which continues until the earlier of:

14

Table of Contents

This tax indemnity will be equal to a certain amount of the federal and state income tax liability the contributor incurs with respect to the gain allocated to the contributor upon such sale based on a sliding scale percentage. Specifically, we will indemnify the contributors for 100% of their tax liability during the first five years after contribution, 50% during the sixth year, 40% during the seventh year, 30% during the eighth year, 20% during the ninth year and 10% during the tenth year. The terms of the tax indemnity agreements also require us to gross up the tax indemnity payment for the amount of income taxes due as a result of the tax indemnity payment. While the tax indemnities do not contractually limit our ability to conduct our business in the way we desire, we are less likely to sell any of the contributed properties in a taxable transaction during the protected period because of the significant tax liability we would have to the contributors. Instead, we would either hold the property for the entire protected period, or at least the first five years, or seek to transfer the property in a tax-deferred like-kind exchange.

As three years have elapsed since the properties were contributed, if we were to sell during the next two years in a taxable transaction the five initial hotels that were contributed to us in our initial public offering in exchange for units immediately after the closing of our initial public offering, our estimated total tax indemnification obligation to our indemnified contributors, including the gross-up payment, would be approximately $46.0 million.

Our agreements with MHI Hotels Services and its affiliates, including the contribution agreements, management agreement, strategic alliance agreement, subleases, partnership agreement of our operating partnership and employment agreements, were not negotiated on an arms’ length basis and may be less favorable to us than we could have obtained from third parties.

In connection with our initial public offering, we entered into various agreements with MHI Hotels Services and its affiliates, including contribution agreements, a management agreement, a strategic alliance agreement, subleases, the partnership agreement of our operating partnership and employment agreements. The terms of each of these agreements were determined by our management team who had conflicts of interest as described above and ownership interests in MHI Hotels Services and its affiliates. The terms of each of these agreements may be less favorable to us than we could have obtained from third parties.

Unanticipated expenses and insufficient demand for hotels we acquire in new geographic markets could adversely affect our profitability and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

As part of our business plan, we may develop or acquire hotels in geographic areas in which our management may have little or no operating experience and in which potential customers may not be familiar with our franchise brands. As a result, we may have to incur costs relating to the opening, operation and promotion of those new hotel properties that are substantially greater than those incurred in other areas. These hotels may attract fewer customers than expected and we may choose to increase spending on advertising and marketing to promote the hotel and increase customer demand. Unanticipated expenses and insufficient demand at a new hotel property, therefore, could adversely affect our profitability and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We do not have the authority to require any hotel to be operated in a particular manner or to govern any particular aspect of the daily operations of any hotel and as a result, our returns are dependent on the management of our hotels by MHI Hotels Services.

Under the terms of our management agreement with MHI Hotels Services and the REIT qualification rules, our ability to participate in operating decisions regarding the hotels is limited. We will depend on MHI Hotels Services to operate our hotels as provided in the management agreement. We do not have the authority to require any hotel to be operated in a particular manner or to govern any particular aspect of the daily operations of any hotel (for instance, setting room rates). Thus, even if we believe our hotels are being operated inefficiently or in a manner that does not result in satisfactory occupancy rates, revenue per available room, which we refer to as

15

Table of Contents

RevPAR, and average daily rates, we may not be able to force MHI Hotels Services to change its method of operation of our hotels. Additionally, in the event that we need to replace MHI Hotels Services or any other management companies in the future, we may be required by the terms of the management agreement to pay substantial termination fees and may experience significant disruptions at the affected hotels.

Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders is subject to fluctuations in our financial performance, operating results and capital improvements requirements.

As a REIT, we are required to distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, each year to our stockholders. In the event of future downturns in our operating results and financial performance or unanticipated capital improvements to our hotels, including capital improvements, which may be required by our franchisors, we may be unable to declare or pay distributions to our stockholders. The timing and amount of distributions are in the sole discretion of our board of directors, which will consider, among other factors, our financial performance, debt service obligations and debt covenants, and capital expenditure requirements. We cannot assure you that we will continue to generate sufficient cash to fund distributions.

Among the factors which could adversely affect the results of our operations and our distributions to stockholders are the failure of our TRS Lessee to make required rent payments because of reduced net operating profits or operating losses, increased debt service requirements and capital expenditures at our hotels, including capital expenditures required by the franchisors of our hotels. Among the factors which could reduce the net operating profits of our TRS Lessee are decreases in hotel revenues and increases in hotel operating expenses. Hotel revenue can decrease for a number of reasons, including increased competition from a new supply of hotel rooms and decreased demand for hotel rooms. These factors can reduce both occupancy and room rates at our hotels.

We lease all of our hotels to our TRS Lessee. The TRS Lessee is subject to hotel operating risks, including risks of sustaining operating losses after payment of hotel operating expenses, including management fees. These risks can adversely affect the net operating profits of our TRS Lessee, our operating expenses, and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We agreed to provide to certain of the contributors of our initial properties opportunities to guarantee liabilities of our operating partnership which may limit our ability to make similar opportunities available to owners of properties that we would like to purchase. This limitation may adversely affect our ability to acquire properties in the future.

Under certain of the tax indemnification agreements, we agreed to use commercially reasonable efforts during the protected period to make available to certain contributors opportunities to guarantee liabilities of our operating partnership. By guaranteeing liabilities of the operating partnership, the contributors will be entitled to defer recognition of gain in connection with the contribution of certain hotels. As a consequence of the allocation of debt to them for tax purposes by virtue of guaranteeing the liabilities of the operating partnership, contributors will not be deemed to have received a distribution under the applicable provisions of the Code. In the case of our tax indemnification obligation, the protected period continues until the earlier of:

The obligation to make guarantee opportunities available to the contributors could adversely affect our ability to acquire additional properties in the future by reducing the amount of debt that could be guaranteed by other, future contributors.

16

Table of Contents

Future debt service obligations could adversely affect our overall operating results, may require us to liquidate our properties, may jeopardize our tax status as a REIT and limit our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

While we intend to maintain target debt levels of 45-55% of total assets, our board of directors may change this debt policy at any time without stockholder approval. In addition, we entered into a $60.0 million revolving credit facility, which has a term of four years, and our borrowings under the credit facility are expected to bear interest at a floating interest rate of 30-day LIBOR plus 1.625% to 2.125%. The LIBOR rate on December 31, 2007 was 4.6%. The primary collateral for the credit facility is a first mortgage on the Holiday Inn Brownstone, the Hilton Philadelphia Airport, the property under development in Jeffersonville, Indiana and the property under development in Tampa, Florida as well as a lien on all business assets including, but not limited to, equipment, accounts receivable, inventory, furniture, fixtures and proceeds thereof. We must satisfy certain financial and non-financial covenants. As of December 31, 2007, we were in compliance with all the required covenants. Failure to satisfy these covenants and conditions would create a default under this credit facility, and the lender could require us to immediately repay all outstanding indebtedness under the credit facility. The credit facility has a balance of approximately $34.4 million as of December 31, 2007. The Company intends to expand the credit facility to $75.0 million and to use it to acquire, repair and renovate properties, and for working capital. We, and our subsidiaries, may be able to incur substantial additional debt, including secured debt, in the future. Incurring debt could subject us to many risks, including the risks that:

If we violate covenants in the agreements governing future indebtedness, we could be required to repay all or a portion of our indebtedness before maturity at a time when we might be unable to arrange financing for such repayment on attractive terms, if at all.

If we incur debt in the future and do not have sufficient funds to repay our debt at maturity, it may be necessary to refinance this debt through additional debt financing, private or public offerings of debt securities, or additional equity financings. If, at the time of any refinancing, prevailing interest rates or other factors result in higher interest rates on refinancing, increases in interest expense would lower our cash flow, and, consequently, cash available for distribution to our stockholders. If we are unable to refinance our debt on acceptable terms, we may be forced to dispose of hotel properties on disadvantageous terms, potentially resulting in losses that reduce cash flow from operating activities. We may place mortgages on our hotel properties to secure our credit facility or other debt. To the extent we cannot meet our debt service obligations, we risk losing some or all of those properties to foreclosure. Also, covenants applicable to our debt could impair our planned strategies and, if violated, result in a default of our debt obligations.

We are subject to risks of increased hotel operating expenses and decreased hotel revenues.

Our leases with our TRS Lessee provide for the payment of rent based in part on gross revenues from our hotels. Our TRS Lessee is subject to hotel operating risks including decreased hotel revenues and increased hotel operating expenses, including but not limited to the following:

17

Table of Contents

Any increases in these operating expenses can have a significant adverse impact on the TRS Lessee’s ability to pay rent and other operating expenses and, consequently, our earnings and cash flow.

Operating our hotels under franchise agreements could increase our operating costs and lower our net income.

Our hotels operate under franchise agreements, which subject us to risks in the event of negative publicity related to one of our franchisors.

The maintenance of the franchise licenses for our hotels is subject to our franchisors’ operating standards and other terms and conditions. Our franchisors periodically inspect our hotels to ensure that we, our lessee and our management company follow their standards. Failure by us, our TRS Lessee or our management company to maintain these standards or other terms and conditions could result in a franchise license being cancelled. If a franchise license terminates due to our failure to make required improvements or to otherwise comply with its terms, we may also be liable to the franchisor for a termination payment, which varies by franchisor and by hotel. As a condition of continuing a franchise license, a franchisor could also possibly require us to make capital expenditures, even if we do not believe the capital improvements are necessary or desirable or will result in an acceptable return on our investment. Nonetheless, we may risk losing a franchise license if we do not make franchisor-required capital expenditures.

If a franchisor terminates the franchise license, we may try either to obtain a suitable replacement franchise license, or to operate the hotel without a franchise license. The loss of a franchise license could significantly decrease the revenues at the hotel and reduce the underlying value of the hotel because of the loss of associated name recognition, marketing support and centralized reservation systems provided by the franchisor. A loss of a franchise license for one or more hotels could materially and adversely affect our revenues. This loss of revenues could, therefore, also adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations and reduce our cash available for distribution to stockholders.

Our executive officers have very limited experience operating a public company or a REIT, which could increase our general and administrative costs and reduce our cash available for distributions.

Prior to the completion of our initial public offering in December 2004, none of our senior executive officers had any experience operating a public company or a REIT. Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Internal Revenue Code provisions. As a result, we may incur higher general and administrative expenses than our competitors that are managed by persons with greater experience operating a public company or a REIT, which would reduce our net income and cash available for distribution.

Future acquisitions may not yield the returns expected, may result in disruptions to our business, may strain management resources and may result in stockholder dilution.

Our business strategy may not ultimately be successful and may not provide positive returns on our investments. Acquisitions may cause disruptions in our operations and divert management’s attention away from day-to-day operations. The issuance of equity securities in connection with any acquisition could be substantially dilutive to our stockholders.

18

Table of Contents

Our net income would be adversely affected if our leases for the resort property are terminated or if the sub-lessees have insufficient net income to pay rent.

If the Shell Island resort property leases are terminated, our sublease agreements for the resort property will also be terminated. The property leases may be terminated by the resort property’s homeowners’ association if MHI Hotels, LLC or MHI Hotels Two, Inc., two of our affiliates, breach certain provisions under the leases. The leases may also be terminated by the homeowners’ association if MHI Hotels Services serves as central rental agent for less than 80 of the 160 rental units at the resort. Upon termination of these subleases, MHI Hotels, LLC and MHI Hotels Two, Inc. would be unable to meet their payment obligations, and we would no longer receive the fixed annual amount of approximately $640,000, less our lease payments of approximately $168,000 to the resort property’s homeowners’ association. In addition, the ability of MHI Hotels, LLC and MHI Hotels Two, Inc. to make rent payments is dependent upon generating revenues from the operation of the resort properties. Although MHI Hotels Services has agreed to make capital contributions to MHI Hotels, LLC and MHI Hotels Two, Inc. in an amount sufficient to cure their defaults under the sublease agreements, MHI Hotels Services has nominal assets, and is dependent on management fee income. In such event, our net income could be adversely affected, and we may be required to write off our investment in the Shell Island Resort property leases.

We may realize reduced revenue because our management company may experience conflicts of interest in connection with the management of the resort property.

MHI Hotels Services may experience conflicts of interest in connection with the management of our resort property and one of our initial hotel properties, which are located less than one mile from each other, and its continued management of an additional resort property not owned by us and located nearby in the same geographic market. The fees MHI Hotels Services earns for managing our properties are largely fixed under our management agreement with MHI Hotels Services and may be less than the fees it earns for managing the resort property that we do not own or lease. Because MHI Hotels Services handles the reservations for all of these properties, MHI Hotels Services may have a greater financial incentive to direct guests to the resort property that we do not own or lease.

Geographic concentration of our initial hotels will make our business vulnerable to economic downturns in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southeastern United States.

Our hotels are located in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southeastern United States. Economic conditions in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southeastern United States will significantly affect our revenues and the value of our hotels. Business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, changing demographics and other similar factors may adversely affect the economic climate in these areas. Any resulting oversupply or reduced demand for hotels in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest and Southeastern United States and our markets in particular would therefore have a disproportionate negative impact on our revenues and limit our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

Our borrowing costs are sensitive to fluctuations in interest rates.

Higher interest rates could increase debt service requirements on our floating rate debt, including any borrowings under our proposed credit facility, which permits us to borrow up to $60.0 million. Any borrowings under our proposed credit facility will have floating interest rates of 30-day LIBOR plus 1.625 to 2.125%. We currently have an interest-rate swap agreement that fixes the amount of interest on $30 million of indebtedness. To the extent that the total amount borrowed on the credit facility is less than $30 million, we are exposed to falling interest rates on the difference between the amount borrowed and $30 million. To the extent that the total amount borrowed on the credit facility is more than $30 million, we are exposed to rising interest rates on the difference between the amount borrowed in excess of $30 million. Adverse economic conditions could also cause the terms on which we borrow to be unfavorable. We could be required to liquidate one or more of our hotel investments at times which may not permit us to receive an attractive return on our investments in order to meet our debt service obligations. If we were to engage in any additional hedging transactions, they would have to be structured so as to not jeopardize our status as a REIT.

19

Table of Contents

We are company with limited operating history, and we might not be able to operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies successfully, which could negatively impact our ability to make distributions and cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

We were incorporated in Maryland in August 2004 and have only operated our business since the close of our initial public offering on December 21, 2004. We are subject to all of the business risks and uncertainties associated with any new business, including the risk that we will not achieve our business objectives and that the value of your investment could decline substantially. The results of our operations will depend on many factors, including the availability of opportunities for investment, readily accessible short and long-term funding alternatives in the financial markets and economic conditions. Furthermore, if we cannot successfully operate our business or implement our operating policies and strategies as described in this report, it could negatively impact our ability to make distributions and cause you to lose all or part of your investment.

Joint venture investments could be adversely affected by our lack of sole decision-making authority, our reliance on a joint venture partners’ financial condition and disputes between our joint venture partners and us.

In August 2007, we purchased a 25% indirect, non-controlling interest in the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach through a joint venture with Carlyle. Carlyle owns a 75% controlling interest in the joint venture and is in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property including, but not limited to, the method and timing of disposition of the property.

We may co-invest in the future with Carlyle or other third parties through partnerships, joint ventures or other entities, acquiring non-controlling interests in or sharing responsibility for managing the affairs of a property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. In such event, we would not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, partnership, joint venture or other entity. Investments in partnerships, joint ventures, or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners or joint venture partners might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or joint venture partners may have economic or other business interests or goals, which are inconsistent with our business interests or goals, and may be in a position to take actions contrary to our policies or objectives. Such investments may also have the potential risk of impasses on decisions, such as a sale, because neither we, nor the partner or joint venture partner, would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or joint venture partners may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent our officers and/or directors from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners or joint venture partners might result in subjecting properties owned by the partnership or joint venture to additional risk. We may also, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of our third-party partners or joint venture partners. For example, we may be required to guarantee indebtedness incurred by a partnership, joint venture or other entity for the purchase or renovation of a hotel property. Such a guarantee may be on a joint and several basis with our partner or joint venture partner in which case we may be liable in the event such party defaults on its guaranty obligation.

Investments in condominium hotels may be adversely affected by state and local regulations as well as unit owner participation.

We may identify opportunities to acquire an interest in a hotel, apartment building or other real estate asset that is being converted to or developed for use as a condominium hotel. The offer and sale of condominiums is subject to federal, state, and local regulations. Failure by the condominium developer to comply with these regulations may lead, among others, to the unit owners’ right to rescind the purchase of the unit. Such a rescission could adversely impact the operation of the condominium hotel. State and local jurisdictions have complex and varying condominium laws and related regulations that govern their use and re-sale. These laws and regulations may contain limitations and restrictions that could impact the economic benefits derived from investing in a condominium hotel. In addition, economic benefits, of an investment in a condominium hotel, which are already affected by the state of the local lodging industry, will vary depending upon the number of condominium units that are included in the operations of the hotel.

20

Table of Contents

Risks Related to the Hotel Industry

Our ability to make distributions to our stockholders may be affected by factors in the lodging industry.

Operating Risks

Our hotel properties are subject to various operating risks common to the lodging industry, many of which are beyond our control, including the following:

These factors could reduce the net income of our TRS Lessee, which in turn could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Competition for Acquisitions

We compete for investment opportunities with entities that have substantially greater financial resources than we do. These entities generally may be able to accept more risk than we can prudently manage. This competition may generally limit the number of suitable investment opportunities offered to us. This competition may also increase the bargaining power of property owners seeking to sell to us, making it more difficult for us to acquire new properties on attractive terms.

Seasonality of Hotel Business

The hotel industry is seasonal in nature. This seasonality can be expected to cause quarterly fluctuations in our revenues. Our quarterly earnings may be adversely affected by factors outside our control, including weather conditions and poor economic factors. As a result, we may have to enter into short-term borrowings in certain quarters in order to offset these fluctuations in revenues and to make distributions to our stockholders.

Investment Concentration in Particular Segments of Single Industry

Our entire business is lodging-related. Therefore, a downturn in the lodging industry, in general, and the segments in which we operate, in particular, will have a material adverse effect on amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

Capital Expenditures

Our hotel properties have an ongoing need for renovations and other capital improvements, including replacements, from time to time, of furniture, fixtures and equipment. The franchisors of our hotels also require

21

Table of Contents

us to make periodic capital improvements as a condition of keeping the franchise licenses. In addition, our lenders will likely require that we set aside annual amounts for capital improvements to our hotel properties. We expect the average lenders’ capital improvements reserve requirement for all of our hotels will be approximately 4% of gross sales. Based upon our hotels’ gross revenue in fiscal year 2007, the average lender’s capital improvements reserve requirement for all of our hotels would have been approximately $2,759,000 based on an average 4% capital improvement reserves. For the year ended December 31, 2007, we spent approximately $19.4 million on capital improvements to our hotels. These capital improvements may give rise to the following risks:

The costs of all these capital improvements could adversely affect our financial condition and amounts available for distribution to our stockholders.

Hotel re-development is subject to timing, budgeting and other risks that would increase our operating costs and limit our ability to make distributions to stockholders.

We intend to acquire hotel properties from time to time as suitable opportunities arise, taking into consideration general economic conditions and seek to re-develop or reposition these hotels. Redevelopment of hotel properties involve a number of risks, including risks associated with:

We cannot assure you that any re-development project will be completed on time or within budget. Our inability to complete a project on time or within budget would increase our operating costs and reduce our net income.

The hotel business is capital intensive, and our inability to obtain financing could limit our growth.

Our hotel properties will require periodic capital expenditures and renovation to remain competitive. Acquisitions or development of additional hotel properties will require significant capital expenditures. The lenders under some of the mortgage debt that we assumed in our initial public offering require us to set aside varying amounts each year for capital improvements at our hotels. We may not be able to fund capital improvements or acquisitions solely from cash provided from our operating activities because we must distribute at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gains, each year to maintain our REIT tax status. Consequently, we rely upon the availability of debt or equity capital to fund hotel acquisitions and improvements. As a result, our ability to fund capital expenditures, acquisitions or hotel development through retained earnings is very limited. Our ability to grow through acquisitions or development of hotels will be limited if we cannot obtain satisfactory debt or equity financing which will depend on market conditions. Neither our charter nor our bylaws limits the amount of debt that we can incur. However, we cannot assure you that we will be able to obtain additional equity or debt financing or that we will be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms.

22

Table of Contents

The events of September 11, 2001, recent economic trends, the military action in Afghanistan and Iraq and prospects for future terrorist acts and military action have adversely affected the hotel industry generally, and these adverse effects may continue.

Before September 11, 2001, hotel owners and operators had begun experiencing declining RevPAR, as a result of the slowing U.S. economy. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 and the after-effects (including the prospects for more terror attacks in the United States and abroad), combined with economic trends and the U.S.-led military action in Afghanistan and Iraq, substantially reduced business and leisure travel and lodging industry RevPAR generally. We cannot predict the extent to which these factors will directly or indirectly impact the value of our common stock, the lodging industry or our operating results in the future. Declining RevPAR at hotels that we acquire would reduce our net income and restrict our ability to fund capital improvements at our hotels and our ability to make distributions to stockholders necessary to maintain our status as a REIT. Additional terrorist attacks, acts of war or similar events could have further material adverse effects on the markets on which shares of our common stock will trade, the lodging industry at large and our operations in particular.

Uninsured and underinsured losses could adversely affect our operating results and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

We intend to maintain comprehensive insurance on each of our hotel properties, including liability, fire and extended coverage, of the type and amount we believe are customarily obtained for or by hotel owners. There are no assurances that current coverage will continue to be available at reasonable rates. Various types of catastrophic losses, like earthquakes and floods, such as Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in August 2005, losses from foreign terrorist activities such as those on September 11, 2001 or losses from domestic terrorist activities such as the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995, may not be insurable or may not be economically insurable. Initially, we do not expect to obtain terrorism insurance on our hotel properties because it is costly. Lenders may require such insurance and our failure to obtain such insurance could constitute a default under loan agreements. Depending on our access to capital, liquidity and the value of the properties securing the affected loan in relation to the balance of the loan, a default could reduce our net income and limit our ability to obtain future financing.

In the event of a substantial loss, our insurance coverage may not be sufficient to cover the full current market value or replacement cost of our lost investment. Should an uninsured loss or a loss in excess of insured limits occur, we could lose all or a portion of the capital we have invested in a hotel, as well as the anticipated future revenue from the hotel. In that event, we might nevertheless remain obligated for any mortgage debt or other financial obligations related to the property. Inflation, changes in building codes and ordinances, environmental considerations and other factors might also keep us from using insurance proceeds to replace or renovate a hotel after it has been damaged or destroyed. Under those circumstances, the insurance proceeds we receive might be inadequate to restore our economic position on the damaged or destroyed property.

Noncompliance with governmental regulations could adversely affect our operating results.

Environmental Matters

Our hotels may be subject to environmental liabilities. An owner of real property can face liability for environmental contamination created by the presence or discharge of hazardous substances on the property. We may face liability regardless of:

23

Table of Contents

There may be unknown environmental problems associated with our properties. If environmental contamination exists on our properties, we could become subject to strict, joint and several liability for the contamination by virtue of our ownership interest.

The presence of hazardous substances on a property may adversely affect our ability to sell the property and we may incur substantial remediation costs. The discovery of environmental liabilities attached to our properties could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition and our ability to pay dividends to stockholders.

Americans with Disabilities Act and Other Changes in Governmental Rules and Regulations

Under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, or the ADA, all public accommodations must meet various federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. Compliance with the ADA’s requirements could require removal of access barriers, and non-compliance could result in the U.S. government imposing fines or in private litigants winning damages. If we are required to make substantial modifications to our hotels, whether to comply with the ADA or other changes in governmental rules and regulations, our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected.

General Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry

Illiquidity of real estate investments could significantly impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties and harm our financial condition.

Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more hotel properties or mortgage loans in our portfolio in response to changing economic, financial and investment conditions is limited.

The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, including:

We may decide to sell our hotels in the future. We cannot predict whether we will be able to sell any hotel property or loan for the price or on the terms set by us, or whether any price or other terms offered by a prospective purchaser would be acceptable to us. We also cannot predict the length of time needed to find a willing purchaser and to close the sale of a hotel property or loan.

We may be required to expend funds to correct defects or to make improvements before a hotel property can be sold. We cannot assure you that we will have funds available to correct those defects or to make those improvements. In acquiring a hotel property, we may agree to lock-out provisions that materially restrict us from selling that property for a period of time or impose other restrictions, such as a limitation on the amount of debt that can be placed or repaid on that property. These factors and any others that would impede our ability to respond to adverse changes in the performance of our properties could have a material adverse effect on our operating results and financial condition, as well as our ability to pay distributions to stockholders.

24

Table of Contents

Our hotels may contain or develop harmful mold, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediating the problem.

When excessive moisture accumulates in buildings or on building materials, mold growth may occur, particularly if the moisture problem remains undiscovered or is not addressed over a period of time. Some molds may produce airborne toxins or irritants. Concern about indoor exposure to mold has been increasing, as exposure to mold may cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold from the affected property, which would reduce our cash available for distribution. In addition, the presence of significant mold could expose us to liability from our guests, employees or our management company and others if property damage or health concerns arise.

Risks Related to Our Organization and Structure

Our failure to qualify as a REIT under the federal tax laws will result in substantial tax liability, which would reduce the amount of cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

The federal income tax laws governing REITs are complex.

We intend to operate in a manner that will maintain our qualification as a REIT under the federal income tax laws. The REIT qualification requirements are extremely complex, however, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification as a REIT are limited. We have not applied for or obtained a ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that we will qualify as a REIT. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that we will be successful in operating so we can qualify as a REIT. At any time, new laws, interpretations or court decisions may change the federal tax laws or the federal income tax consequences of our qualification as a REIT.

Failure to make distributions could subject us to tax.

In order to maintain our qualification as a REIT, each year we must pay out to our stockholders in distributions at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gain. To the extent that we satisfy this distribution minimum, but distribute less than 100% of our taxable income, we will be subject to federal corporate income tax on our undistributed taxable income. In addition, we will be subject to a 4% nondeductible excise tax if the actual amount that we pay out to our stockholders in a calendar year is less than the minimum amount specified under federal tax laws. Our only source of funds to make these distributions comes from rent and dividends we receive from our TRS Lessee, which in turn receives revenues from hotel operations. Accordingly, we may be required to borrow money or sell assets to make distributions sufficient to enable us to pay out enough of our taxable income to satisfy the distribution requirement and to avoid corporate income tax and the 4% nondeductible excise tax in a particular year.

Failure to qualify as a REIT would subject us to federal income tax.

If we fail to remain qualified as a REIT in any taxable year (including, but not limited to, a failure resulting from not making the minimum required distribution), and if the relief provisions were not to apply, we will be subject to federal income tax on our taxable income. If we fail to qualify as a REIT, we would not be required to make any distributions. In addition, any distributions that we do make will not be deductible by us. This would substantially reduce our earnings, our cash available to pay distributions, and the value of our common stock.

The resulting tax liability might cause us to borrow funds, liquidate some of our investments, or take other steps that could negatively affect our operating results in order to pay any such tax. Moreover, if our REIT status is terminated because of our failure to meet a technical REIT requirement and the relief provisions did not excuse our failure to qualify as a REIT, or if we voluntarily revoke our election, we generally would be disqualified from re-electing treatment as a REIT until the fifth calendar year after the year in which we failed to qualify as a REIT.

25

Table of Contents

Failure to qualify as a REIT may cause us to reduce or eliminate distributions to our shareholders, and we may face increased difficulty in raising capital or obtaining financing.

If we fail to remain qualified as a REIT, we may have to reduce or eliminate any distributions to our stockholders in order to satisfy our income tax liabilities. Any distributions that we do make to our stockholders would be treated as taxable dividends to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. This may result in negative investor and market perception regarding the market value of our common stock, and the value of your shares of our common stock may be reduced. In addition, we may face increased difficulty in raising capital or obtaining financing if we fail to qualify or remain qualified as a REIT because of the resulting tax liability and potential reduction of our market valuation.

MHI Holding and our TRS Lessee increase our overall tax liability.

MHI Holding and our TRS Lessee are subject to federal and state income tax on their taxable income, which will consist of the revenues from the hotels leased by our TRS Lessee, net of the operating expenses for such hotels and rent payments to us. Accordingly, although our ownership of our TRS Lessee will allow us to participate in the operating income from our hotels in addition to receiving rent, that operating income will be fully subject to income tax. The after-tax net income of our TRS Lessee is available for distribution to us.

We will incur a 100% excise tax on transactions with MHI Holding and our TRS Lessee that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. For example, to the extent that the rent paid by our TRS Lessee to us exceeds an arm’s-length rental amount, such amount potentially will be subject to this excise tax. We intend that all transactions between us and MHI Holding and our TRS Lessee will be conducted on an arm’s-length basis and, therefore, that the rent paid by our TRS Lessee to us will not be subject to this excise tax.

Even if we remain qualified as a REIT, we may face other tax liabilities that reduce our cash flow.

Even if we remain qualified for taxation as a REIT, we may be subject to certain federal, state and local taxes on our income and assets. For example:

Our ability to effect a merger or other business combination transaction may be restricted by our operating partnership agreement.

Conflicts of interest relating to a merger or other business combination transactions involving our change of control may occur between us and Andrew Sims, our chairman, president and chief executive officer, William Zaiser, our executive vice president and chief financial officer and Kim Sims, Christopher Sims, and Edward Stein, three of our directors. Our operating partnership’s agreement of limited partnership provides that the holders of 66.7% of the outstanding limited partnership interests in our operating partnership (including our limited partnership interest in our operating partnership) must approve such a merger or other business

26

Table of Contents

combination transaction, unless the holders of 50% or more of the outstanding limited partnership interests (other than our limited partnership interest) approves such a merger or other business combination transaction. As of December 31, 2007, Andrew Sims, William Zaiser, Kim Sims, Christopher Sims and Ed Stein beneficially own approximately 21.68% of our outstanding limited partnership interests, and we own approximately 64.84%. Although our stockholders must approve a merger or other business combination transaction under applicable Maryland law, under our operating partnership agreement, limited partners, including certain of our officers and directors, must approve certain other business combination transactions involving us. These approval rights of limited partners may lead to conflicts of interest, which could result in decisions that do not fully reflect our best interests or the best interests of our stockholders.

In addition, in the event of a change of control of our company, the limited partners will have the right, for a period of 30 days following the change of control event, to cause the operating partnership to redeem all of the units held by the limited partners for a cash amount equal to the cash redemption amount otherwise payable upon redemption pursuant to the partnership agreement. This cash redemption right may make it more unlikely or difficult for a third party to propose or consummate a change of control transaction, even if such transaction were in the best interests of our shareholders.

Complying with REIT requirements may cause us to forego attractive opportunities that could otherwise generate strong risk-adjusted returns and instead pursue less attractive opportunities, or none at all.

To qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we must continually satisfy tests concerning, among other things, the sources of our income, the nature and diversification of our assets, the amounts we distribute to our stockholders and the ownership of our stock. Thus, compliance with the REIT requirements may hinder our ability to operate solely on the basis of generating strong risk-adjusted returns on invested capital for our stockholders.

Complying with REIT requirements may force us to liquidate otherwise attractive investments, which could result in an overall loss on our investments.

To maintain qualification as a REIT, we must also ensure that at the end of each calendar quarter at least 75% of the value of our assets consists of cash, cash items, government securities and qualified REIT real estate assets. The remainder of our investment in securities (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) generally cannot include more than 10% of the outstanding voting securities of any one issuer or more than 10% of the total value of the outstanding securities of any one issuer. In addition, in general, no more than 5% of the value of our assets (other than government securities and qualified real estate assets) can consist of the securities of any one issuer, and no more than 20% of the value of our total securities can be represented by securities of one or more taxable REIT subsidiaries. If we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, we must correct such failure within 30 days after the end of the calendar quarter to avoid losing our REIT status and suffering adverse tax consequences. After January 1, 2008, if we fail to comply with these requirements at the end of any calendar quarter, and the failure exceeds a de minimis threshold, we may be able to preserve our REIT status if the failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect. In this case, we will be required to dispose of the assets causing the failure within six months after the last day of the quarter in which the failure occurred, and we will be required to pay an additional tax of the greater of $50,000 or the product of the highest applicable tax rate multiplied by the net income generated on those assets. As a result, we may be required to liquidate otherwise attractive investments.

Taxation of dividend income could make our common stock less attractive to investors and reduce the market price of our common stock.

At any time, the federal income tax laws governing REITs or the administrative interpretations of those laws may be amended. Any of those new laws or interpretations may take effect retroactively and could adversely affect us or could adversely affect you as a stockholder. On May 28, 2003, the President signed the Jobs and

27

Table of Contents

Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, which we refer to as the Jobs and Growth Tax Act. Effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, and before January 1, 2009, the Jobs and Growth Tax Act generally reduced the maximum rate of tax applicable to individuals, trusts and estates on dividend income from regular C corporations to 15.0%. This reduced substantially the so-called “double taxation” (that is, taxation at both the corporate and stockholder levels) that has generally applied to corporations that are not taxed as REITs. Generally, dividends from REITs do not qualify for the dividend tax reduction because, as a result of the dividends paid deduction to which REITs are entitled, REITs generally do not pay corporate level tax on income that they distribute to stockholders. As a result of the Jobs and Growth Tax Act, individual, trust, and estate investors could view stocks of non REIT corporations as more attractive relative to shares of REITs than was the case previously because the dividends paid by non REIT corporations are subject to lower tax rates for such investors.

Provisions of our charter may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company.

Aggregate Share and Common Share Ownership Limits

Our charter provides that no person may directly or indirectly own more than 9.9% of the value of our outstanding shares of stock or more than 9.9% of the number of our outstanding shares of common stock. These ownership limitations may prevent an acquisition of control of our company by a third party without our board of directors’ approval, even if our stockholders believe the change of control is in their interest. Our board of directors has discretion to waive that ownership limit if the board receives evidence that ownership in excess of the limit will not jeopardize our REIT status.

Authority to Issue Stock

Our amended and restated Charter authorizes our board of directors to issue up to 49,000,000 shares of common stock and up to 1,000,000 shares of preferred stock, to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of common stock or preferred stock and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of the classified or reclassified shares. Issuances of additional shares of stock may have the effect of delaying or preventing a change in control of our company, including transactions at a premium over the market price of our stock, even if stockholders believe that a change of control is in their interest. We will be able to issue additional shares of stock or preferred stock without stockholder approval, unless stockholder approval is required by applicable law or the rules of any stock exchange or automated quotation system on which our securities may be listed or traded.

Provisions of Maryland law may limit the ability of a third party to acquire control of our company.

Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or the MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change of control under circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of shares of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then-prevailing market price of such shares, including:

28

Table of Contents

We have opted out of these provisions of the MGCL, in the case of the business combination provisions of the MGCL by resolution of our board of directors, and in the case of the control share provisions of the MGCL pursuant to a provision in our bylaws. However, our board of directors may by resolution elect to opt in to the business combination provisions of the MGCL and we may, by amendment to our bylaws, opt in to the control share provisions of the MGCL in the future.

Additionally, Title 8, Subtitle 3 of the MGCL permits our board of directors, without stockholder approval and regardless of what is currently provided in our charter or bylaws, to implement takeover defenses, some of which (for example, a classified board) we do not yet have. These provisions may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making an acquisition proposal for our company or of delaying, deferring or preventing a change in control of our company under the circumstances that otherwise could provide the holders of our common stock with the opportunity to realize a premium over the then current market price.

Provisions in our executive officers’ employment agreements and the strategic alliance agreement may make a change of control of our company more costly or difficult.

Our employment agreements with Mr. Andrew Sims, our chief executive officer, and Mr. William Zaiser, our chief financial officer, contain provisions providing for substantial payments to these officers in the event of a change of control of our company. Specifically, if we terminate these executive’s employment without cause or the executive resigns with good reason, which includes a failure to nominate Mr. Sims to our board of directors or his involuntary removal from our board of directors, unless for cause or by vote of the stockholders, or if there is a change of control, each of these executives is entitled to the following:

In the event that the employment of Mr. David Folsom, our chief operating officer, is terminated without cause or he resigns for good reason, Mr. Folsom is entitled to received the sum of the following amounts:

In addition, these executives will receive additional payments to compensate them for the additional taxes, if any, imposed on them under Section 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code by reason of receipt of excess parachute payments.

These provisions may make a change of control of our company, even if it is in the best interests of our stockholders, more costly and difficult and may reduce the amounts our stockholders would receive in a change of control transaction.

29

Table of Contents

Our ownership limitations may restrict or prevent you from engaging in certain transfers of our common stock.

In order to maintain our REIT qualification, no more than 50% in value of our outstanding stock may be owned, directly or indirectly, by five or fewer individuals (as defined in the federal income tax laws to include various kinds of entities) during the last half of any taxable year (other than the first year for which a REIT election is made). To preserve our REIT qualification, our charter contains a 9.9% aggregate share ownership limit and a 9.9% common share ownership limit. Generally, any shares of our stock owned by affiliated persons will be added together for purposes of the aggregate share ownership limit, and any shares of common stock owned by affiliated owners will be added together for purposes of the common share ownership limit.

If anyone transfers shares in a way that would violate the aggregate share ownership limit or the common share ownership limit, or prevent us from continuing to qualify as a REIT under the federal income tax laws, those shares instead will be transferred to a trust for the benefit of a charitable beneficiary and will be either redeemed by us or sold to a person whose ownership of the shares will not violate the aggregate share ownership limit or the common share ownership limit. If this transfer to a trust fails to prevent such a violation or our continued qualification as a REIT, then we will consider the initial intended transfer to be null and void from the outset. The intended transferee of those shares will be deemed never to have owned the shares. Anyone who acquires shares in violation of the aggregate share ownership limit, the common share ownership limit or the other restrictions on transfer in our charter bears the risk of suffering a financial loss when the shares are redeemed or sold if the market price of our stock falls between the date of purchase and the date of redemption or sale.

The board of directors’ revocation of our REIT status without stockholder approval may decrease our stockholders’ total return.

Our charter provides that our board of directors may revoke or otherwise terminate our REIT election, without the approval of our stockholders, if it determines that it is no longer in our best interest to continue to qualify as a REIT. If we cease to be a REIT, we would become subject to federal income tax on our taxable income and would no longer be required to distribute most of our taxable income to our stockholders, which may have adverse consequences on our total return to our stockholders.

The ability of our board of directors to change our major corporate policies may not be in your interest.

Our board of directors determines our major corporate policies, including our acquisition, financing, growth, operations and distribution policies. Our board may amend or revise these and other policies from time to time without the vote or consent of our stockholders.

Our success depends on key personnel whose continued service is not guaranteed.

We depend on the efforts and expertise of our chairman, president and chief executive officer, Andrew Sims; our executive vice president and chief operating officer, David Folsom; and our executive vice president and chief financial officer, William Zaiser, to manage our day-to-day operations and strategic business direction. The loss of any of their services could have an adverse effect on our operations.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments

Not applicable.

30

Table of Contents

Item 2. Properties

As of March 14, 2008, we owned the following eight hotel properties:

The Company owns a 25% indirect non-controlling interest in the 311-room Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort in Hollywood, Florida through a joint venture with Carlyle.

The Company also owns leasehold interests in two commercial units at the Shell Island Resort, a condominium resort property located in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. One lease relates to the restaurant, kitchens, meeting rooms, ballroom, laundry, maintenance shop, offices and certain maid closets. The second lease relates to the resort’s common areas and includes the lobby, swimming pools, outdoor café, front desk, back office, gift shop, certain storage areas, and ingress and egress throughout the building, including parking areas.

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

We are not involved in any legal proceedings other than routine legal proceedings occurring in the ordinary course of business. We believe that these routine legal proceedings, in the aggregate, are not material to our financial condition and results of operations.

Item 4. Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

No matters were submitted to a vote of our stockholders during the fourth quarter of the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007.

31

Table of Contents

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Market Information

Prior to March 11, 2008, our common stock traded on the American Stock Exchange under the symbol “MDH”. On March 11, 2008 we terminated our listing on the American Stock Exchange and listed our common stock on the NASDAQ^® Stock Market also under the symbol “MDH”. The following table sets forth, for the indicated period, the high and low sales prices for the common stock, as reported on the American Stock Exchange:

The closing price of our common stock on the NASDAQ^® Stock Market on March 14, 2008 was $6.67 per share.

Stockholder Information

As of February 29, 2008, there were 5,220 holders of our common stock, including shares held in “street name” by nominees who are record holders and shares held by beneficial owners.

In order to comply with certain requirements related to our qualification as a REIT, our charter, subject to certain exceptions, limits the number of common shares that may be owned by any single person or affiliated group to 9.9% of the outstanding common shares.

Dividend and Distribution Information

We elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ending December 31, 2004. To maintain qualification as a REIT, we are required to make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gain, which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. The amount, timing and frequency of distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a variety of factors deemed relevant by our directors, and no assurance can be given that our distribution policy will not change in the future. Our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will depend, in part, upon our receipt of distributions from our operating partnership which may depend upon receipt of lease payments with respect to our properties from our TRS Lessee, and in turn, upon the management of our properties by our hotel manager. Distributions to our stockholders will generally be taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income; however, because a portion of our investments will be equity ownership interests in hotels, which will result in depreciation and non-cash charges against our income, a portion of our distributions may constitute a tax-free return of capital. To the extent not inconsistent with maintaining our REIT status, our TRS may retain any after-tax earnings.

32

Table of Contents

In January 2007, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended March 31, 2007. The dividend was paid on April 11, 2007. In April 2007, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended June 30, 2007. The dividend was paid on July 11, 2007. In July 2007, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended September 30, 2007. The dividend was paid on October 11, 2007. In October 2007, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended December 31, 2007. The dividend was paid January 11, 2008.

In January 2006, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended March 31, 2006. The dividend was paid on April 11, 2006. In April 2006, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended June 30, 2006. The dividend was paid on July 11, 2006. In July 2006, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended September 30, 2006. The dividend was paid on October 11, 2006. In October 2006, we declared a dividend payment of $0.17 per common share for the quarter ended December 31, 2006. The dividend was paid January 11, 2007.

We intend to continue to declare quarterly distributions to our stockholders. The amount of future distributions will be based upon quarterly operating results, general economic conditions, capital improvements, the Internal Revenue Code’s annual distribution requirements, and other factors, which our board of directors deem relevant.

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The following table sets forth selected historical financial data for MHI Hospitality Corporation beginning with its commencement of operations on December 21, 2004. The table sets forth selected historical financial data for MHI Hotel Services Group. For periods ending prior to December 21, 2004, MHI Hotel Services Group is considered the predecessor to MHI Hospitality Corporation for accounting purposes.

The financial data for MHI Hotels Services Group is comprised of financial information for the entities and interests formerly under common ownership and control by Edgar Sims, Jr., Jeanette Sims, Andrew Sims, Kim Sims and Christopher Sims. MHI Hotels Services Group formerly included three of our initial hotel properties: the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg, the Hilton Wilmington Riverside and the Hilton Savannah DeSoto. Ownership interests in the entities that owned these properties were contributed to our operating partnership upon the completion of our initial public offering. The following selected historical financial data for MHI Hospitality Corporation for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 and the period December 21, 2004 to December 31, 2004, and for MHI Hotels Services Group for the period January 1, 2004 to December 20, 2004 and the year ended December 31, 2003 were derived from audited combined financial statements contained elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. These financial statements have been audited by PKF Witt Mares, PLC (formerly Witt, Mares & Company, PLC) our independent registered public accounting firm. The audited historical financial statements include reclassifications and all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, which we consider necessary for a fair presentation of our financial condition and the results of operations as of those dates and for those periods under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

33

Table of Contents

The information presented below is only a summary and does not provide all of the information contained in our financial statements and those of our predecessor entities, including notes thereto, and should be read together with “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” and our combined financial statements and related notes included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

MHI HOSPITALITY CORPORATION AND PREDECESSOR

SELECTED HISTORICAL FINANCIAL DATA

34

Table of Contents

FFO does not represent cash generated from operating activities as determined by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) and should not be considered as an alternative to GAAP net income, as an indication of our financial performance, or to cash flow from operating activities as determined by GAAP, as a measure of liquidity. In addition, FFO is not indicative of funds available to fund cash needs, including the ability to make cash distributions.

35

Table of Contents

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

Overview

We are a self-advised REIT incorporated in Maryland in August 2004 to pursue current and future opportunities in the full-service, upper upscale, upscale and mid-scale segments of the hotel industry. We commenced operations in December 2004 when we completed our initial public offering and sold 6,000,000 shares of common stock, resulting in net proceeds (after deducting underwriting discounts and offering expenses) of approximately $54.8 million. In conjunction with our initial public offering, we sold an additional 700,000 shares of common stock as a result of the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option in January 2005, resulting in additional proceeds of approximately $6.5 million.

Concurrent with the completion of the initial public offering, we acquired six hotel properties. Since the initial public offering, we have engaged in the following acquisitions and dispositions:

Our hotel portfolio currently consists of eight full-service, upper upscale and mid-scale hotels. These hotels are 100% owned by subsidiaries of our operating partnership. We also own a 25% indirect non-controlling interest in the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort and we have a leasehold interest in a resort condominium facility in Wrightsville Beach, North Carolina. As of December 31, 2007, we owned the following eight hotel properties:

36

Table of Contents

We conduct substantially all our business through our operating partnership, MHI Hospitality, L.P. We are the sole general partner of our Operating Partnership and we own an approximate 64.4% interest in our Operating Partnership, with the remaining interest being held by limited partners who were contributors of our original hotel properties and related assets.

To qualify as a REIT, we cannot operate hotels. Therefore, our operating partnership leases our hotel properties to our TRS Lessee. Our TRS Lessee has engaged MHI Hotels Services to manage our hotels. Our TRS Lessee and its parent, MHI Hospitality TRS Holding, Inc., are consolidated into our financial statements for accounting purposes. The earnings of MHI Hospitality TRS Holding, Inc. are subject to taxation similar to other C corporations.

Key Operating Metrics

In the hotel industry, most categories of operating costs, with the exception of franchise, management, and credit card fees and the costs of the food and beverages served, do not vary directly with revenues. This aspect of our operating costs creates operating leverage, whereby changes in sales volume disproportionately impact operating results. Room revenue is the most important category of revenue and drives other revenue categories such as food and beverage and telephone. There are three key performance indicators used in the hotel industry to measure room revenues:

Results of Operations

Comparison of Year Ended December 31, 2007 to Year Ended December 31, 2006

The following table illustrates the key operating metrics for the years ended December 31, 2007 and 2006 for the six operational properties that are in our current portfolio. Accordingly, it does not reflect the performance of the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg, the property previously operated as the Louisville Ramada Riverfront Inn or the property previously operated as the Tampa Clarion Hotel.

Revenue. Total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2007 was approximately $69.8 million, an increase of approximately $2.6 million or 3.8% from total revenue for the year ended December 31, 2006 of approximately $67.2 million. Strong growth in room revenues of approximately 6.0% was offset by the loss of non-recurring consulting fees of approximately $0.7 million from the developer of the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort in Hollywood, Florida.

37

Table of Contents

Room revenues at our properties for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $2.6 million or 6.0% to approximately $46.5 million compared to room revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006 of approximately $43.9 million. A 6.0% increase in RevPAR was achieved through a combined increase in occupancy of 0.1% and average ADR growth of 5.9%. We continue to see increases in ADR at our Philadelphia property due to a better mix of business and a strong market. Our property in Laurel, Maryland contributed to the increase in ADR as we continue to see results from our efforts to reposition the property. Occupancy increases at our properties in Savannah, Georgia and Jacksonville, Florida were offset by occupancy decreases at our property in Wilmington, North Carolina that has been undergoing significant renovations which should be completed by April 2008. We expect that anticipated increases in occupancy in 2008 at our property in Wilmington, North Carolina will be offset by decreases in occupancy at our property in Savannah, Georgia where significant renovations have just begun and are not expected to be complete until December 2008.

Food and beverage revenues at our properties for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.4 million or 2.1% to approximately $19.5 million compared to food and beverage revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006 of approximately $19.1 million. With the exception of our Savannah, Georgia and Philadelphia properties where we saw a significant increase in demand for banqueting services, the remainder of our properties experienced weaker demand for such services. Overall, while room sales from group business have remained strong, the demand for banqueting services from those groups has not been as strong.

Other operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2007 decreased approximately $0.5 million or 11.4% to approximately $3.7 million compared to other operating revenues for the year ended December 31, 2006 of approximately $4.2 million. In the last half of 2006, we realized approximately $0.7 million in non-recurring consulting fees from the developer of the Hollywood, Florida property.

Hotel Operating Expenses. Hotel operating expenses, which consist of room expenses, food and beverage expenses, other direct expenses, indirect expenses, and management fees, increased approximately $1.7 million or 3.3% for the year ended December 31, 2007 to approximately $51.9 million compared to hotel operating expenses for the year ended December 31, 2006 of approximately $50.2 million.

Rooms expense at our properties for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.2 million or 1.3% to approximately $12.3 million compared to rooms expense of approximately $12.1 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. As a percent of room revenues, rooms expense fell from 27.6% to 26.4%. The decrease was due to one-time costs realized in the year ended December 31, 2006 to replace room amenities at our Hilton brand properties.

Food and beverage expenses at our properties for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.7 million or 5.0% to approximately $13.7 million compared to food and beverage expense of approximately $13.0 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. Higher food costs and increased costs related to the renovation of the kitchen at the Wilmington, North Carolina property contributed to the increase in food and beverage expense. Indirect expenses at our properties for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.9 million or 3.5% to approximately $25.1 million compared to indirect expenses of approximately $24.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Depreciation and Amortization. Depreciation and amortization for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.1 million or 2.7% to approximately $5.0 million compared to depreciation and amortization expense of approximately $4.9 million for the year ended December 31, 2006.

Corporate General and Administrative. Corporate general and administrative expenses for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.5 million or 21.1% to approximately $3.1 million compared to corporate general and administrative expenses of approximately $2.6 million for the year ended December 31, 2006. A substantial portion of the increase is attributable to the bonuses granted pursuant to the cash bonus plan for principal executive officers established in the first quarter 2007 by the Nominating, Corporate Governance

38

Table of Contents

and Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors. We also incurred additional legal fees in structuring the program and operating agreements that will allow us to jointly acquire, develop and operate hotel assets and, perhaps, hotel portfolios with Carlyle.

Net Operating Income. Operating income for the year ended December 31, 2007 increased approximately $0.2 million or 2.4% to approximately $9.7 million compared to approximately $9.5 million of operating income for the year ended December 31, 2006 as a result of the operating results discussed above.

Interest Expense. Interest expense for the year ended December 31, 2007 decreased approximately $0.05 million or 1.2% to approximately $4.2 million (net of capitalized interest of approximately $1.0 million) compared to approximately $4.3 million of interest expense (net of capitalized interest of approximately $0.2 million) for the year ended December 31, 2006. Lower interest expense related to borrowings on the credit facility for working capital purposes was partially offset by higher interest expense on the mortgage on the Wilmington Hilton Riverside. Interest expense in future periods should increase due to increased borrowings to fund our investment in the joint venture with Carlyle that purchased the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort as well as the renovations to the Hilton Savannah DeSoto. Interest expense will also increase once the Sheraton Louisville Riverside North in Jeffersonville, Indiana opens and the interest on the borrowings related to that property are no longer capitalized.

Equity Loss in Joint Venture. Equity loss in the joint venture for the year ended December 31, 2007 represents our share of the start-up costs for the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort as well as the initial operating losses incurred during the first three months of operation. During the first few months of operation ending December 31, 2007, the hotel reported occupancy of 32.1%, ADR of $144.94 and RevPAR of $46.58.

Income Taxes. We experienced an income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2007 of approximately $0.2 million compared to an income tax provision of approximately $0.3 million for the year ended December 31,2006. The income tax benefit in the current year was largely due to our share of start-up expenses and initial operating losses from our joint venture with Carlyle related to the opening of the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort.

Net Income. Net income for the year ended December 31, 2007 decreased approximately $0.7 million or 22.6% to approximately $2.5 million compared to approximately $3.2 million for the year ended December 31, 2006 as a result of the operating results discussed above.

Sources and Uses of Cash

Operating Activities. Our principal source of cash to meet our operating requirements, including distributions to unit holders and stockholders as well as repayments of indebtedness, is the operations of our hotels. Cash flow provided by operating activities for the year ended December 31, 2007 was approximately $12.8 million. We expect that the net cash provided by operations will be adequate to fund the Company’s operating requirements, debt service and the payment of dividends in accordance with federal income tax laws which require us make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, excluding net capital gain. We declared dividends of $0.17 per share (unit) paid on January 11, 2007, April 11, 2007, July 11, 2007, and October 11, 2007, which we funded out of working capital.

Investing Activities. Approximately $18.6 million was spent during the year ended December 31, 2007 on renovations and capital improvements. Over $15.7 million was spent on renovations at Wilmington Hilton Riverside and our property in Jeffersonville, Indiana. We expect that renovations at both properties will be completed in April 2008. At the end of 2007, renovation at the Savannah Hilton DeSoto began, as well.

On February 6, 2007, we received payment of $2.63 million for the first of three promissory notes originating from the sale on August 10, 2006 of the Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg. On March 14, 2007, we received $1.4 million representing payment of the second of three promissory notes originating from the same sale.

39

Table of Contents

On August 8, 2007, we contributed approximately $6.6 million to a joint venture which acquired the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort, a newly renovated 311-room hotel in Hollywood, Florida retaining a 25% equity position. A portion of the aggregate purchase price of $74.0 million was financed with a two-year $57.6 million non-recourse loan from Société Générale. The contribution to the joint venture was funded through draws on our credit facility.

On October 29, 2007, the Company completed the purchase of a 250-room hotel in Tampa, Florida, formerly known as the Tampa Clarion Hotel for approximately $13.8 million, including transaction costs. To facilitate the closing of the acquisition, we drew approximately $13.8 million on our credit facility.

These activities represent our cash flow used in investing activities for the year ended December 31, 2007 of approximately $35.0 million.

Financing Activities. For the year ended December 31, 2007, net cash provided by financing activities was approximately $24.8 million. During the course of the year we refinanced the mortgages on the Wilmington Hilton Riverside and the Savannah Hilton DeSoto generating proceeds of approximately $13.9 million for the purpose of funding renovations at both properties pursuant to franchisor mandated capital improvement programs. We also borrowed approximately $19.2 million to fund continued renovations at our property in Jeffersonville, Indiana, our contribution to a joint venture with Carlyle for the purchase of the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach Resort in which we retain a 25% indirect non-controlling interest, as well as the purchase of the property formerly known as the Tampa Clarion Hotel in Tampa, Florida. We incurred costs of approximately $0.6 million associated with the extension of our revolving credit facility and made principal payments of approximately $0.5 million as required under various mortgage loan agreements. We also used approximately $7.2 million to make distributions to our unitholders and dividends to holders of our common stock.

Capital Expenditures

Recurring capital expenditures for the replacement and refurbishment of furniture, fixtures and equipment, as well as debt service, are our most significant short-term liquidity requirements. During the next 12 months, we expect capital expenditures will be funded by our replacement reserve accounts, other than costs that we incur to make capital improvements required by our franchisors. With respect to three of our hotels, the reserve accounts are escrowed accounts with funds deposited monthly and reserved for capital improvements or expenditures. We deposit an amount equal to 4% of gross revenue for both the Hilton Savannah DeSoto and Hilton Wilmington Riverside and 4% of room revenues for the Crowne Plaza Jacksonville. Our intent for the capital expenditures at all hotels is to maintain overall capital expenditures at 4% of gross revenue.

On September 20, 2006, we purchased the Louisville Ramada Riverfront Inn in Jeffersonville, Indiana with the intention of renovating and re-branding the hotel. On February 23, 2007, we obtained a 15-year franchise license agreement with Starwood Hotels and Resorts to brand the property as a Sheraton hotel. Renovation costs are estimated at approximately $15.9 million and the property is expected to re-open in April 2008. Approximately $8.8 million had been expended as of December 31, 2007. All costs have been and will be funded by additional borrowings on our credit facility.

In February 2007, the franchise license for the Hilton Wilmington Riverside was renewed and extended to March 2018. To comply with the re-licensing agreement, we must complete a property improvement plan (“PIP”). We estimate the cost of the required renovations to total approximately $10.4 million and be completed in April 2008. Approximately $8.3 million had been expended as of December 31, 2007. The remaining costs will be funded by additional borrowings on our credit facility.

In July 2007, the franchise license for the Hilton Savannah DeSoto Hotel was renewed and extended to July 2018. To comply with the re-licensing agreement, we must complete a PIP, which we expect to be completed in February 2009 and total approximately $11.0 million. Approximately $2.0 million had been expended as of December 31, 2007. The renovations will be funded by additional draws of $9.0 million on the mortgage that was refinanced in August 2007.

40

Table of Contents

On October 29, 2007, we purchased the property formerly known as the Tampa Clarion Hotel in Tampa, Florida with the intention of renovating and re-branding the hotel. On October 31, 2007, we obtained a 10-year franchise agreement with InterContinental Hotels Group to brand the property as a Crowne Plaza hotel. Renovation costs are estimated at approximately $20.0 million, of which approximately $1.0 million had been expended as of December 31, 2007. The renovations will be funded by additional borrowings on our credit facility.

On January 23, 2008, we entered into a definitive agreement to purchase the Hampton Marina Hotel in Hampton, Virginia for the aggregate purchase price of $7.85 million. On February 27, 2008, we obtained a 10-year franchise agreement with InterContinental Hotels Group to brand the property as a Crowne Plaza hotel. In conjunction with the license agreement, we expect that we will be required to complete a PIP. However, the scope of the required renovations has not been determined. We estimate the cost of renovation to range between $3.0 million and $6.0 million and anticipate that the costs will be expended between the third quarter 2008 and the first quarter 2009. We intend to fund the acquisition and the renovations through a first mortgage on the hotel and additional borrowings on our credit facility.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2007, we had cash and cash equivalents of approximately $5.7 million, of which $1.7 million was in restricted reserve accounts and real estate tax escrows. As of December 31, 2007, our revolving credit facility, under which we may borrow up to $60.0 million, had an outstanding balance of approximately $34.4 million. We expect that our cash on hand combined with our cash flow from our hotels should be adequate to fund continuing operations, recurring capital expenditures for the refurbishment and replacement of furniture, fixtures and equipment as well as debt service.

We estimate that in order to complete all the capital projects to which we are committed, we will require capital ranging from approximately $48.0 million to $52.0 million. Most of the capital will be required before the end of the fourth quarter 2008 and should not exceed $6.0 million in the first quarter 2009. We expect that $9.0 million will be obtained through additional draws on the mortgage on the Hilton Savannah DeSoto. We also expect to acquire the property in Hampton, Virginia subject to a first mortgage ranging between $3.5 and $6.0 million. We expect that the remaining capital will be funded by additional borrowings on our credit facility. The facility contains an uncommitted accordion facility that we intend to exercise and expect to expand the commitment from $60.0 million to $75.0 million. We believe the expanded facility will provide sufficient capital to accommodate our needs for committed capital projects as well as working capital.

Our ability to fund future acquisitions relies on our ability to raise additional capital. Sources of additional capital may include a combination of some or all of the following:

Without additional capital, we would have to forego future acquisitions.

41

Table of Contents

Beyond the funding of future acquisitions and development activity, our medium and long-term capital needs will generally include the retirement of mortgage debt, amounts outstanding under our secured credit facility, and obligations under our tax indemnity agreements, if any. We remain committed to maintaining a flexible capital structure. Accordingly, in addition to the sources described above with respect to our short-term liquidity, we expect to meet our long-term liquidity needs through a combination of some or all of the following:

We anticipate that our available cash and cash equivalents and cash flows from operating activities, with cash available from borrowings and other sources, will be adequate to meet our capital and liquidity needs in both the short and long term. However, if these sources of funds are insufficient or unavailable, our ability to satisfy cash payment obligations and make stockholder distributions may be adversely affected.

Mortgage Debt

We have $55.0 million of outstanding mortgage debt. The following table sets forth the mortgage debt outstanding at December 31, 2007:

42

Table of Contents

Contractual Obligations

The following table outlines our contractual obligations as of December 31, 2007, and the effect such obligations are expected to have on our liquidity and cash flow in future periods (in thousands).

In connection with the acquisition of our six initial hotel properties, we entered into tax indemnity agreements that require us to indemnify the contributors of our initial properties against tax liabilities in the event we sell those properties in a taxable transaction during a 10-year period. Such indemnification obligations could result in aggregate payments of approximately $46.0 million. Our obligations under the tax indemnity agreements may effectively preclude us from selling or disposing of certain of the initial hotels in taxable transactions or reducing our consolidated indebtedness below approximately $11.0 million.

Off Balance Sheet Arrangements. Through a joint venture with Carlyle, we own a 25% indirect, non-controlling interest in an entity (the “JV Owner”) that acquired the 311-room Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach in Hollywood, Florida. We have the right to receive a pro rata share of operating surpluses as well as an obligation to fund our pro rata share of operating shortfalls. We also have the opportunity to earn an incentive participation in the net proceeds realized from the sale of the hotel based upon the achievement of certain overall investment returns, in addition to our pro rata share of net sale proceeds. The Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach is leased to another entity (the “Joint Venture Lessee”) in which we also own a 25% indirect, non-controlling interest. Carlyle owns a 75% controlling interest in both the JV Owner and Joint Venture Lessee. Carlyle may elect to dispose of the Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach without our consent. We account for our non-controlling 25% interest in both the JV Owner and the Joint Venture Lessee under the equity method of accounting.

The acquisition of the property was funded in part by a mortgage loan in the amount of $57.6 million. The mortgage has a two-year term maturing on August 1, 2009 and bears interest at a rate of LIBOR plus additional interest of 1.94%. The loan can be extended for two one-year periods. The JV Owner executed an interest rate cap agreement capping LIBOR at 6.25%, effectively limiting the interest rate on the mortgage to 8.19%. Monthly interest-only payments are due throughout the term. The Crowne Plaza Hollywood Beach secures the mortgage. We have provided the lender limited guarantees with respect to this mortgage.

Distributions to Stockholders. We have elected to be taxed as a REIT commencing with our taxable year ending December 31, 2004. To maintain qualification as a REIT, we are required to make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our REIT taxable income, (excluding net capital gain, which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles). The amount, timing and frequency of distributions will be authorized by our board of directors and declared by us based upon a variety of factors deemed relevant by our directors, and no assurance can be given that our distribution policy will not change in the future. Our ability to pay distributions to our stockholders will depend, in part, upon our receipt of distributions from our operating partnership which may depend upon receipt of lease payments with respect to our properties from our TRS Lessee, and in turn, upon the management of our properties by our hotel manager. Distributions to our stockholders will generally be taxable to our stockholders as ordinary income; however, because a portion of our investments will be equity ownership interests in hotels, which will result in depreciation and non-cash charges against our income, a portion of our distributions may constitute a tax-free return of capital. To the extent not inconsistent with maintaining our REIT status, our TRS Lessee may retain any after-tax earnings.

43

Table of Contents

Inflation

We generate revenues primarily from lease payments from our TRS Lessee and net income due to the operations of our TRS Lessee. Therefore, we rely primarily on the performance of our properties and the ability of our hotel manager to increase revenues and keep pace with inflation.

Operators of hotels, in general, possess the ability to adjust room rates daily to reflect the effects of inflation. However, competitive pressures at some or all of our hotels may limit the ability of our management company to raise room rates.

Seasonality

The operations of our properties historically have been seasonal. The periods from mid-November through mid-February are traditionally slow. The months of March and April are traditionally strong, as is October. The remaining months are generally good, but are subject to the weather and can vary significantly.

Geographic Concentration

Our hotels are located in North Carolina, Georgia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Florida and Indiana (upon the re-opening of the property as the Sheraton Riverside Louisville).

Competition

The hotel industry is highly competitive with various participants competing on the basis of price, level of service and geographic location. Each of our hotels is located in a developed area that includes other hotel properties. The number of competitive hotel properties in a particular area could have a material adverse effect on occupancy, average daily rate (“ADR”) and revenue per available room (“RevPAR”) of our hotels or at hotel properties acquired in the future. We believe that brand recognition, location, the quality of the hotel, consistency of services provided, and price, are the principal competitive factors affecting our hotels.

Critical Accounting Policies

The critical accounting policies are described below. We consider these policies critical because they involve difficult management judgments and assumptions, are subject to material change from external factors or are pervasive, and are significant to fully understand and evaluate our reported financial results.

Investment in Hotel Properties. Hotel properties are stated at cost, net of any impairment charges, and are depreciated using the straight-line method over an estimated useful life of 7-39 years for buildings and 3-10 years for furniture and equipment. In accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, the majority interests in hotels comprising our accounting predecessor, MHI Hotels Services Group, and minority interests held by the controlling holders of our accounting predecessor in hotels acquired from third parties are recorded at historical cost basis. Minority interests in those entities that comprise our accounting predecessor and the interests in hotels, other than those held by the controlling members of our accounting predecessor, acquired from third parties are recorded at fair value.

We review our hotel properties for impairment whenever events or changes in circumstances indicate the carrying value of the hotel properties may not be recoverable. Events or circumstances that may cause us to perform our review include, but are not limited to adverse changes in the demand for lodging at our properties due to declining national or local economic conditions and/or new hotel construction in markets where our hotels are located. When such conditions exist, management performs an analysis to determine if the estimated undiscounted future cash flows from operating activities and the proceeds from the ultimate disposition of a hotel property exceed its carrying value. If the estimated undiscounted future cash flows are less than the carrying amount of the asset, an adjustment to reduce the carrying value to the related hotel property’s estimated fair market value is recorded and an impairment loss is recognized.

44

Table of Contents

There have been no charges for impairment recorded in 2007, 2006 or 2005.

We estimate the fair market values of our properties through cash flow analysis taking into account each property’s expected cash flow generated from operations, holding period and expected proceeds from ultimate disposition. These cash flow analyses are based upon significant management judgments and assumptions including revenues and operating costs, growth rates and economic conditions at the time of ultimate disposition. In projecting the expected cash flows from operations of the asset, we base our estimates on future projected net operating income before depreciation and eliminating non-recurring operating expenses, which is a non-GAAP operational measure, and deduct expected capital expenditure requirements. We then apply growth assumptions based on estimated changes in room rates and expenses and the demand for lodging at our properties, as impacted by local and national economic conditions and estimated or known future new hotel supply. The estimated proceeds from disposition are determined as a matter of management’s business judgment based on a combination of anticipated cash flow in the year of disposition, terminal capitalization rate, ratio of selling price to gross hotel revenues and selling price per room.

If actual conditions differ from those in our assumptions, the actual results of each asset’s operations and fair market value could be significantly different from the estimated results and value used in our analysis.

Revenue Recognition. Hotel revenues, including room, food, beverage and other hotel revenues, are recognized as the related services are delivered. We generally consider accounts receivable to be fully collectible; accordingly, no allowance for doubtful accounts is required. If we determine that amounts are uncollectible, which would generally be the result of a customer’s bankruptcy or other economic downturn, such amounts will be charged against operations when that determination is made.

Income Taxes. We record a valuation allowance to reduce deferred tax assets to an amount that we believe is more likely than not to be realized. Because of expected future taxable income of our TRS lessee, we have not recorded a valuation allowance to reduce our net deferred tax asset as of December 31, 2007. Should our estimate of future taxable income be less than expected, we would record an adjustment to the net deferred tax asset in the period such determination was made.

Recent Accounting Pronouncements

In December 2007, the FASB Statement 141R, “Business Combinations” (“SFAS 141R”) was issued. SFAS 141R replaces SFAS 141. SFAS 141R requires the acquirer of a business to recognize and measure the identifiable assets acquired, the liabilities assumed, and any non-controlling interest in the acquiree at fair value. SFAS 141R also requires transactions costs related to the business combination to be expensed as incurred. SFAS 141R applies prospectively to business combinations for which the acquisition date is on or after the beginning of the first annual reporting period beginning on or after December 15, 2008. The effective date for the Company will be January 1, 2009. We have not yet determined the impact of SFAS 141R related to future acquisitions, if any, on our consolidated financial statements.

In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, “The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities” (“SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 allows entities to voluntarily choose, at specified election dates, to measure many financial assets and liabilities at fair value. The effective date for the Company is January 1, 2008. We are evaluating the impact of the provisions of SFAS 159 on its consolidated financial statements.

In June 2006, the FASB issued FASB Interpretation No. 48, Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxes-an Interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109 (“FIN 48”). FIN 48 clarifies the accounting for uncertainty in income taxes by creating a framework for how companies should recognize, measure, present, and disclose in their financial statements uncertain tax positions that they have taken or expect to take in a tax return. FIN 48 is effective for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2006 and is required to be adopted by the Company beginning January 1, 2007. We do not believe adoption will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In September 2006, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 157, “Fair Value Measurements” (“SFAS 157”), which defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and

45

Table of Contents

expands disclosures required for fair value measurements. SFAS No. 157 applies to other accounting pronouncements that require fair value measurements; it does not require any new fair value measurements. SFAS 157 is effective for the Company on a prospective basis for the reporting period beginning January 1, 2008. We do not believe adoption will have a material impact on our results of operations or financial position.

In November 2005, FASB issued FSP FAS 115-1 and FAS 124-1, “The Meaning of Other-Than-Temporary Impairment and Its Application to Certain Investments” (“FSP FAS 115-1”), which provides guidance on determining when investments in certain debt and equity securities are considered impaired, whether that impairment is other-than-temporary, and on measuring such impairment loss. FSP FAS 115-1 also includes accounting considerations subsequent to the recognition of an other-than temporary impairment and requires certain disclosures about unrealized losses that have not been recognized as other-than-temporary impairments. FSP FAS 115-1 became effective for reporting periods beginning after December 15, 2005. We adopted FSP FAS 115-1 in the second quarter of fiscal 2006. The adoption of FSP FAS 115-1 did not have a material impact on our consolidated results or financial condition.

In November 2005, the FASB issued FSP FAS 123(R)-3, “Transition Election Related to Accounting for the Tax Effects of Share-Based Payment Awards” (“FSP FAS 123(R)-3”). FSP FAS 123(R)-3 provides an elective alternative method that establishes a computational component to arrive at the beginning balance of the accumulated paid-in capital pool related to employee compensation and a simplified method to determine the subsequent impact on the accumulated paid-in capital pool of employee awards that are fully vested and outstanding upon the adoption of SFAS No. 123(R). The adoption of FSP FAS 123(R)-3 did not have a material impact on our consolidated results or financial condition.

In May 2005, FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 154, “Accounting Changes and Error Corrections—a replacement of APB Opinion No. 20 and FASB Statement No. 3” (“SFAS 154”). SFAS 154 changes the requirements for the accounting for and reporting of a change in accounting principle, and applies to all voluntary changes in accounting principle. It also applies to changes required by an accounting pronouncement in the unusual instance that the pronouncement does not include specific transition provisions. This statement requires retrospective application to prior periods’ financial statements of changes in accounting principle, unless it is impracticable to determine either the period-specific effects or the cumulative effect of the change. SFAS 154 became effective for accounting changes made in fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2005. The adoption of FAS 154 did not have a material impact on our results of operations or financial condition.

In February 2005, the FASB issued Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 03-13, “Applying the Conditions of Paragraph 42 of FASB Statement No. 144 in Determining Whether to Report Discontinued Operations” (“EITF 03-13”). EITF 03-13 gives guidance on how to evaluate whether the operations and cash flows of a disposed component have been or will be eliminated from ongoing operations and the types of continuing involvement that constitute significant continuing involvement in the operations of the disposed component. The adoption of EITF 03-13 did not have a material impact on the Company’s results of operations, financial position or cash flows.

In December 2004, the FASB issued Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (Revised 2004), “Shared-Based Payment” (“SFAS 123R”). SFAS 123R is a revision of SFAS No. 123, “Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation,” and supersedes Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 “Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees” and its related implementation guidance. SFAS 123R focuses primarily on accounting for transactions in which an entity obtains employee services through share-based payment transactions. SFAS 123R requires a public entity to measure the cost of employee services received in exchange for the award of equity instruments based on the fair value of the award at the date of grant. The cost will be recognized over the period during which an employee is required to provide services in exchange for the award. SFAS 123R became effective as of the beginning of the first interim or annual reporting period that begins after January 1, 2006. We have adopted SFAS 123R. For a discussion of the impact of such adoption, please see the Stock-based Compensation section of Note 2, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies, to the Company’s consolidated financial statements provided in this report.

46

Table of Contents

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk

The effects of potential changes in interest rates are discussed below. Our market risk discussion includes “forward-looking statements” and represents an estimate of possible changes in fair value or future earnings that would occur assuming hypothetical future movements in interest rates. These disclosures are not precise indicators of expected future losses, but only indicators of reasonably possible losses. As a result, actual future results may differ materially from those presented. The analysis below presents the sensitivity of the market value of our financial instruments to selected changes in market interest rates.

To meet in part our long-term liquidity requirements, we will borrow funds at a combination of fixed and variable rates. Our interest rate risk management objective is to limit the impact of interest rate changes on earnings and cash flows and to lower our overall borrowing costs. Our revolving credit facility with BB&T required us to hedge at least one-half of the total commitment with an interest-rate swap, which we executed on August 8, 2006 on a notional amount of $30.0 million. As of December 31, 2007, derivative contracts with a fair value of approximately $1.2 million were included in accrued liabilities. From time to time we may enter into other interest rate hedge contracts such as collars, swaps, and treasury lock agreements in order to mitigate our interest rate risk with respect to various debt instruments. We do not hold or issue these derivative contracts for trading or speculative purposes.

As of December 31, 2007, we had $55.0 million of fixed-rate long-term debt and approximately $34.4 million of variable-rate debt. The weighted average interest rate on the fixed-rate long-term debt was 6.76%. A change in market interest rates on the fixed portion of our debt would impact the fair value of the debt, but have no impact on interest incurred or cash flows. Our variable-rate debt is exposed to changes in interest rates, specifically the change in 30-day LIBOR, but would be limited to the effect on the gap between the balance on the revolving credit facility and the $30.0 million notional amount of the interest-rate swap executed August 8, 2006. Assuming that the amount outstanding under our credit facility remains at $34.4 million, the balance at December 31, 2007, the impact on our annual interest incurred and cash flows of a one percent change in interest rate would be $44,000.

As of December 31, 2006, we had approximately $41.6 million of fixed-rate long-term debt and approximately $15.2 million of variable-rate debt. The weighted average interest rate on the fixed-rate long-term debt was 7.95%.

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data

See Index to Financial Statements and Financial Statement Schedules on page F-1.

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure

None.

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Our management, under the supervision and participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, has evaluated the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”), as required by paragraph (b) of Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act), as of December 31, 2007. Based on that evaluation, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial officer have concluded that, as of December 31, 2007, our disclosure controls and procedures were effective and designed to ensure that (i) information required to be disclosed in our reports filed under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 is recorded, processed, summarized and reported with the time periods specified in the SEC’s rules and instructions, and (ii) information is accumulated and communicated to our management, including the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate to allow timely decisions regarding required disclosures.

47

Table of Contents

Our management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, does not expect that our disclosure controls and procedures or our internal controls will prevent all errors and all fraud. A control system, no matter how well conceived and operated, can provide only reasonable, not absolute, assurance that the objectives of the control system are met. Further, the design of a control system must reflect the fact that there are resource constraints and the benefits of controls must be considered relative to their costs. Because of the inherent limitations in all control systems, no evaluation of the controls can provide absolute assurance that all control issues and instances of fraud, if any, within MHI Hospitality Corporation have been detected.

Management’s Report on Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Rule 13a-15(f) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended). Our management assessed the effectiveness over internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2007. In making this assessment, our management used the criteria set forth by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in Internal Control-Integrated Framework. Our management identified a significant deficiency noted by our external auditors during the course of their 2007 audit related to the placing in service of components of extensive renovation projects. Our management does not believe that it constitutes a material weakness and has subsequently implemented additional internal controls and procedures to eliminate this significant deficiency in our internal controls over financial reporting. Our management has concluded that, as of December 31, 2007, our internal control over financial reporting is effective based on these criteria.

This annual report does not include an attestation report of the company’s registered public accounting firm regarding internal control over financial reporting. Management’s report was not subject to attestation by the company’s registered public accounting firm pursuant to temporary rules of the Securities and Exchange Commission that permit the company to provide only management’s report in this annual report.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

There was no change in MHI Hospitality Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting identified in connection with the evaluation required by paragraph (d) of Rules 13a-15 and 15d-15 under the Exchange Act during MHI Hospitality Corporation’s last fiscal quarter that materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, MHI Hospitality Corporation’s internal control over financial reporting.

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

48

Table of Contents

PART III

The information required by Items 10-14 is incorporated by reference to our proxy statement for the 2007 annual meeting of stockholders (to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission not later than 120 days after the end of the fiscal year covered by this report).

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

The Company adopted a code of business conduct and ethics, including a conflicts of interest policy that applies to its principal executive officer, principal financial officer, principal accounting officer or controller performing similar functions. We intend to maintain the highest standards of ethical business practices and compliance with all laws and regulations applicable to our business. A copy of the Company’s Code of Business Conduct is posted on the Company’s external website at www.MHIHospitality.com. The company intends to post to its website any amendments to or waivers of its code.

Information on our directors is incorporated by reference to our 2008 proxy statement.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our 2008 proxy statement.

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

(a) SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF CERTAIN BENEFICIAL OWNERS

Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the Section captioned “Voting Securities and Principal Holders Thereof—Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners” of the Proxy Statement.

(b) SECURITY OWNERSHIP OF MANAGEMENT

Information required by this item is incorporated herein by reference to the sections captioned “Voting Securities and Principal Holders Thereof—Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners” and “Proposal I—Election of Directors” of the Proxy Statement.

(c) CHANGES IN CONTROL

Management of the Company knows of no arrangements, including any pledge by any person of securities of the Company, the operation of which may at a subsequent date result in a change in control of the registrant.

(d) SECURITIES AUTHORIZED FOR ISSUANCE UNDER EQUITY COMPENSATION PLANS

Set forth below is information as of December 31, 2007 with respect to compensation plans under which equity securities of the Registrant are authorized for issuance.

49

Table of Contents

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

On June 1, 2006, we granted 4,000 shares (1,000 shares each) of restricted stock to our independent directors that vested on December 31. 2006.

On June 16, 2006, the Nominating, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committee granted 4,000 shares of restricted stock to certain employees of the Company.

On January 16, 2007, we granted 6,000 shares (1,500 shares each) of restricted stock to our independent directors that vested on December 31, 2007. On February 27, 2007, 1,500 shares of restricted stock were forfeited due to the resignation of one of the directors. On April 27, 2007, 1,500 shares of restricted stock were issued to a new independent director that also vested on December 31, 2007.

On January 23, 2007, we issued 5,000 shares of restricted stock to Mr. Andrew Sims and 4,000 shares of restricted stock to Mr. William Zaiser. On March 13, 2006, the Nominating, Corporate Governance and Compensation Committee had granted these deferred awards, which vested on December 31, 2006.

On January 1, 2008, we issued 10,000 shares of stock to Mr. David Folsom pursuant to the terms of his employment agreement dated January 9, 2006. We also granted 14,000 shares of restricted stock to Mr. Folsom on January 14, 2008 pursuant to the first amendment to that agreement. These shares are included in the number of securities remaining available for future issuance at December 31, 2007 in the table above.

On February 6, 2008, we granted 6,000 shares (1,500 each) of restricted stock to our independent directors that will vest on December 31, 2008.

On February 6, 2008, we granted 7,550 shares of stock to Mr. Andrew Sims, 3,550 shares of stock to Mr. William Zaiser and 1,813 shares of stock to Mr. David Folsom.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our 2008 proxy statement.

Item 14. Principal Accountant Fees and Services

The information required by this item is incorporated by reference to our 2008 proxy statement.

50

Table of Contents

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules