Form 8-K

Check the appropriate box below if the Form 8-K filing is intended to simultaneously satisfy the filing obligation of the registrant under any of the following provisions (see General Instruction A.2. below):

On May 20, 2005, MHI Hospitality, L.P., (the “Operating Partnership”) of which MHI Hospitality Corporation (the “Company”) is the general partner, entered into a contract to acquire the Hilton Jacksonville Riverfront in Jacksonville, Florida for an aggregate price of $22.0 million from BIT Holdings, Seventeen, Inc., an affiliate of the AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust (“Seller”).

The purchase price will be funded in part by an $18 million first mortgage loan. The AFL-CIO Building Investment Trust has agreed to provide the mortgage financing subject to certain conditions precedent. An affiliate of MHI Hotels Services LLC, the entity that manages the properties currently owned by the Company, currently leases the hotel from the Seller and will contribute certain personal property and assign contract and other rights relating to the property to the Operating Partnership in exchange for operating partnership units valued at approximately $913,000. The remaining portion of the purchase price will be paid in cash utilizing a portion of the proceeds from the Company’s initial public offering. Following the acquisition, the Company will pursue a $3.0 million capital improvement program for the hotel.

The property will be managed by MHI Hotels Services LLC, which has managed the Hilton Jacksonville since its acquisition by the Seller in 1996.

The closing of the acquisition is subject to various customary closing conditions, including the accuracy of representations and warranties through closing and conditions related to the operation and maintenance of the Jacksonville property. Additionally, closing is subject to certain special conditions such as the negotiation of definitive agreements relating to the mortgage financing to be provided by an affiliate of the seller to fund the non-cash portion of the purchase price.

In addition to the matter described in Item 1.01, we are filing this current report on Form 8-K to present certain additional disclosures relating to the material risks that investors should consider before investing in our securities. Information included in this Form 8-K may contain forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities 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.

An investment in our common stock involves various risks. You should carefully consider the following risk factors in conjunction with the other information contained herein and in our other filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission before purchasing our common stock. The risks discussed herein can adversely affect our business, liquidity, operating results, and financial condition. This could cause the market price of our common stock to decline and

could cause you to lose all or part of your investment. 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.

Failure of the lodging industry to exhibit improvement would adversely effect 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 improving economic fundamentals. There can be no assurance that lodging industry fundamentals will continue to improve. In the event conditions in the industry do not continue to improve as we expect, 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 and CEO, Kim Sims and Christopher Sims, who serve on our board of directors, William Zaiser, our executive vice president and CFO, and Steven Smith who is the Executive Vice President of MHI Hotels Services. MHI Hotels Services will manage our initial hotel properties. In addition, MHI Hotel Services will have a right of first offer to manage hotels we acquire in the future, subject to certain exceptions, and will receive 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 our six initial hotels in connection with a sale of those hotels, the aggregate termination fee would be approximately $8.8 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, any transaction between us and MHI Hotels Services or its affiliates or any interested director must be approved by a committee consisting of only independent directors. 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.

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 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, 2004, 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 March 31, 2005, in the aggregate, approximately 29.2% 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 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:

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.

If we were to sell during the next five years in a taxable transaction the five initial hotels 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 our existing hotels, while at the same time, we may incur substantial additional costs with these new hotel properties. 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 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 MHI Hospitality TRS, LLC, 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 will lease all of our hotels to our TRS Lessee. The TRS Lessee will be 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.

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 $23.0 million revolving credit facility which has a term of three years and our borrowings under the credit facility are expected to bear interest at a floating interest rate of 30 day LIBOR plus 2.5%. The LIBOR rate on December 31, 2004 was 2.42. The primary collateral for the credit facility is a first mortgage on the Holiday Inn Brownstone and the Hilton Philadelphia Airport, and 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 March 31, 2005, we are 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 line has a balance of zero ($0.00) as of March 31, 2005. The Company intends to use the Line of Credit to acquire, repair or 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 refinancings, 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 line of credit 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 will 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:

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.

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, LLC or MHI Hotels Two, Inc. 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 $120,000 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 and Southeastern United States.

All of our six initial hotels are located in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeastern United States. Economic conditions in the Mid-Atlantic 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 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.

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 $23.0 million. Any borrowings under our proposed credit facility will have floating interest rates of 30 day LIBOR plus 2.5%. We currently do not intend to engage in interest rate protection in

the form of swap agreements, interest rate cap contracts or similar agreements—to “hedge” against the possible negative effects of interest rate fluctuations. 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 hedging transactions, they would have to be structured so as to not jeopardize our status as a REIT.

We are a new company with no 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 prospectus, 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 co-venturers’ financial condition and disputes between us and our co-venturers.

We may co-invest in the future with 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 co-venturers might become bankrupt or fail to fund their share of required capital contributions. Partners or co-venturers 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 co-venturer would have full control over the partnership or joint venture. Disputes between us and partners or co-venturers 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 co-venturers 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 co-venturers. 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 co-venturer in which case we may be liable in the event such party defaults on its guaranty obligation.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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 initial hotels’ gross revenue in 2004, the average lender’s capital improvements reserve requirement for all of our hotels would have been approximately $1,524,000 based on an average 4% capital improvement reserves. We do not intend to reserve funds for properties under renovation, which includes Hilton Philadelphia Airport, Best Western Maryland Inn, Holiday Inn Downtown Williamsburg and the Hilton Jacksonville Riverfront. We may spend in excess of lender reserve requirements. 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 will 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.

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 your investment in 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, 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

We intend to operate in a manner that will qualify us 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.

In order to qualify 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 MHI Holding, 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.

If we fail to qualify or 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 your yield on your investment.

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.

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 qualify or 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.

The formation of MHI Holding and our TRS Lessee increases 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 of our board of directors, president and chief executive officer, William Zaiser, our 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 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 March 31, 2005, Andrew Sims, William Zaiser, Kim Sims, Christopher Sims and Ed Stein beneficially own 24.6% of our outstanding limited partnership interests, and we own 60.1%. 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 qualify 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, 2005, 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 you as a stockholder. On May 28, 2003, the President signed the Jobs and 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.

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.

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:

acquisition of ownership or control of “control shares”) have no voting rights except to the extent approved by our stockholders by the affirmative vote of at least two-thirds of all the votes entitled to be cast on the matter, excluding all interested shares.

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 our president and chief executive officer and 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 the 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 vote by the stockholders, or if there is a change of control, each of the executives is entitled to the following:

In addition, the 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.

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 owners 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 president and chief executive officer, Andrew Sims, and our executive vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer, 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.

99.1 Press release of MHI Hospitality Corporation dated May 23, 2005 announcing agreement to acquire the Hilton Jacksonville Riverfront.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.


MHI HOSPITALITY CORPORATION

By:		/s/ Andrew M. Sims
Name:		Andrew M. Sims
Title:		President and Chief Executive Officer