The first step is to clean up the core property file. Buyers will want title materials, surveys, zoning approvals, permits, easements, environmental reports and any restrictions affecting use of the site. For data centers, easements and access rights can be especially important because the asset may depend on utility corridors, fiber routes, substations, roads, cooling infrastructure or backup generation.

The second step is to organize the power story. A seller should be ready to show what power is available, what is contracted, what remains subject to utility approval and what upgrades are required. Utility agreements, interconnection materials, load studies, deposits, tariffs, backup-power permits and correspondence with the utility should be collected early. Buyers will discount a vague power story.

Third, the seller should prepare the customer contract file. Buyers will focus on term, revenue, renewal rights, service levels, termination rights, assignment restrictions, change-of-control provisions, credit support and any outstanding disputes or service credits. If customer consents may be required, the seller should identify those issues before the process begins.

Fourth, the seller should review construction and capex records. If the facility is under development or recently completed, buyers will diligence EPC contracts, warranties, change orders, commissioning reports, lien waivers, equipment procurement and remaining obligations. Unresolved construction issues can create purchase price pressure or delay closing.

Finally, the seller should prepare an operating history. Buyers will want uptime records, outage reports, maintenance logs, incident reports, insurance claims, compliance records and key vendor contracts. A strong operating record supports valuation. A messy one raises questions about reliability and future capex.

The practical takeaway is simple: Exit readiness starts before the sale process. A data center seller should be able to tell a clean story about title, power, customers, construction and operations. If those files are incomplete, buyers will find the gaps—and price them.

The post A Practical Guide to Preparing a Data Center Asset for Sale appeared first on The Stack: Private Capital and AI Infrastructure.

At a high level, an MAE clause asks whether there has been a material adverse effect on the target’s business, assets, liabilities, operations or financial condition. But the most important drafting usually appears in the exceptions. Many MAE definitions exclude broad market, industry or macroeconomic conditions, such as changes in law, interest rates, capital markets, industry conditions, war, pandemics or general economic disruption. Those risks typically remain with the buyer unless the target is disproportionately affected compared to similarly situated companies.

That distinction is especially important in data center transactions because many of the largest risks sit somewhere between company-specific and market-wide. A general increase in power prices may look like an industry risk. The loss of a specific utility allocation, interconnection position or power procurement arrangement may look more target-specific. A regional grid constraint may affect many data center projects. A zoning reversal affecting the target’s site may be more specific to the asset being acquired.

For buyers, the key question is whether the MAE clause adequately captures the risks that are fundamental to the investment thesis. In a data center deal, those may include loss of a hyperscale customer, denial or withdrawal of interconnection rights, a moratorium on large-load connections, revocation of key permits, failure to obtain zoning approvals, material water-use restrictions, major construction shutdowns, equipment shortages, cyber incidents or a significant increase in committed power costs. Some of these risks may also be addressed through representations and warranties, interim operating covenants, closing conditions or special termination rights, rather than relying solely on the MAE clause.

Sellers, by contrast, will usually want to make clear that buyers bear broader market and industry risks. If the entire data center market faces transformer shortages, higher financing costs, permitting delays, supply chain disruption or general pressure on development timelines, sellers will not want those conditions to become an excuse for the buyer to walk away. Sellers may also seek express exclusions for changes in power markets, construction costs, data center industry conditions, capital markets or customer demand, subject to a disproportionate-effects carveout.

The drafting challenge is that data center value often depends on assets and rights that are both specific and fragile: power availability, land-use approvals, customer commitments, fiber connectivity, construction schedules and tax incentives. A generic MAE clause may not do enough work. If a particular risk is central to valuation or closing certainty, the parties should address it directly. For example, a buyer concerned about loss of a utility commitment may want a specific closing condition or termination right tied to that commitment, instead of hoping the issue rises to the level of an MAE.

MAE provisions also interact with interim operating covenants. If a seller is required to operate the business in the ordinary course between signing and closing, the buyer may have a separate claim if the seller makes unusual changes to customer contracts, construction budgets, power procurement arrangements, permitting strategy or project schedules. In some cases, an interim covenant breach may be easier to establish than an MAE. That is why buyers should review MAE language, covenants and closing conditions together rather than treating them as separate issues.

For data center investors, the practical takeaway is simple: Do not rely on a standard MAE clause to solve data center-specific risk. The clause should be reviewed against the actual underwriting thesis. Is the buyer paying for contracted cash flow, powered land, future development capacity, a customer pipeline, a utility queue position or a fully stabilized operating facility? Each thesis has different failure points.

A well-drafted MAE clause will not eliminate deal risk, and it may never be litigated. But it can help define which risks are part of the bargain and which risks are deal-breaking. In data center acquisitions, where value often turns on power, permits, customers and construction timing, that definition is worth negotiating carefully.

The post MAE Clauses in Data Center Acquisitions appeared first on The Stack: Private Capital and AI Infrastructure.

I. Service Levels, Remedies and Exclusive Remedy Language
Most colocation agreements include service-level commitments for power, cooling, connectivity or availability. Contractual language regarding remedies determines what happens when the parties don’t live up to the negotiated commercial terms.

Key points to negotiate include:

• • Whether service credits are the customer’s sole and exclusive remedy
  • Whether repeated or prolonged failures trigger termination rights
  • Whether different systems have separate service levels
  • Whether planned maintenance, force majeure events or customer-caused outages are excluded
  • Whether service credits are automatic or must be claimed within a short notice period
  • Whether chronic failures permit escalation beyond credits

Customers should be cautious about agreeing that service credits are the exclusive remedy for all service failures, especially where outages could cause significant business interruption. Providers, on the other hand, will want predictable exposure and clear procedures for measuring downtime and claiming credits.

II. Limitation of Liability and Damages Exclusions
The limitation of liability section can be the most important provision in the agreement if something goes wrong. Colocation agreements often exclude consequential, incidental, special and lost-profit damages, and may cap direct damages at a multiple of fees paid.

Key points to negotiate include:

• • The general liability cap
  • Whether the cap is tied to fees paid over a fixed period
  • Whether separate caps apply to confidentiality, data security, indemnity, gross negligence, willful misconduct or payment obligations
  • Whether damages exclusions apply to service outages, security breaches, personal injury, property damage or third-party claims
  • Whether lost data, lost revenue or business interruption are excluded damages
  • Whether insurance proceeds are included within or outside the liability cap

These provisions should be reviewed against the customer’s actual risk profile and the provider’s insurance program. If the agreement excludes the categories of harm most likely to occur, the legal remedy may be much narrower than the operational risk.

III. Indemnities and Third-Party Claims
Indemnity provisions determine who bears responsibility for third-party claims. In a colocation environment, those claims may involve property damage, personal injury, infringement, data security incidents, customer equipment, contractors, or violations of law.

Key points to negotiate include:

• • Provider indemnities for bodily injury, property damage, willful misconduct, gross negligence and violations of law
  • Customer indemnities for customer equipment, customer content, misuse of the facility, contractor acts and unlawful activity
  • IP indemnities for software, remote hands tools, monitoring systems or provider-supplied technology
  • Cybersecurity or data breach indemnities, if applicable
  • Procedures for notice, defense, settlement consent and cooperation
  • Whether indemnity obligations are capped or uncapped

The indemnity section should match the operational reality of the facility. Each party should stand behind the people, equipment, systems and conduct it controls.

IV. Security, Access and Compliance Obligations
Access and security provisions are often treated as operational details, but they can create significant legal exposure. The agreement should clearly allocate responsibility for physical security, customer access, contractor conduct, compliance obligations and incident response.

Key points to negotiate include:

• • Facility security standards and audit rights
  • Access procedures for employees, contractors and vendors
  • Emergency access rights
  • Responsibility for customer equipment while inside the facility
  • Compliance with laws, permits, data protection obligations and customer policies
  • Notification obligations for security incidents, unauthorized access or law enforcement requests
  • Rights to suspend access for safety, security or compliance reasons

Customers need enough access and information to meet their own legal and regulatory obligations. Providers need the ability to protect the facility, other customers and critical systems. The agreement should define that balance before an incident occurs.

V. Termination, Suspension and Transition Rights
Termination rights determine whether a party can exit the relationship when performance, compliance or business conditions change. Suspension rights determine whether the provider can cut off access or services before termination. Both provisions should be negotiated carefully.

Key points to negotiate include:

• • Termination rights for uncured breach
  • Termination rights for chronic service failures
  • Termination rights for failure to deliver capacity or access
  • Termination for regulatory or legal compliance issues
  • Provider suspension rights for nonpayment, safety risks, security threats or unlawful use
  • Cure periods and notice requirements
  • Customer rights to remove equipment after termination
  • Transition assistance and continued access during wind-down
  • Treatment of abandoned equipment

For customers, the key issue is avoiding operational lock-in when the facility no longer meets legal or performance requirements. For providers, the key issue is preserving remedies when a customer creates risk for the facility or other tenants.

Practical Takeaway
The legal provisions in a colocation agreement should be negotiated against the operational importance of the deployment. A small noncritical footprint may not justify heavy customization. A mission-critical deployment, regulated workload or high-density AI environment likely does.

The most important question is not simply whether the provider can deliver space and power. It is how the contract allocates risk if the service fails, a third party sues, an incident occurs, access is restricted or the relationship needs to unwind. Those legal provisions are where the economics of the deal often become real.

The post Five Legal Provisions to Negotiate in a Colocation Agreement appeared first on The Stack: Private Capital and AI Infrastructure.