I've heard anecdotal evidence that Exodus has a clause buried in
at least some of their contracts that effectively prohibits the customer
from removing their equipment from their facilities in the event of
bankruptcy. Not the customer filing Ch. 7/11, but EXODUS going bankrupt.
Furthermore, it appears that as they have indeed filed Chapter 11, they are
actively enforcing this, at least at their Northern Virginia facility.
Has anyone else heard of this or been affected by this? Exodus customers,
can any of you look up your contracts and see if you can dig this up? I'm
interested in hearing the exact language, if it is indeed a standard
clause...I'm thinking there's no way that this could be enforceable,
although it would probably take a TRO to get them to let customers claim
their gear.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that Exodus has a clause buried in
at least some of their contracts that effectively prohibits the customer
from removing their equipment from their facilities in the event of
bankruptcy. Not the customer filing Ch. 7/11, but EXODUS going bankrupt.
Furthermore, it appears that as they have indeed filed Chapter 11, they are
actively enforcing this, at least at their Northern Virginia facility.
I think you'd find that your anecdotal evidence is coming from sources who
don't read their contracts very carefully. Unless _I_ am not reading
correctly, the clause to which you refer, at least in our contract with
Exodus, reads that either side can terminate the contract if the other
side enters voluntary bankrupcy proceedings. (actual language sent in
private e-mail)
Has anyone else heard of this or been affected by this? Exodus customers,
can any of you look up your contracts and see if you can dig this up? I'm
interested in hearing the exact language, if it is indeed a standard
clause...I'm thinking there's no way that this could be enforceable,
although it would probably take a TRO to get them to let customers claim
their gear.
Perhaps your sources are confused by changed procedures; in Boston I've
seen signs posted that equipment can no longer be carried in or out via
the lobby area, and must traverse the shipping & receiving area, but no
evidence of customers being prevented from leaving; in fact, I'm pretty
certain that there's no such restriction being enforced.
While it may not have been your intent, this reads to me as "run away,
Exodus is trying to screw you!" I sincerely doubt that this is the case,
and know that I, for one, will continue doing business with Exodus in the
hopes that they will come out of bankrupcy proceedings soon, and
continuing to provide some of the best colocation services out there.
Tim
ObDisclaimer: I'm in no way affiliated with Exodus other than by being a
customer.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that Exodus has a clause buried in
at least some of their contracts that effectively prohibits
the customer
from removing their equipment from their facilities in the event of
bankruptcy. Not the customer filing Ch. 7/11, but EXODUS
going bankrupt.
Furthermore, it appears that as they have indeed filed
Chapter 11, they are
actively enforcing this, at least at their Northern Virginia facility.
They can state that even if they file for bankruptcy, the contract is valid.
Because you're a tenant and they're a landlord (in strict legal sense) they
can prohibit you from moving your equipment by having an effective lien on
the assets you store there in the amount of the remaining value of the
contract. That is rarely done, and I think the follow-up posts have shown
that EXDS isn't one of them.
Has anyone else heard of this or been affected by this?
Exodus customers,
can any of you look up your contracts and see if you can dig
this up? I'm
interested in hearing the exact language, if it is indeed a standard
clause...I'm thinking there's no way that this could be enforceable,
although it would probably take a TRO to get them to let
customers claim
their gear.
They have a policy making it obscenely difficult to bring equipment in and
remove equipment from the facility. In the N Virginia facility, I remember
the pain we had to go through to bring in a replacement switch and then
subsequently remove the failed one. I'd imagine that EXDS is running under
heightened security after 9/11 -- though thats just a guess. I have not been
into, nor had any equipment in the N Virginia facility in over a year
now.
No, it was because it sounded so far-fetched to me that I couldn't help
but post to see if anyone else other than the parties who relayed the info
to me knows anything about this.
However, the affected party who prompted my post is sufficiently unable to
claim their equipment that they're buying new hardware to replace the gear
that they "lost" to Exodus. And unless someone's lying to me, they're not
delinquent.
I've heard anecdotal evidence that Exodus has a clause buried in
at least some of their contracts that effectively prohibits the customer
from removing their equipment from their facilities in the event of
bankruptcy. Not the customer filing Ch. 7/11, but EXODUS going bankrupt.
Furthermore, it appears that as they have indeed filed Chapter 11, they are
actively enforcing this, at least at their Northern Virginia facility.
Has anyone else heard of this or been affected by this? Exodus customers,
can any of you look up your contracts and see if you can dig this up? I'm
interested in hearing the exact language, if it is indeed a standard
clause...I'm thinking there's no way that this could be enforceable,
although it would probably take a TRO to get them to let customers claim
their gear.
-Chris
Having personal experience with a facilities-based providers'
bankruptcy, I can say that generally an asset management company becomes
involved, and from that point forward the company has very strict asset
tracking measures in place. Exodus will probably not limit what can be
removed, but they will surely extensively document the removal of
equipment (probably more carefully than before) ... which, at first
glance, might look as if they're trying to prohibit the removal of
equipment.
Which means they have to do a very careful inventory of all
of EXODUS's
assets. But a server owned by me, colo'd at Exodus, isn't an
Exodus asset.
No, but their receivables are and they are technically a landlord.
They have what is considered a landlord's lien in many states,
whether or not the contract specifically provides for one.
If the state that the server is in has such legislation, that
equipment is essebtuakky a substitutable asset in place of your
delinquent receivables.
Companies typically only care to enforce provisos like that when
accounts are tremendously past due OR when the landlord (EXDS
here) is in financial trouble and knows every penny counts.
No, but their receivables are and they are technically a landlord.
Right, I understand. My former employer had to negotiate an agreement with
his landlord in order to offer colo services because colo providers
effectively are subletting space.
But assuming I'm paid up per the terms of the colo contract, can the
bankruptcy court or their agent take my servers because my landlord went
bankrupt with X number of months left on my contract?
Every lease I've signed, whether for an apartment or office space,
provides that I owe the landlord $X where $X is the product of monthly
rent x contract term in months. So, I pay the balance down to zero but
before the last month I still have an outstanding balance. But does that
apply to colo contracts too?
If the state that the server is in has such legislation, that
equipment is essentially a substitutable asset in place of your
delinquent receivables.
If I'm delinquent. What if I'm paid up and current?
Just curious, and not expecting a *specific* answer,
S
My former employer had to negotiate an
agreement with
his landlord in order to offer colo services because colo providers
effectively are subletting space.
Yep. Another weird implication of this is that putting leased
equipment in a colo facility technically requires some special
attention to ensure property insurance requirements are met.
We had a problem with that before where the particular leasor
had never dealt with colocation situations before and thought
it was "insane" we were putting our equipment on someone else's
property.
But assuming I'm paid up per the terms of the colo contract, can the
bankruptcy court or their agent take my servers because my
landlord went
bankrupt with X number of months left on my contract?
Nope. If the landlord defaults in a manner where they will suspend
operations, they're failing to fulfill the terms of the contract and
thus, as a tenant, you can't be liable for an amount larger than
your current balance. At least, not as a general rule
Every lease I've signed, whether for an apartment or office space,
provides that I owe the landlord $X where $X is the product of monthly
rent x contract term in months. So, I pay the balance down to zero but
before the last month I still have an outstanding balance.
But does that
apply to colo contracts too?
Sure, but potential liens would only apply to past due balances. Unposted
balances that you're talking about aren't past due, so they couldn't
restrict your access on that basis to my knowledge.
> If the state that the server is in has such legislation, that
> equipment is essentially a substitutable asset in place of your
^^^^^^^^^^^
Believe it or not, that is essentially
I just completed the retrieval of several pieces of equipment from one of
their co-lo facilities. We had absolutely no problems; we were asked to
complete an asset tracking form, and then a tech was asked to verify that
everything we were taking out was accounted for on the form. No big deal,
only took a few minutes. YMMV.
How odd. In Chicago, I had boxes that had been shipped and held in their shipping and receiving which I was forced to take into the lobby for the purpose of unpacking and putting the equipment on carts before I was allowed to take them into the colo and install in our cabinets. The reverse procedure was used to pack up the boxes I was shipping home, I had to take the equipment out of the colo to the lobby and THEN pack it up, IN THE LOBBY. Needless to say, I found this policy a royal pain in the youknowwhat. They claim this is a company-wide policy, but if it is it hasn't been enforced in Seattle (SE2) or in DC (DC2). I have yet to test how they enforce it in Santa Clara (SC4).
Having installed equipment in 5 different Exodus facilities within a
period of a week(little time to change policies) the only thing
I found consistent at the individual sites was extreme inconsistency.
How odd. In Chicago, I had boxes that had been shipped and held in their
shipping and receiving which I was forced to take into the lobby for the
purpose of unpacking and putting the equipment on carts before I was
allowed to take them into the colo and install in our cabinets. The
reverse procedure was used to pack up the boxes I was shipping home, I had
to take the equipment out of the colo to the lobby and THEN pack it up, IN
THE LOBBY. Needless to say, I found this policy a royal pain in the
youknowwhat. They claim this is a company-wide policy, but if it is it
hasn't been enforced in Seattle (SE2) or in DC (DC2). I have yet to test
how they enforce it in Santa Clara (SC4).
The Chicago IDC had always claimed this was their policy (no cardboard was
allowed into the datacenter because it supposedly can sometimes set off
their moisture alarms), however, I didn't see it enforced in practice
until within the last year (as was evidenced by the fact that we had
stacks of boxes in our cage most of the time a couple years ago). But in
general, the Chicago IDC hasn't been consistent within it's own walls, not
to mention with how the other IDC's operate.
