Table of Contents

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549

FORM 10-K

(Mark One)

For The Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2007

Or

For The Transition Period From              To             

Commission file number 001-33748

DUPONT FABROS TECHNOLOGY, INC.

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

(202) 728-0044

(Registrant’s telephone number, including area code)

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

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

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

Indicate by check mark whether 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 Regulations 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 of 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 the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):

(Do not check if a smaller reporting company)

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

As of June 30, 2007, the Registrant was not yet incorporated; therefore, there was no aggregate market value of common shares held by non-affiliates of the Registrant as of June 30, 2007. The Registrant completed its initial public offering on October 24, 2007.

As of February 28, 2008, there were 35,455,936 shares of the registrant’s Common Stock, $0.001 par value per share, outstanding.

Documents Incorporated By Reference

Portions of the Company’s Definitive Proxy Statement relating to its 2008 Annual Meeting of Stockholders scheduled for May 2008 to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission by no later than April 30, 2008, are incorporated by reference in Part III, Items 10-14 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K as indicated herein.

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

i

Table of Contents

SPECIAL NOTE REGARDING FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

The following discussion should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto appearing elsewhere in this report. This report contains forward-looking statements within the meaning of the federal securities laws. We caution investors that any forward-looking statements presented in this report, or which management may make orally or in writing from time to time, are based on management’s beliefs and assumptions made by, and information currently available to, management. When used, the words “anticipate,” “believe,” “expect,” “intend,” “may,” “might,” “plan,” “estimate,” “project,” “should,” “will,” “result” and similar expressions, which do not relate solely to historical matters, are intended to identify forward-looking statements. Such statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions and are not guarantees of future performance, which may be affected by known and unknown risks, trends, uncertainties and factors that are beyond our control. Should one or more of these risks or uncertainties materialize, or should underlying assumptions prove incorrect, actual results may vary materially from those anticipated, estimated or projected. We caution you that while forward-looking statements reflect our good faith beliefs when we make them, they are not guarantees of future performance and are impacted by actual events when they occur after we make such statements. We expressly disclaim any responsibility to update forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise. Accordingly, investors should use caution in relying on past forward-looking statements, which are based on results and trends at the time they are made, to anticipate future results or trends.

Some of the risks and uncertainties that may cause our actual results, performance or achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied by forward-looking statements include, among others, the following:

The risks included here are not exhaustive, and additional factors could adversely affect our business and financial performance including factors and risks included in other sections of this report. For a further discussion of these and other factors that could cause our future results to differ materially from any forward-looking statements, see the risk factors described in Item 1A herein and in other documents that we file from time

1

Table of Contents

to time with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Moreover, we operate in a very competitive and rapidly changing environment. New risk factors emerge from time to time and it is not possible for management to predict all such risk factors, nor can it assess the impact of all such risk factors on our company’s business or the extent to which any factor, or combination of factors, may cause actual results to differ materially from those contained in any forward-looking statements. Given these risks and uncertainties, investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements as a prediction of actual results.

2

Table of Contents

PART I

Our Initial Public Offering and Formation

DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (“we”, “us”, “our” or the “Company”) was formed as a Maryland corporation on March 2, 2007, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. On October 24, 2007, we completed the initial public offering of our common stock (the “IPO”), which resulted in the sale of 35,075,000 shares of common stock, including 4,575,000 shares sold pursuant to the exercise of the underwriters’ over-allotment option, at a price per share of $21.00, generating gross proceeds to our company of $736.6 million. The proceeds to our company, net of underwriting discounts, commissions, financial advisory fees and other offering costs, were approximately $677.0 million.

We contributed the proceeds of our IPO to DuPont Fabros Technology, L.P., (“Operating Partnership” or “OP”) in exchange for a number of units of limited partnership interest of our Operating Partnership (“OP units”) equal to the number of common shares sold in the IPO. We are the sole general partner of, and as of December 31, 2007, were the owner of, approximately 53% of the partnership interests in our Operating Partnership. This structure is commonly referred to as an umbrella REIT, or UPREIT structure. We are organized so as to qualify as a REIT under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (the “Code”) and will elect to be taxed as a REIT for our taxable year ended December 31, 2007 upon filing our federal income tax return for such year. Concurrent with the completion of the IPO, the Company entered also into various formation transactions. The Company had no significant operations prior to the completion of the IPO and the formation transactions on October 24, 2007.

In connection with the IPO, we completed a series of formation transactions which included the following:

We conduct certain activities through our taxable REIT subsidiary (“TRS”), DF Technical Services LLC, a Delaware limited liability company.

Our Business

We are a leading owner, developer, operator and manager of wholesale data centers. Our data centers are highly specialized, secure facilities used by our tenants—primarily national and international technology companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google and Facebook—to house, power and cool the computer servers that support many of their most critical business processes. We lease the raised square footage and available power of each of our facilities to our tenants under long-term triple-net leases, which contain annual rental increases. As used hereafter, the phrase “wholesale data center,” or “wholesale infrastructure,” refers to specialized real estate assets consisting of large-scale data center facilities leased to tenants under long-term leases.

We believe our data centers are engineered to the highest specifications commercially available and provide sufficient power to meet the needs of the world’s largest technology companies. We consider our newest data center in Northern Virginia, known as ACC4, to be our prototype for future ground-up developments due to its

3

Table of Contents

enhanced power capacity and flexible design, which will enable us to accommodate both smaller and larger tenants in a single facility. This data center is capable of providing tenants with a total of 36.4 megawatts, or MW, of power, which we refer to as critical load, or IT load. Critical load is that portion of each facility’s total power capacity that is made available for the exclusive use by our tenants to operate their computer servers. Because we believe that critical load is the primary factor that tenants evaluate in choosing a data center, we establish our rents based on both the amount of raised square footage that our tenants are occupying and the amount of power that we make available to them. Accordingly, where we discuss our operations in terms of raised square footage, which we consider to be the net rentable square footage of each of our facilities, we generally also provide a corresponding discussion of critical load, which is one of the primary metrics that we use to manage our business.

We provide property management, development, leasing, asset management and technical services to the tenants at our operating properties. By combining our properties with these core operating functions, we believe we are well positioned as a fully-integrated wholesale data center provider, capable of developing, leasing, operating and managing our growing portfolio.

We derive substantially all of our revenue from rents received from tenants under existing leases at each of our operating properties. Under the terms of our leases, we also charge our tenants property management fees as additional rent. With respect to operating expenses, we have negotiated expense pass-through provisions in each of our leases under which our tenants are required to pay for most of our operating expenses. In particular, our tenants are required to pay all of their direct operating expenses, including direct electric, as well as their pro rata share of indirect operating expenses, including real estate taxes and insurance. As we complete the build-out of our development properties, we intend to continue to structure our future leases to contain similar expense pass-through provisions, which are also referred to as triple net leases. For the period from October 24, 2007 to December 31, 2007, we generated $25.9 million of total revenues and $99.3 million in net losses, which includes the one-time expense related to the consideration paid for property management, development, leasing, asset management and technical services agreements and arrangements of $176.5 million. As of December 31, 2007, we had total assets of $1.45 billion.

In the future, we intend to continue our focus on the performance of our initial portfolio of operating properties, as well as our pursuit of growth through the build out and lease up of our portfolio of development properties. Although each of our initial operating properties is located in Northern Virginia, as we complete the expected build out of our development properties, including the development of planned data centers in suburban Chicago, Illinois, Piscataway, New Jersey and Santa Clara, California, our portfolio of data centers will become more geographically diverse in the future.

Our Business and Growth Strategies

Our primary business objectives are to maximize cash flow per share and returns to our stockholders through the prudent management of a balanced portfolio of operating and development properties. Our business strategies to achieve these objectives are:

4

Table of Contents

Financing Strategy

In August 2007, we entered into a $275.0 million revolving credit facility and a $200.0 million term loan (together the “KeyBank Credit Facility”), both of which are arranged by KeyBank National Association and each of which is secured by data centers we refer to as VA3, VA4, ACC2 and ACC3. The terms of the revolving facility include an accordion feature, which enables us to increase the amount of the revolving facility by up to $200.0 million to a total borrowing capacity of $475.0 million depending on certain factors, including the value of and debt service on the properties included in our borrowing base, the possibility that we may need to add properties to the borrowing base and the agreement of participating lenders to fund the increased amount. The revolving facility matures on August 7, 2010, but includes an option whereby we may elect, once, to extend the maturity date by 12 months. The term loan is an interest only loan with the full principal amount due on maturity at August 7, 2011, with no option to expand the capacity or to extend the term.

In December 2007, we entered into a construction loan with KeyBank National Association to pay for the development of the first phase of a wholesale data center facility in Elk Grove, Illinois, which we refer to as CH1. The maximum principal amount of the construction loan cannot exceed $148.9 million. This construction loan matures on December 20, 2009, subject to a one-year extension option and requires monthly installments of interest only up to and including the maturity date, at which time, we must pay all amounts due and outstanding under the loan. In connection with this construction loan, we repaid $28.0 million to retire the existing outstanding indebtedness on CH1.

We intend to meet our short-term liquidity needs through net cash provided by operations, reserves established from existing cash, and to the extent necessary, through entering into long-term indebtedness, borrowings under our revolving facility and CH1 construction loan, entering into additional construction loans

5

Table of Contents

and/or collateralizing ACC4. We expect to meet our long-term liquidity needs through long-term secured borrowings and the issuance of additional equity and debt securities when market conditions permit. In determining the source of capital to meet our long-term liquidity needs, we will evaluate our level of indebtedness and leverage ratio, our cash flow expectations, the state of the capital markets, interest rates and other terms for borrowing, and the relative timing considerations and costs of borrowing or issuing additional securities.

As of December 31, 2007, our debt to market capitalization ratio was 22.7%. We believe that this debt to market capitalization ratio will give us significant flexibility to incur additional debt to fund future developments and acquisitions.

Events Since Completion of our IPO

Completion of ACC4 Phase II Development. In October 2007, we completed the second phase of development at our ACC4 facility. The first phase of this facility, or ACC4 Phase I, was completed in July 2007.

In the aggregate, ACC4 consists of approximately 300,000 gross square feet (not including 40,000 square feet dedicated to housing generators) and 171,300 raised square feet, with a critical load of 36.4 MW. As of January 1, 2008, ACC4 Phase I was 100% leased to four tenants, while ACC4 Phase II was 69.2% leased to three tenants. During the term of a lease of a portion of ACC4, a tenant has a right of first refusal to purchase the property if we propose to sell the property to a third party.

Acquisition of Development Property in Santa Clara, CA. On December 10, 2007, we acquired 17.2 acres of land in Santa Clara, California for a purchase price of $21.1 million. We believe this land will support the development of two new data centers, which we refer to as SC1 and SC2 in the tables below. We anticipate that SC1 and SC2 will each be developed in two phases. We presently anticipate that the ground-up development of SC1 Phase I will be completed in 2009. Development of SC1 Phase II and all of SC2 has not yet been scheduled. We anticipate that, upon completion, SC1 and SC2 will each comprise 300,000 gross square feet and 171,200 raised square feet, with an aggregate critical load of 36.4 MW.

SC1 contains a retail building that is occupied by one tenant. This tenant’s lease does not expire until December 31, 2014, with two five-year renewal options, and this tenant is not currently in default. Accordingly, we have no contractual ability to terminate the lease as of the date hereof. We are currently negotiating to relocate this tenant to a new site. If we are unable to effect the relocation of this tenant, we may be able to build only one of the planned data centers for this property, and there can be no assurance that we would be able to acquire a replacement property to accommodate development of the second data center.

Our Properties

Operating Properties

The following table presents an overview of our five operating properties based on information as of January 1, 2008:

6

Table of Contents

7

Table of Contents

Development Properties

The following table presents an overview of our development properties, based on information as of December 31, 2007. Other than ACC7, we intend to develop each of these facilities in two phases in terms of the critical load to be made available in each phase. Due to its smaller size, we plan to develop ACC7 in a single phase. One of the advantages of developing a larger facility in multiple phases is that the phases can be developed independently, with the timing of the second phase to be determined in light of market conditions. As noted in the table below, we have 223.6 MW of critical load in our development pipeline. We cannot guarantee that we will be able to develop these properties in accordance with the schedules, cost estimates and specifications set forth below, or at all:

8

Table of Contents

Tenant Diversification

As of January 1, 2008, our portfolio was leased to ten data center tenants, many of which are nationally recognized firms in the technology industry. As of January 1, 2008, our two largest tenants, Microsoft and Yahoo!, accounted for 70.0% of our annualized rent. The following table sets forth our tenants by the percentage of our annualized rent attributable to each, as of January 1, 2008:

Lease Distribution

The following table sets forth information relating to the distribution of leases for VA3, VA4, ACC2, ACC3 and ACC4 based on critical load, in terms of kilowatts or kW, under lease as of January 1, 2008.

9

Table of Contents

Lease Expirations

The following table sets forth a summary schedule of lease expirations—and the corresponding effects in terms of both raised square feet and critical load—for VA3, VA4, ACC2, ACC3 and ACC4 for each of the ten full calendar years beginning January 1, 2008. The information set forth in the table assumes that tenants exercise no renewal options.

10

Table of Contents

Competition

We compete with developers, owners and operators of data centers in the market for data center tenants, opportunities to acquire properties, and the services of key third-party providers. Although we believe we are one of relatively few data center operators focused exclusively on serving the market for wholesale infrastructure, we continue to compete with owners and operators of data centers who follow other business models. In addition, we believe other providers are seeking ways to enter or strengthen their positions in the wholesale data center market.

In operating and managing our portfolio, we compete for tenants based on factors including location, critical load, raised square footage, flexibility and expertise in the design and operation of data centers. As leases at our properties expire, we may confront competition to re-lease such properties from competitors, including wholesale infrastructure providers such as Digital Realty Trust, and colocation and managed services providers such as Equinix, Savvis, AT&T, Digex (a unit of Verizon) and InterNap. In addition, our tenants may choose to own and operate their own data centers rather than lease from us.

As a developer of wholesale data centers, we also compete for the services of key third-party providers of services, including engineers and contractors with expertise in the development of wholesale data centers. The competition for the services of specialized contractors and other third-party providers required for the development of wholesale data centers is intense, increasing the cost of engaging such providers and the risk of delays in completing our development projects.

In addition, we face competition for the acquisition of additional properties suitable for the development of wholesale data centers from real estate developers in our and in other industries. Such competition may have the effect of reducing the number of available properties for acquisition, increasing the price of any acquisition, and reducing the demand for wholesale data center space in the markets we seek to serve.

Regulation

Americans With Disabilities Act

Our properties must comply with Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act, or ADA, to the extent that such properties are “public accommodations” as defined by the ADA. The ADA may require removal of structural barriers to access by persons with disabilities in certain public areas of our properties where such removal is readily achievable. We believe that our operating properties are in substantial compliance with the ADA and that we will not be required to make substantial capital expenditures to address the requirements of the ADA. However, noncompliance with the ADA could result in imposition of fines or an award of damages to private litigants. The obligation to make readily achievable accommodations is an ongoing one, and we will continue to assess our properties and make alterations as appropriate in this respect.

Environmental Matters

Under various federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances relating to the protection of the environment, a current or former owner, operator or tenant of real property may be liable for the cost to remove or remediate contamination resulting from the presence or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances, wastes or petroleum products on, under, from or in such property. These costs could be substantial and liability under these laws may attach without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the contaminants, and the liability may be joint and several. Previous owners used some of our properties for industrial and retail purposes (CH1, NJ1, SC1 and ACC7), so those properties may contain some level of environmental contamination. In addition, many of our properties presently contain large fuel storage tanks for emergency power, which is critical to our operations. If any of our tanks has a release of fuel to the environment, we would likely have to pay to clean up the contamination. The presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination at our properties may expose us to third-party liability or materially adversely affect our ability to sell, lease or develop the real estate or to borrow using the real estate as collateral.

11

Table of Contents

Some of our properties may contain asbestos-containing building materials. Environmental laws require that owners or operators of buildings with asbestos-containing building materials properly manage and maintain these materials, adequately inform or train those who may come into contact with asbestos and undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, in the event that asbestos is disturbed during building renovation or demolition. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators for failure to comply with these requirements. In addition, these laws may also allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos-containing building materials.

Environmental laws and regulations regarding the handling of regulated substances and wastes apply to our properties, in particular regulations regarding the storage of petroleum for emergency/auxiliary power. The properties in our portfolio are also subject to various federal, state and local health and safety requirements, such as state and local fire requirements. If we or our tenants fail to comply with these various requirements, we might incur governmental fines or private damage awards. Moreover, we do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether future requirements will require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that will materially adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to you, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations. Environmental noncompliance liability could also affect a tenant’s ability to make rental payments to us. We require our tenants to comply with these environmental and health and safety laws and regulations and to indemnify us for any related liabilities.

In 2007, we received three Notice of Violation from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality related to generators at three of our facilities. First, in March 2007, we were cited by the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) compliance office about our emissions from the ACC2 diesel generators exceeding short-term emission limits. We commenced a study to develop a remediation plan and currently estimate future capital expenditures at ACC2 of approximately $0.7 million to reduce that facility’s emissions to be in conformance with state limits.

Second, on October 5, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at ACC4. The notice asserts that construction and operation of the generators was commenced prior to receiving a required air permit from VDEQ for construction and operation of the generators and that the generators have been operating since June 2007 without an air permit.

Third, on October 19, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at VA4. The notice asserts that the operation of our generators has not been in conformity with our air permit and that certain equipment added to the generators to reduce emissions has not been constructed, tested, and maintained in compliance with applicable regulations.

We are working with the VDEQ to resolve these enforcement matters in a single consent order. Draft consent orders have been exchanged and negotiations are continuing. While the terms of the consent order are not final, the proposed consent order contemplates the payment of a civil penalty and performance of remedial actions to bring the facilities into compliance and reduce future emissions. We intend to finalize and enter a consent order with VDEQ in the near future. If we were not to comply with the order, we could be subject to further fines. Because the consent order is not final at this time, we do not know the exact actions VDEQ may require and we are unable to estimate the amount of any civil penalties that VDEQ will ultimately assess. We cannot assure you that an enforcement action by VDEQ will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have agreed to personally indemnify us against any and all direct or indirect claims, liabilities, damages and penalties, which may at any time arise, be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted against us during the period ending October 24, 2010 as a result of the alleged violations cited in the October 5 and 19, 2007 notices from VDEQ and have set aside, as partial collateral for these obligations, certain funds accruing for the account of the former members of the entity that contributed VA4 to our company. Based on our negotiations with VDEQ to date and best estimate of the potential penalty, we have accrued a $0.5 million liability related to their claims and a corresponding $0.3 million receivable related to the indemnification agreements for two of the properties.

12

Table of Contents

Although our properties have been subjected to Phase I environmental site assessments, they are limited in scope, and may not identify all potential environmental liabilities or risks associated with our properties. Unless required by applicable laws or regulations, we may not further investigate, remedy or ameliorate the liabilities disclosed in the Phase I assessments.

Our property in Piscataway, New Jersey, is subject to New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act, or ISRA. Under ISRA, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, or NJDEP, can require a landowner to undertake efforts to remediate pollution caused by its activities on the site. In our case, the prior owner of our New Jersey site, GlaxoSmithKline, ceased operation at the site in 2004 and has undertaken remediation efforts in accordance with ISRA, including removal of certain structures on the site and remediation of soil and groundwater. We were not involved in the activities that led to the pollution of this site and the seller remains liable for the clean up costs. In addition to its responsibilities under ISRA, the seller is obligated under the surviving provisions of our purchase contract to diligently proceed with ISRA compliance, to take all reasonable action to complete the work set forth in the NJDEP-approved remedial actions work plan, and to obtain no further action letters with regard to soils and groundwater. The seller has applied to self-insure its obligations to NJDEP, and the seller’s certified application sets forth a company net worth of approximately $67 billion. The seller has indemnified us with regard to any fines, charges or liability in connection with ISRA and compliance therewith. Moreover, we are named as an additional insured on a number of the seller’s environmental, worker’s compensation, and professional liability insurance policies, and we carry insurance regarding some of the risks associated with the known contamination as well. Nonetheless, as the current landowner, under ISRA, we may be held liable for all or a portion of the cost to clean up the site to the extent that GlaxoSmithKline is unable or is otherwise not required to pay for the cleanup. The seller is legally obligated to continue to operate the existing groundwater remediation system for 8 to 13 more years in accordance with the Remedial Action Work Plan approved by NJDEP in accordance with ISRA. If the seller were to cease its monitoring activities, we could be required to continue them under applicable law. However, we do not anticipate that such costs would be material and we would seek to recover them from the seller. The existence of this system has the potential to interfere with the future development of the property. However, the NJDEP has already approved the abandonment of monitoring wells presently located within the proposed footprint of the facility, so we do not expect the groundwater remediation system to have a material impact on the development of the site as presently planned, although it could make it more difficult to sell the property in the future. As a result of the contamination, there are or will be restrictions on certain uses of the property, such as for residential use. However, our proposed use is not subject to such restrictions and, furthermore, has been confirmed as a permitted use under applicable zoning regulations and ordinances by the relevant zoning authority, so we do not expect such restrictions to have a material impact on us. We are also aware that we may incur additional construction costs associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated soils, and that we may be required to install a vapor intrusion barrier or system in any building constructed on the site for indoor air quality purposes. We do not anticipate these costs will be material. However, if we were to be held liable for any unanticipated costs associated with the environmental contamination or on-going cleanup of this site, such costs could be material and could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

Insurance

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, earthquake, business interruption and rental loss insurance covering all of the properties in our portfolio under a blanket policy. We have policy specifications and insured limits which we believe to be appropriate given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice and, in the opinion of our management, the properties in our portfolio are currently adequately insured. We will not carry insurance for generally uninsured losses such as loss from riots, war or acts of God. Certain of the properties in our portfolio will be located in areas known to be seismically active. See “Item 1A.—Risk Factors—Risks Related to Our Business and Operations—Any losses to our properties which are not covered by insurance, or which exceed our policy coverage limits, would harm our financial condition and operating results.” Some risks to our properties, such as losses due to terrorism, war, earthquakes or floods, are not insured or are insured subject to policy limits that may not be sufficient to cover all of our losses.

13

Table of Contents

Employees

As of December 31, 2007, we employed 52 people, approximately half of whom are located in Washington, D.C., with the remainder located on site at our data centers in Northern Virginia. We believe our relations with our employees are good.

Offices

Our headquarters are located at 1212 New York Avenue, N.W., Suite 900, Washington, D.C. 20005 and our phone number is (202) 728-0044. As of December 31, 2007, we leased approximately 6,757 square feet of office space in this building and in February 2008, we entered in an amendment to our existing lease for an additional 2,580 square feet. The lease for our headquarters is with an affiliate of our Executive Chairman, Lammot J. du Pont, and our President and Chief Executive Officer, Hossein Fateh. We believe our current offices are adequate for our present operations.

Recent Developments

The Company has also announced that the one-year employment agreement between the Company and Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Steven G. Osgood will conclude on its expiration date of July 25, 2008. DuPont Fabros Technology is presently fielding candidates for the chief financial officer position.

Available Information

We maintain a website, http://www.dft.com, which contains additional information concerning our company. We make available, free of charge through our website, our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, Code of Business Conduct and Ethics, and the charters of the Audit, the Compensation and the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committees are also available on our website and are available in print to any stockholder upon request in writing to DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc., c/o Investor Relations, 1212 New York Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20005. Information on or connected to our website is neither part of nor incorporated into this annual report on Form 10-K or any other SEC filings.

Set forth below are the risks that we believe are material to our stockholders. You should carefully consider the following factors in evaluating our company, our properties and our business. The occurrence of any of the following risks might cause our stockholders to lose all or a part of their investment. Some statements in this report including statements in the following risk factors constitute forward-looking statements. Please refer to the section entitled “Special Note Regarding Forward-Looking Statements” at the beginning of this report.

Risks Related to Our Business and Operations

Any decrease in the demand for data centers, including resulting from a downturn in the technology industry, could harm our business.

Our portfolio of properties consists entirely of data centers. A decline in the technology industry could lead to a decrease in the demand for space in our data centers, which may have a greater adverse effect on our business and financial condition than if we owned a more diversified real estate portfolio. We are also susceptible to adverse developments in the technology industry such as business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, costs of complying with government regulations or increased regulation and other factors. We also may be harmed by any downturns in the market for data centers such as oversupply of or reduced demand for space and a slowdown in web-based commerce. Also, a lack of demand for data center space in other industries that we serve or intend to serve, including healthcare, could have a significant adverse effect on our business and business prospects. In addition, the rapid development of new technologies or the adoption of new industry standards could render many of our tenants’ current products and services obsolete or unmarketable and contribute to a downturn in their businesses, increasing the likelihood of a default under their leases or that they become insolvent or file for bankruptcy.

14

Table of Contents

Our current portfolio of operating properties is located entirely in Northern Virginia and any adverse developments in the area’s economy may negatively affect our operating results.

Because all of our operating properties are located in Northern Virginia, we are exposed to greater economic risks than if we owned a more geographically diverse portfolio. We are susceptible to adverse developments in the Northern Virginia economic and regulatory environment (including, but not limited to, business layoffs or downsizing, industry slowdowns, relocations of businesses, increases in real estate and other taxes, costs of complying with governmental regulations or increased regulation and other factors). Any adverse developments in the economy or real estate market in Northern Virginia in general, or any decrease in demand for data center space resulting from the Northern Virginia regulatory or business environment, could adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders.

As of January 1, 2008, our two largest tenants, Microsoft and Yahoo!, collectively accounted for 70.0% of our annualized rent, and the loss of either tenant or any other significant tenant could have a materially adverse impact on our business.

As of January 1, 2008, our two largest tenants, Microsoft and Yahoo!, accounted for 70.0% of our annualized rent. Our tenants may experience a downturn in their businesses, which may weaken their financial condition and result in their failure to make timely rental payments or their default under their leases. In the event of any tenant default, we may experience delays in enforcing our rights as landlord and may incur substantial costs in protecting our investment. This risk would be particularly significant if one of our largest tenants were to default under its lease. In addition, if one or more of our significant tenants fail to renew their leases with us and we cannot find new tenants to utilize this space at the same rental rates, the expiration of these leases, as well as any future expirations, could have a material negative impact on our business.

Some of our largest tenants may compete with one another in various aspects of their businesses. The competitive pressures on our tenants may have a negative impact on our operations. For instance, one tenant could determine that it is not in that tenant’s interest to house mission-critical servers in a facility operated by the same company that relies on a key competitor for a significant part of its annual revenue. Our loss of a large tenant for this or any other reason could have a material adverse effect on our results of operations.

Our tenants may choose to develop new data centers or expand their existing data centers, which could result in the loss of one or more key tenants or reduce demand for our newly developed data centers.

Although our tenants generally enter into long-term leases with us and make considerable investments in housing their servers in our facilities, our largest tenants may choose to develop new data centers or expand any existing data centers of their own in the future. In the event that any of our key tenants were to do so, it could result in a loss of business to us or put pressure on our pricing. If we lose a tenant, there is no guarantee that we would be able to replace that tenant at a competitive rate or at all.

Future consolidation in the technology industry could adversely affect our revenues by eliminating some of our potential tenants and could make us more dependent on a more limited number of tenants.

Mergers or consolidations of technology companies in the future could reduce the number of our tenants and potential tenants. In February 2008, Microsoft Corporation announced that it had made an unsolicited offer to acquire Yahoo! Inc. As of January 1, 2008, Microsoft and Yahoo! were our two largest tenants and accounted for approximately 70.0% of our annualized rent. If our tenants merge with or are acquired by other entities that are not our tenants, they may discontinue or reduce the use of our data centers in the future. In addition, we cannot assure you that the larger technology companies resulting from mergers or consolidations will not choose to develop their own new data centers or expand any existing data centers of their own in the future. Any of these developments could have a material adverse effect on our business and results of operations.

15

Table of Contents

Our data center infrastructure may become obsolete and we may not be able to upgrade our power and cooling systems cost-effectively or at all.

The markets for the data centers we own and operate, as well as the industries in which our tenants operate, are characterized by rapidly changing technology, evolving industry standards, frequent new service introductions, shifting distribution channels and changing tenant demands. Our data center infrastructure may become obsolete due to the development of new systems to deliver power to or eliminate heat from the servers we house. Additionally, our data center infrastructure could become obsolete as a result of the development of new server technology that does not require the levels of critical load and heat removal that our facilities are designed to provide and could, possibly, be run less expensively on a different platform. In addition, our power and cooling systems are difficult and expensive to upgrade. Accordingly, we may not be able to efficiently upgrade or change these systems to meet new demands without incurring significant costs that we may not be able to pass on to our tenants. The obsolescence of our power and cooling systems could have a material negative impact on our business.

Our properties are not suitable for lease other than as data centers, which could make it difficult to reposition them if we are not able to lease available space.

Our data centers are highly specialized real estate containing extensive electrical and mechanical systems that are designed uniquely to run and maintain banks of computer servers, and, as such, have little, if any, traditional office space. As a result, they are not suited for use by tenants as anything other than as data centers and major renovations and expenditures would be required in order for us to re-lease vacant space for more traditional commercial or industrial uses, or for us to sell a property to a buyer for use other than as a data center.

The departure of any key personnel, including either Messrs. du Pont or Fateh, who have developed significant relationships with leading technology tenants in the highly specialized data center business, could have a material adverse impact on our business.

We depend on the efforts of key personnel, particularly Messrs. du Pont and Fateh, the Executive Chairman of our board of directors and our President and Chief Executive Officer, respectively. In particular, our reputation among and our relationships with our key tenants are the direct result of a significant investment of time and effort by Messrs. du Pont and Fateh to build our credibility in a highly specialized industry. If we lost their services, our business and investment opportunities and our relationships with lenders, existing and prospective tenants and industry personnel and our reputation among our key tenants could be diminished.

The other senior members of our executive team also have strong technology development, management and real estate industry reputations, which aid us in identifying acquisition opportunities and negotiating with tenants and build-to-suit prospects. The loss of any of their services could materially and adversely affect our operations because of diminished relationships with lenders, existing and prospective tenants and industry personnel.

Our tax protection agreements could limit our ability to sell or otherwise dispose of certain properties.

In connection with our formation transactions and IPO in October 2007, we entered into tax protection agreements that provide that if we dispose of any interest in ACC2, ACC3, VA3, VA4 or CH1 in a taxable transaction through 2016, we will indemnify certain investors, including Messrs. du Pont and Fateh, for their tax liabilities attributable to the built-in gain that exists with respect to such property interest as of the time of our IPO (and tax liabilities incurred as a result of the reimbursement payment) if those tax liabilities exceed a certain amount. Therefore, although it may be in our stockholders’ best interest that we sell one of these properties, it may be economically prohibitive for us to do so because of these obligations. In addition, any such sale must be approved by at least 75% of our disinterested directors.

16

Table of Contents

We have owned our properties for a limited time and may not be aware of significant deficiencies involving any one or all of them.

We own five operating properties, all of which we consider to be stabilized and each of which will have been in service as wholesale data centers under our management for less than five years. We also own certain properties under development, including CH1, and certain properties held for development. The properties may have characteristics or deficiencies unknown to us that could affect such properties’ valuation or revenue potential. We cannot assure you that the operating performance of the properties will not decline under our management.

We may be unable to identify and complete acquisitions, which could harm our operating results.

We continually evaluate the market of available properties and may acquire data centers or property suited for data center development when opportunities exist. Our ability to acquire properties on favorable terms and successfully operate them may be subject to the following significant risks:

If we cannot finance property acquisitions on favorable terms, or operate acquired properties to meet our financial expectations, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to our stockholders, the per share trading price of our common stock and ability to satisfy our debt service obligations could be materially adversely affected.

Our growth depends upon the successful development of our properties and any delays or unexpected costs in such development may delay and harm our growth prospects, future operating results and our financial condition.

We own certain development projects, including CH1, NJ1, SC1, ACC5 and land held for development, and our future growth in 2008 and later years depends upon the successful completion of these development projects. With respect to our current and any future developments, we will be subject to certain risks, including risks related to financing, zoning, regulatory approvals, construction costs and delays. In addition, we will be subject

17

Table of Contents

to risks and, potentially, unanticipated costs associated with obtaining access to a sufficient amount of power from local utilities, including the need, in some cases, to develop utility substations on our properties in order to accommodate our power needs, constraints on the amount of electricity that a particular locality’s power grid is capable of providing at any given time, and risks associated with the negotiation of long-term power contracts with utility providers. We may not be able to successfully negotiate such contracts on acceptable terms or at all. Any inability to negotiate utility contracts on a timely basis or on acceptable financial terms or in volumes sufficient to supply the critical load presently anticipated for each of our development properties would have a material negative impact on our growth and future results of operations and financial condition.

These and other risks could result in delays or increased costs, which could prevent completion of development activities once undertaken, any of which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders. In addition, we are developing these and may develop future properties prior to obtaining commitments from tenants to lease them. This is known as developing “on speculation” and involves the risk that we will be unable to attract tenants to the properties we are developing on a timely basis or at all. If our properties remain vacant for a significant amount of time, our financial condition, results of operations and ability to make distributions to our stockholders would be materially adversely affected.

A portion of the land we recently acquired in Santa Clara, California contains a retail property that is currently occupied by a tenant in an unrelated business. If we are unsuccessful in relocating this tenant, we may be unable to develop the second of our planned data centers, SC2, in this location.

A portion of the land we recently acquired in Santa Clara, California contains a retail property that is currently occupied by a tenant in an unrelated business. If we are unsuccessful in relocating this tenant, we may be unable to develop the second of our planned data centers, SC2, in this location. We are currently negotiating to relocate this tenant to another parcel of land in Santa Clara that they currently have rights to acquire. However, there can be no assurance that we will be successful in doing so. If we are unable to effect the relocation of this tenant, we will be unable to develop SC2 on this site, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to locate a replacement property in Silicon Valley for this data center. Any inability or delay in the development of SC2, or additional expense associated with that development, could have a materially negative impact on our proposed development pipeline, liquidity and results of operations.

We may be unable to locate and acquire properties prior to being widely marketed.

A key component of our growth strategy is to continue to acquire additional technology-related real estate. To date, certain of our properties were acquired before they were widely marketed by real estate brokers, in so-called “off-market” acquisitions. Properties that are acquired off-market are typically more attractive to us as a purchaser because of the absence of a competitive bidding environment, which could potentially lead to higher prices. We obtain access to off-market deal flow from numerous sources, including the personal contacts of Messrs. du Pont and Fateh. We may not continue obtaining off-market deal flow in the future. If we cannot obtain off-market deal flow in the future, our ability to locate and acquire additional properties at attractive prices could be adversely affected, which would lead to higher acquisition costs, resulting in less cash available for distribution to our stockholders.

We may have difficulty internalizing certain management functions, which may result in an increase in our operating expenses and negatively affect our operating results.

Prior to, completion of our IPO, our property and asset management functions were performed by entities affiliated with Messrs. du Pont and Fateh. As part of the formation transactions, we acquired the rights to perform these management functions internally and we have transitioned accounting and financial reporting obligations and carry out the majority of our general and administrative functions directly. We cannot assure you that we will be successful at internalizing these functions. In addition, the process of internalizing these functions may result in higher general and administrative costs than anticipated, which could harm our operating results.

18

Table of Contents

Any losses to our properties which are not covered by insurance, or which exceed our policy coverage limits, would harm our financial condition and operating results.

We carry comprehensive liability, fire, extended coverage, earthquake, business interruption and rental loss insurance covering all of the properties in our portfolio under a blanket policy. We have policy specifications and insured limits which we believe to be appropriate and adequate given the relative risk of loss, the cost of the coverage and industry practice. All of our operating properties are located in proximity to Washington, D.C. However, many of our insurance policies may not cover losses such as loss from riots, war, terrorist attacks, or acts of God. In addition, some of our policies, like those covering losses due to floods, will be insured subject to limitations involving large deductibles or co-payments and policy limits that may not be sufficient to cover potential losses. If we experience a loss which is uninsured or which exceeds policy limits, we could lose the capital invested in the damaged properties as well as the anticipated future cash flows from those properties. In addition, if the damaged properties are subject to recourse indebtedness, we would continue to be liable for the indebtedness, even if these properties were irreparably damaged.

We face significant competition and may be unable to renew existing leases, lease vacant space or re-lease space as leases expire, which may have a material adverse impact on our operating results.

If our competitors offer space at rental rates below current market rates, or below the rental rates we currently charge our tenants, we may lose potential tenants and we may be pressured to reduce our rental rates below those we currently charge in order to retain tenants when our tenants’ leases expire. We compete with numerous developers, owners and operators of technology-related real estate, many of which own properties similar to ours in the same submarkets in which our properties are located. In addition, some of our tenants, including Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo!, own or may in the future develop their own data centers, which could increase the risk that such tenants fail to renew their leases by, among other things, making it easier for such tenants to transfer their server functions. We may be unable to renew leases or re-lease at net effective rental rates equal to or above the current average net effective rental rates. If the rental rates for our properties decrease, or our existing tenants do not renew their leases or we do not re-lease a significant portion of our available space and space for which leases are scheduled to expire, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to our stockholders, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations could be materially adversely affected.

We have indebtedness outstanding, which may negatively impact our ability to make distributions, may expose us to interest rate fluctuations and may expose us to the risk of default under our debt obligations.

As of December 31, 2007, our total consolidated indebtedness was $296.7 million. We may incur significant additional debt for various purposes, including, without limitation, to fund future acquisition and development activities and operational needs. Payments of interest on borrowings may leave us with insufficient cash resources to operate our properties or to make the distributions currently contemplated or necessary to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT. Our substantial outstanding indebtedness, and the limitations imposed on us by our debt agreements, could have other significant adverse consequences, including the following:

19

Table of Contents

If any one of these events were to occur, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected. In addition, any foreclosure on our properties could create taxable income without accompanying cash proceeds, which could adversely affect our ability to meet the REIT distribution requirements imposed by the Code.

Properties included in the borrowing base of our revolving facility may not be sold without the approval of our lender, which could reduce our liquidity.

Four of our stabilized properties—VA3, VA4, ACC2 and ACC3—are included in the borrowing base for our revolving facility. In addition, our equity interest in other properties also collateralize our senior secured facilities, although these properties do not automatically become a part of the borrowing base of our revolving facility. We do not, at this time, have any plans to add any properties to our borrowing base. However, we may in the future choose to add to the borrowing base properties owned by us or other property interests that we may acquire in order to, among other things, increase the amount that we may borrow under the revolving facility. Once added to the borrowing base, properties may only be removed with the approval of our lender and only if such removal will not cause our borrowing base to have fewer than three properties or less than $250.0 million in value. If our lender declines to approve of any such sales, our liquidity will be reduced and we may be required to sell or encumber non-borrowing base properties, at less advantageous terms, in order to meet our ongoing liquidity needs.

Our senior secured credit facilities will restrict our ability to engage in some business activities, which could harm our growth prospects, future operating results and financial condition.

Our senior secured credit facilities contain customary negative covenants and other financial and operating covenants that, among other things:

These restrictions could cause us to default on our secured credit facilities or negatively affect our operations and our ability to make distributions to our stockholders.

Our growth depends on external sources of capital which may not be available to us on commercially reasonable terms or at all.

In order to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we are required under the Code to distribute at least 90% of our net taxable income annually, determined without regard to the dividends paid deduction and excluding any net capital gain. In addition, we are subject to income tax at regular corporate rates to the extent that we distribute less than 100% of our net taxable income, including any net capital gains. Because of these

20

Table of Contents

distribution requirements, we may not be able to fund future capital needs, including any necessary acquisition financing, from operating cash flow. Consequently, we intend to rely on third-party sources to fund a substantial amount of our future capital needs. We may not be able to obtain such financing on favorable terms or at all. Any additional debt we incur will increase our leverage, expose us to the risk of default and impose operating restrictions on us. In addition, any shares that we issue in any equity financing could be materially dilutive to the equity interests held by our stockholders. Our access to third-party sources of capital depends, in part, on:

If we cannot obtain capital when needed, we may not be able to acquire or develop properties when strategic opportunities exist, satisfy our debt service obligations or make the cash distributions to our stockholders necessary to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, which would expose us to significant penalties and corporate-level taxation.

Mortgage debt obligations expose us to the possibility of foreclosure, which could result in the loss of our investment in a facility or group of facilities subject to mortgage debt.

Incurring mortgage and other secured debt obligations (including any increase in the amount outstanding under our revolving facility) increases our risk of property losses because defaults on indebtedness secured by properties may result in foreclosure actions initiated by lenders and ultimately our loss of the property securing any loans for which we are in default. For tax purposes, a foreclosure of any of our properties would be treated as a sale of the property for a purchase price equal to the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage. If the outstanding balance of the debt secured by the mortgage exceeds our tax basis in the property, we would recognize taxable income on foreclosure, but would not receive any cash proceeds.

As we continue to execute our business plan, we will assume mortgage indebtedness or incur substantial new mortgage indebtedness with respect to properties that we own or in connection with property acquisitions. Any default under any one of our mortgage debt obligations may increase the risk of our default on our other indebtedness.

As the present or former owner or operator of real property, we could become subject to liability for environmental contamination, regardless of whether we caused such contamination.

Under various federal, state and local laws, regulations and ordinances relating to the protection of the environment, a current or former owner, operator or tenant of real property may be liable for the cost to remove or remediate contamination resulting from the presence or discharge of hazardous or toxic substances, wastes or petroleum products on, under, from or in such property. These costs could be substantial and liability under these laws may attach without regard to whether the owner or operator knew of, or was responsible for, the presence of the contaminants, and the liability may be joint and several. Previous owners used some of our properties for industrial and retail purposes (CH1, NJ1, SC1 and ACC7). As a result, those properties may contain some level of environmental contamination. In addition, many of our properties presently contain large underground fuel storage tanks for emergency power, which is critical to our operations. If any of our tanks has a release of fuel to the environment, we would likely have to pay to clean up the contamination. Moreover, the presence of contamination or the failure to remediate contamination at our properties may expose us to third-party liability or materially adversely affect our ability to sell, lease or develop the real estate or to borrow using the real estate as collateral.

21

Table of Contents

Our property in Piscataway, New Jersey, is subject to New Jersey’s Industrial Site Recovery Act, or ISRA. Under ISRA, the state’s Department of Environmental Protection, or NJDEP, can require a landowner to undertake efforts to remediate pollution caused by its activities on the site. In our case, the prior owner of our New Jersey site, GlaxoSmithKline, ceased operation at the site in 2004 and has undertaken remediation efforts in accordance with ISRA, including removal of certain structures on the site and remediation of soil and groundwater. We were not involved in the activities that led to the pollution of this site and the prior owner remains liable for the clean up costs. In addition to its responsibilities under ISRA, the prior owner is obligated under the surviving provisions of our purchase contract to diligently proceed with ISRA compliance, to take all reasonable action to complete the work set forth in the NJDEP-approved remedial actions work plan, and to obtain no further action letters with regard to soils and groundwater. The prior owner has applied to self-insure its obligations to NJDEP, and the prior owner’s certified application sets forth a company net worth of approximately $67 billion. The prior owner has indemnified us with regard to any fines, charges or liability in connection with ISRA and compliance therewith. Moreover, we are named as an additional insured on a number of the prior owner’s environmental, worker’s compensation, and professional liability insurance policies, and we carry insurance regarding some of the risks associated with the known contamination as well. Nonetheless, as the current landowner, under ISRA, we may be held liable for all or a portion of the cost to clean up the site to the extent that GlaxoSmithKline is unable or is otherwise not required to pay for the cleanup. The prior owner is legally obligated to continue to operate the existing groundwater remediation system for 8 to 13 more years in accordance with the Remedial Action Work Plan approved by NJDEP in accordance with ISRA. If the prior owner were to cease its monitoring activities, we could be required to continue them under applicable law. However, we do not anticipate that such costs would be material and we would seek to recover them from the prior owner. The existence of this system has the potential to interfere with the future development of the property. However, the NJDEP has already approved the abandonment of monitoring wells presently located within the proposed footprint of the facility, so we do not expect the groundwater remediation system to have a material impact on the development of the site as presently planned, although it could make it more difficult to sell the property in the future. As a result of the contamination, there are or will be restrictions on certain uses of the property, such as for residential use. However, our proposed use is not subject to such restrictions and, furthermore, has been confirmed as a permitted use under applicable zoning regulations and ordinances by the relevant zoning authority, so we do not expect such restrictions to have a material impact on us. We are also aware that we may incur additional construction costs associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated soils, and that we may be required to install a vapor intrusion barrier or system in any building constructed on the site for indoor air quality purposes. We do not anticipate these costs will be material. However, if we were to be held liable for any unanticipated costs associated with the environmental contamination or on-going cleanup of this site, such costs could be material and could have a material adverse impact on our financial condition and results of operations.

As the owner of real property, we could become subject to liability for failure to comply with environmental requirements regarding the handling and disposal of regulated substances and wastes or for non-compliance with health and safety requirements.

Environmental laws and regulations regarding the handling of regulated substances and wastes apply to our properties, in particular, regulations regarding the storage of petroleum for auxiliary or emergency power. The properties in our portfolio are also subject to various federal, state and local health and safety requirements, such as state and local fire requirements. If we or our tenants fail to comply with these various requirements, we might incur governmental fines or private damage awards. Moreover, we do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether future requirements will require us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that will materially adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to our stockholders, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations. Environmental noncompliance liability could also affect a tenant’s ability to make rental payments to us.

In 2007, we received three Notice of Violation from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality related to generators at three of our facilities. First, in March 2007, we were cited by the VDEQ compliance

22

Table of Contents

office about our emissions from the ACC2 diesel generators exceeding short-term emission limits. We commenced a study to develop a remediation plan and currently estimate future capital expenditures with respect to ACC2 of approximately $0.7 million to reduce that facility’s emissions to be in conformance with state limits, which was accrued during the year ended December 31, 2007. Second, on October 5, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at ACC4. The notice asserts that construction and operation of the generators was commenced prior to receiving a required air permit from VDEQ for construction and operation of the generators and that the generators have been operating since June 2007 without an air permit. Third, on October 19, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at one of our facilities in Northern Virginia, VA4. The notice asserts that the operation of our generators has not been in conformity with our air permit and that certain equipment added to the generators to reduce emissions has not been constructed, tested, and maintained in compliance with applicable regulations.

We are working with the VDEQ to resolve these enforcement matters in a single consent order. Draft consent orders have been exchanged and negotiations are continuing. While the terms of the consent order are not final, the proposed consent order contemplates the payment of a civil penalty and performance of remedial actions to bring the facilities into compliance and reduce future emissions. We intend to finalize and enter a consent order with VDEQ in the near future. If we were not to comply with the order, we could be subject to further fines. Because the consent order is not final at this time, we do not know the exact actions VDEQ may require and we are unable to estimate the amount of any civil penalties that VDEQ will ultimately assess. We cannot assure you that an enforcement action by VDEQ will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have agreed to personally indemnify us against any and all direct or indirect claims, liabilities, damages and penalties, which may at any time arise, be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted against us during the period ending October 24, 2010 as a result of the alleged violations cited in the October 5 and 19, 2007 notices from VDEQ and have set aside, as partial collateral for these obligations, certain funds accruing for the account of the former members of the entity that contributed VA4 to our company. Based on our negotiations with VDEQ to date and best estimate of the potential penalty, we have accrued a $0.5 million liability related to their claims and a corresponding $0.3 million receivable related to the indemnification agreements for two of the properties. However, we cannot assure you of the amount of any penalties or expenses we may incur in connection with this notice or that this indemnification agreement will be sufficient to protect us in all instances.

Hedging transactions may limit our gains or result in losses.

The terms of our loan agreements require us to maintain certain hedges with respect to our variable rate loans to the extent those loans were to exceed 35.0% of our gross asset value as of and subsequent to March 31, 2008. Subject to the REIT qualification requirements, we may also use derivatives to hedge other liabilities of ours. As of December 31, 2007, we have an interest rate swap with KeyBank National Association, effectively fixing the interest rate on $200.0 million of our KeyBank credit facility at 4.997% plus the applicable credit spread, of 1.50%. This and any future hedging transactions expose us to certain risks, including:

The REIT rules impose certain restrictions on our ability to utilize hedges, swaps, and other types of derivatives to hedge our liabilities. We expect that our board of directors will adopt a general policy with respect to our use of interest rate swaps, the purchase or sale of interest rate collars, caps or floors, options, mortgage derivatives and other hedging instruments in order to hedge all or a portion of our interest rate risk, given the cost of such hedges and the need to qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT. We may use these hedging instruments in our risk management strategy to limit the effects of changes in interest rates on our operations.

23

Table of Contents

However, neither our current nor any future hedge may be effective in eliminating all of the risks inherent in any particular position. Our profitability may be adversely affected during any period as a result of the use of derivatives.

Hedging instruments often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities and involve risks and costs.

The cost of using hedging instruments increases as the period covered by the instrument lengthens and during periods of rising and volatile interest rates. We may increase our hedging activity and thus increase our hedging costs during periods when interest rates are volatile or rising and hedging costs have increased.

In addition, hedging instruments involve risks since they often are not traded on regulated exchanges, guaranteed by an exchange or its clearing house, or regulated by any U.S. or foreign governmental authorities. Consequently, there are no requirements with respect to record keeping, financial responsibility or segregation of customer funds and positions. Furthermore, the enforceability of agreements underlying derivative transactions may depend on compliance with applicable statutory and commodity and other regulatory requirements and, depending on the identity of the counterparty, applicable international requirements. The business failure of a hedging counterparty with whom we have entered or may enter into a hedging transaction would most likely result in a default. Default by a party with whom we enter into a hedging transaction may result in the loss of unrealized profits and force us to cover our resale commitments, if any, at the then current market price. It may not always be possible to dispose of or close out a hedging position without the consent of the hedging counterparty, and we may not be able to enter into an offsetting contract to cover our risk. A liquid secondary market may not exist for hedging instruments purchased or sold, and we may be required to maintain a position until exercise or expiration, which could result in losses.

Failure to abide by applicable service level commitments could subject us to material liability under the terms of our leases, which could harm our operating results.

Our leases generally include terms requiring us to meet certain service level commitments in terms of electrical output, cooling levels and levels of redundancy in all key systems. Any failure to meet these commitments, including as a result of mechanical failure, power outage, human error or for other reasons, could subject us to liability under our lease terms, including loss of management fee reimbursements and rent abatement. Any such failures could also harm our reputation and adversely impact our ability to lease our properties, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We may be unable to maintain all systems at levels necessary to avoid such penalties, which could be material.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant would have a material adverse impact on our business.

The bankruptcy or insolvency of a major tenant also may adversely affect the income produced by our properties. If any tenant becomes a debtor in a case under the federal Bankruptcy Code, we cannot evict the tenant solely because of the bankruptcy. In addition, the bankruptcy court might authorize the tenant to reject and terminate its lease with us. Our claim against the tenant for unpaid future rent would be subject to a statutory cap that might be substantially less than the remaining rent owed under the lease. In either case, our claim for unpaid rent would likely not be paid in full. Our revenue and cash available for distribution to our stockholders could be materially adversely affected if any of our significant tenants were to become bankrupt or insolvent, suffer a downturn in its business, or fail to renew its lease at all or renew on terms less favorable to us than its current terms.

Additional risks may arise if we make international investments.

We may, in the future, purchase properties located outside the United States. These investments may be affected by factors peculiar to the laws and business practices of the jurisdictions in which the properties are

24

Table of Contents

located. These laws may expose us to risks that are different from and in addition to those commonly found in the United States. Foreign investments could be subject to the following risks:

In the event that we acquire and develop properties overseas, the realization of any of these risks could have a material adverse impact on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We depend on third parties to provide Internet connectivity to the tenants in our data centers and any delays or disruptions in connectivity may adversely affect our operating results and cash flow will be adversely affected.

We are not a telecommunications carrier. Although our tenants are responsible for providing their own network connectivity, we still depend upon the presence of telecommunications carriers’ fiber networks serving the locations of our data centers in order to attract and retain tenants. We believe that the availability of carrier capacity will directly affect our ability to achieve our projected results. Any carrier may elect not to offer its services within our data centers. Any carrier that has decided to provide Internet connectivity to our data centers may not continue to do so for any period of time. Further, some carriers are experiencing business difficulties or have announced consolidations. As a result, some carriers may be forced to downsize or terminate connectivity within our data centers, which could have an adverse effect on the business of our tenants and our own operating results.

Our new data centers require construction and operation of a sophisticated redundant fiber network. The construction required to connect multiple carrier facilities to our data centers is complex and involves factors outside of our control, including regulatory requirements and the availability of construction resources. If the establishment of highly diverse Internet connectivity to our data centers does not occur, is materially delayed or is discontinued, or is subject to failure, our operating results and cash flow will be adversely affected. Any hardware or fiber failures on this network may result in significant loss of connectivity to our data centers. This could affect our ability to attract new tenants or retain existing tenants.

If we are not successful in efficiently integrating and operating the properties we acquire or develop, the attention of our management may be diverted from our day-to-day operations and we may experience other disruptions which could harm our results of operations.

We will be required to integrate properties we acquire or develop into our existing portfolio. These and future acquired or developed properties may turn out to be less compatible with our growth strategy than originally anticipated, because, for example, we do not realize anticipated operational or geographical synergies, which may cause disruptions in our operations or may divert management’s attention away from our day-to-day operations, which could harm our results of operations.

25

Table of Contents

If in the future we elect to make joint venture investments, we could be adversely affected by a lack of sole decision-making authority, reliance on joint venture partners’ financial condition and any disputes that might arise between us and our joint venture partners.

We may invest in the future with third parties through joint ventures or other entities, acquiring non-controlling interests in or sharing responsibility for managing the affairs of a property, joint venture or other entity. In such event, we would not be in a position to exercise sole decision-making authority regarding the property, joint venture or other entity. Investments in joint ventures or other entities may, under certain circumstances, involve risks not present were a third party not involved, including the possibility that partners might become bankrupt, fail to fund their share of required capital contributions or operate the joint venture in a manner that would cause us to fail to qualify as a REIT. Likewise, 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 also have the risk of creating impasses on decisions, because neither we nor our partner would have full control over the joint venture or other entity. Disputes between us and partners may result in litigation or arbitration that would increase our expenses and prevent management from focusing their time and effort on our business. Consequently, actions by, or disputes with, partners might result in subjecting properties owned by the joint venture to additional risk. In addition, we may, in certain circumstances, be liable for the actions of our joint venture partners.

We may become subject to litigation or threatened litigation which may divert management time and attention, require us to pay damages and expenses or restrict the operation of our business.

We may become subject to disputes with commercial parties with whom we maintain relationships or other parties with whom we do business, including as a result of any breach in our security systems or downtime in our critical electrical and cooling systems. Any such dispute could result in litigation between us and the other parties. Whether or not any dispute actually proceeds to litigation, we may be required to devote significant management time and attention to its resolution (through litigation, settlement or otherwise), which would detract from our management’s ability to focus on our business. Any such resolution could involve the payment of damages or expenses by us, which may be significant. In addition, any such resolution could involve our agreement with terms that restrict the operation of our business.

Confidentiality agreements with employees and others may not adequately prevent disclosure of trade secrets and other proprietary information.

In order to protect our proprietary information, including our engineering designs, we rely in part on confidentiality agreements with our employees, consultants, outside collaborators, and other advisors. These agreements may not effectively prevent disclosure of confidential information and may not provide an adequate remedy in the event of unauthorized disclosure of confidential information. In addition, we do not hold any patents or registered trademarks, which could make it more difficult to defend any intellectual property rights that we may have in the event of any disclosure of our confidential information. Costly and time-consuming litigation could be necessary to enforce and determine the scope of our proprietary rights, and failure to obtain or maintain trade secret protection could adversely affect our competitive business position.

The loss of access to key third-party service providers could adversely affect our current and any future development projects.

Our success depends, to a significant degree, on having timely access to certain key technical personnel who are in limited supply and great demand, including architects capable of executing our proprietary designs and engineering firms capable of developing our properties. For our current and any future development projects, we will continue to rely on these personnel who have the requisite expertise in the technical environments necessary to develop wholesale data centers. Competition for such technical expertise is intense and we may not always have or retain access to the key third-party service providers that we currently rely on or may rely on in the future.

26

Table of Contents

Any acts of terrorism may directly or indirectly harm our financial condition and operating results.

The strength and profitability of our business depends on the demand for and the value of our properties. Future terrorist attacks in the United States, such as the attacks that occurred in New York and Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001, or other acts of terrorism or war may directly or indirectly adversely affect our properties, financial condition and operating results. Such terrorist attacks could have an adverse impact on our business even if they are not directed at our properties. The lack of sufficient insurance for these types of acts could expose us to significant losses and could have a negative impact on our financial condition and operating results.

In addition, the events of September 11, 2001 created significant uncertainty regarding the ability of real estate owners of high profile assets to obtain insurance coverage protecting against terrorist attacks at commercially reasonable rates, if at all. With the enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002, or TRIA, and the subsequent enactment of the Terrorism Risk Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, which extended TRIA through the end of 2014, insurers must make terrorism insurance available under their property and casualty insurance policies, but this legislation does not regulate the pricing of such insurance. The absence of affordable insurance coverage may adversely affect the general real estate lending market, lending volume and the overall liquidity of the real estate lending market and may reduce the number of suitable investment opportunities available to us and the pace at which we are able to make investments. If the properties in which we invest are unable to obtain affordable insurance coverage, the value of those investments could decline, and in the event of an uninsured loss, we could lose all or a portion of our investment.

Risks Related to the Real Estate Industry

Our operating performance is subject to risks associated with the real estate industry and we may not achieve our return objectives.

Real estate investments are subject to various risks and fluctuations and cycles in value and demand, many of which are beyond our control. Certain events may decrease our cash available for distribution, as well as the value of our properties. These events include, but are not limited to:

27

Table of Contents

In addition, periods of economic slowdown or recession, rising interest rates or declining demand for real estate, or the public perception that any of these events may occur, could result in a general decline in rents or an increased incidence of defaults under existing leases. If we cannot operate our properties to meet our financial expectations, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations and to make distributions to our stockholders could be adversely affected. We may not achieve our return objectives.

Our performance and value are subject to risks associated with real estate assets and with the real estate industry.

Our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders depends on our ability to generate revenues in excess of expenses, scheduled principal payments on debt and capital expenditure requirements. Events and conditions generally applicable to owners and operators of real property that are beyond our control may decrease cash available for distribution to our stockholders and the value of our properties. These events include:

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

Because real estate investments are relatively illiquid, our ability to promptly sell one or more properties in our portfolio in response to adverse changes in the performance of such properties may be limited, thus harming our financial condition. The real estate market is affected by many factors that are beyond our control, including:

In addition, data centers represent an illiquid part of the overall real estate market. This illiquidity is driven by a number of factors, including the relatively small number of potential purchasers of such data centers—including other data center operators and large corporate users—and the relatively high cost per square foot to develop data centers, which effectively limits a potential buyer’s ability to purchase a data center property with the intention of redeveloping it for an alternative use, such as an office building, or may substantially reduce the price buyers are willing to pay.

28

Table of Contents

In addition, the leases for certain of our facilities, including all of VA4 and ACC3 and a portion of ACC4, give the tenants of those facilities a right of first refusal to purchase those properties as well as the property upon which we intend to develop ACC5 if we propose to sell those properties to a third party. In addition, the leases in effect at VA4, ACC3 and ACC2 prohibit us, during the lease terms, from selling those properties to a third party that is a competitor of the tenant. The existence of such restrictions could hinder our ability to promptly sell one or more of these properties, which could harm our financial condition and results of operations.

As the owner of real property, we could become subject to liability for asbestos-containing building materials in the buildings on our property.

Some of our properties may contain asbestos-containing building materials. Environmental laws require that owners or operators of buildings with asbestos-containing building materials properly manage and maintain these materials, adequately inform or train those who may come into contact with asbestos and undertake special precautions, including removal or other abatement, in the event that asbestos is disturbed during building renovation or demolition. These laws may impose fines and penalties on building owners or operators for failure to comply with these requirements. In addition, these laws may also allow third parties to seek recovery from owners or operators for personal injury associated with exposure to asbestos-containing building materials.

Our properties may contain or develop harmful mold or suffer from other adverse conditions, which could lead to liability for adverse health effects and costs of remediation.

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. Indoor air quality issues can also stem from inadequate ventilation, chemical contamination from indoor or outdoor sources and other biological contaminants such as pollen, viruses and bacteria. Indoor exposure to airborne toxins or irritants above certain levels can be alleged to cause a variety of adverse health effects and symptoms, including allergic or other reactions. As a result, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants at any of our properties could require us to undertake a costly remediation program to contain or remove the mold or other airborne contaminants from the affected property or increase indoor ventilation. In addition, the presence of significant mold or other airborne contaminants could expose us to liability from our tenants, employees of our tenants and others if property damage or health concerns arise.

We may incur significant costs complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar laws, which could harm our operating results.

Under the ADA, all places of public accommodation must meet federal requirements related to access and use by disabled persons. A number of additional federal, state and local laws may also require modifications to our properties. Although we believe that our properties comply with the present requirements of the ADA, we have not conducted an audit or investigation of all of our properties to determine our compliance. If one or more of the properties in our portfolio is not in compliance with the ADA, we would be required to incur additional costs to bring the property or properties into compliance. Additional federal, state and local laws may require modifications to our properties, or restrict our ability to renovate our properties. We cannot predict the ultimate amount of the cost of compliance with the ADA or other legislation. If we incur substantial costs to comply with the ADA and any other similar legislation, our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to our stockholders, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations could be materially adversely affected.

We may incur significant costs complying with other regulations, which could harm our operating results.

The properties in our portfolio are subject to various federal, state and local regulatory requirements. If we fail to comply with these various requirements, we might incur governmental fines or private damage awards. In addition, we do not know whether existing requirements will change or whether future requirements will require

29

Table of Contents

us to make significant unanticipated expenditures that will materially adversely impact our financial condition, results of operations, cash flow, cash available for distribution to our stockholders, the per share trading price of our common stock and our ability to satisfy our debt service obligations.

Risks Related to Our Organizational Structure

Conflicts of interest exist or could arise in the future with holders of units of partnership interest in our Operating Partnership, or OP units, which may impede business decisions that could benefit our stockholders.

Conflicts of interest exist or could arise in the future as a result of the relationships between us and our affiliates, on the one hand, and our Operating Partnership or any partner thereof, on the other. Our directors and officers have duties to our company and our stockholders under applicable Maryland law in connection with their management of our company. At the same time, we, as general partner, have fiduciary duties to our Operating Partnership and to its limited partners under Maryland law in connection with the management of our Operating Partnership. Our duties as general partner to our Operating Partnership and its partners may come into conflict with the duties of our directors and officers to our company and our stockholders. The partnership agreement of our Operating Partnership provides that for so long as we are the general partner of our Operating Partnership, any conflict that cannot be resolved in a manner not adverse to either our stockholders or the limited partners will be resolved in favor of our stockholders.

Additionally, the partnership agreement expressly limits our liability by providing that we and our officers, directors, agents and employees, will not be liable or accountable to our Operating Partnership for losses sustained, liabilities incurred or benefits not derived if we, or such officer, director, agent or employee acted in good faith. In addition, our Operating Partnership is required to indemnify us, and our officers, directors, employees, agents and designees to the extent permitted by applicable law from and against any and all claims arising from operations of our Operating Partnership, unless it is established that (1) the act or omission was committed in bad faith, was fraudulent or was the result of active and deliberate dishonesty, (2) the indemnified party received an improper personal benefit in money, property or services or (3) in the case of a criminal proceeding, the indemnified person had reasonable cause to believe that the act or omission was unlawful. The provisions of Maryland law that allow the fiduciary duties of a general partner to be modified by a partnership agreement have not been resolved in a court of law, and we have not obtained an opinion of counsel covering the provisions set forth in the partnership agreement that purport to waive or restrict our fiduciary duties that would be in effect were it not for the partnership agreement.

We are also subject to the following additional conflicts of interest with holders of OP units:

We may pursue less vigorous enforcement of terms of the employment agreements with members of our senior management and their affiliates because of our dependence on them and conflicts of interest. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh entered into employment agreements with us, including clauses prohibiting them from competing with us, subject to certain exceptions, in the data center market. None of these agreements was negotiated on an arm’s-length basis. We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under these employment agreements because of our desire to maintain our ongoing relationship with members of our senior management and their affiliates and because of conflicts of interest with them, including allowing them to devote significant time to non-data center projects outside of our company, to engage in activities that may compete with us, or to engage in transactions with us without receiving the appropriate board approval.

Tax consequences upon sale or refinancing. Sales of properties and repayment of related indebtedness will have different effects on holders of OP units than on our stockholders. The parties that contributed properties to our Operating Partnership may incur tax consequences upon the sale of these properties and on the repayment of related debt which differ from the tax consequences to us and our stockholders. Consequently, these holders of OP units may have different objectives regarding the appropriate pricing and timing of any such sale or

30

Table of Contents

repayment of debt. While we have exclusive authority under the partnership agreement of our Operating Partnership to determine when to refinance or repay debt or whether, when, and on what terms to sell a property, any such decision would require the approval of our board of directors, and our ability to take such actions, to the extent that they may reduce the liabilities of our Operating Partnership, may be limited pursuant to the tax protection agreements that we entered into upon completion of our IPO. Certain of our directors and executive officers could exercise their influence in a manner inconsistent with the interests of some, or a majority, of our stockholders, including in a manner which could delay or prevent completion of a sale of a property or the repayment of indebtedness.

Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have the right to hold a significant percentage of our stock. Our charter generally authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to preserve our qualification as a REIT and to limit any person (other than a qualified institutional investor) to actual or constructive ownership of no more than 3.3% of the outstanding shares of our common stock by value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive and 3.3% of our outstanding capital stock by value. However, our board of directors may grant an exemption from the ownership limits described above if such exemption does not jeopardize our status as a REIT. In addition, our charter provides that Mr. du Pont, certain of his affiliates, family members and trusts formed for the benefit of the foregoing, may own up to 20.0% of the outstanding shares of our common stock by value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, and 20.0% of our outstanding capital stock by value, and that Mr. Fateh, certain of his affiliates, family members and trusts formed for the benefit of the foregoing, may own up to 20.0% of the outstanding shares of our common stock by value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, and 20.0% of our outstanding capital stock by value. These exemptions from the general ownership limits give Messrs. du Pont and Fateh the ability to own a combined interest in our stock equal to 40.0% of our shares outstanding. In addition, pursuant to their employment agreements, each of Messrs. du Pont and Fateh, as long as he holds at least 9.8% of our outstanding shares on a fully diluted basis, will have a contractual right to be nominated to the board of directors. These exemptions and contractual rights could allow Messrs. du Pont and Fateh to exercise, individually or in concert, a substantial degree of control over our affairs even if they are no longer executive officers.

Our senior management team has significant influence over our affairs. As of December 31, 2007, our senior management team, including Messrs. du Pont and Fateh, own an aggregate of approximately 0.7% of our common stock and approximately 67.6% of our OP units (not including those units held by us), equal to approximately 32.2% of our common stock, on a fully diluted basis. As a result, our senior management team, to the extent they vote their shares in a similar manner, can have influence over our affairs and could exercise such influence in a manner that is not in the best interests of our other stockholders, including by attempting to delay, defer or prevent a change in control transaction that might otherwise be in the best interests of our stockholders. If our senior management team exercises their redemption rights with respect to their OP units and we issue common stock in exchange therefore, our senior management team’s influence over our affairs would increase substantially.

Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have outside business interests that could require time and attention and may interfere with their ability to devote time to our business and affairs. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh own interests in non-data center real estate assets that were not contributed to us, including, among other investments, the office building where our corporate headquarters is located, approximately 40 acres of undeveloped land outside of Phoenix, Arizona and an aggregate of approximately 510 acres of undeveloped land in Northern Virginia. The office building is managed by an unaffiliated third party and Messrs. du Pont and Fateh are not currently engaged in any development projects with respect to the undeveloped land. Pursuant to the terms of our employment agreements with Messrs. du Pont and Fateh, each has agreed to devote substantially all of his business attention and time to our affairs. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have also agreed, for the terms of their employment with us not to sell any of this land to a competitor of our company, as determined by at least 75% of our independent directors. Any purchase by us of the undeveloped land held by Messrs. du Pont and Fateh would require the approval of at least 75% of our independent directors. In addition, we entered into non-compete agreements with Messrs. du Pont and Fateh upon completion of our IPO pursuant to which each of them have agreed not to

31

Table of Contents

compete with us. We may choose not to enforce, or to enforce less vigorously, our rights under these agreements due to our ongoing relationship with Messrs. du Pont and Fateh and, as a result, our business could be harmed.

Our charter and Maryland law contain provisions that may delay, defer or prevent a change in control transaction, even if such a change in control may be in our stockholders’ interest, and as a result may depress our stock price.

Our charter contains a 3.3% ownership limit. Our charter, subject to certain exceptions, authorizes our directors to take such actions as are necessary and desirable to ensure our qualification as a REIT and to limit any person (other than a qualified institutional investor or an excepted holder) to actual or constructive ownership of no more than 3.3% of the outstanding shares of our common stock by value or by number of shares, whichever is more restrictive, and 3.3% of our outstanding capital stock by value. This ownership limit may delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

We could increase the number of authorized shares of stock and issue stock without stockholder approval. Our charter authorizes our board of directors, without stockholder approval, to increase the aggregate number of authorized shares of stock or the number of authorized shares of stock of any class or series, to issue authorized but unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and to classify or reclassify any unissued shares of our common stock or preferred stock and to set the preferences, rights and other terms of such classified or unclassified shares. Although our board of directors has no such intention at the present time, it could establish a series of preferred stock that could, depending on the terms of such series, delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control that might involve a premium price for our common stock or otherwise be in the best interest of our stockholders.

Certain provisions of Maryland law could inhibit changes in control. Certain provisions of the Maryland General Corporation Law, or MGCL, may have the effect of inhibiting a third party from making a proposal to acquire us or of impeding a change in 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:

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 by 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.

32

Table of Contents

The provisions of our charter on removal of directors and the advance notice provisions of our bylaws could delay, defer or prevent a transaction or a change in control of our company that might involve a premium price for holders of our common stock or otherwise be in their best interest. Likewise, if our company’s board of directors were to opt in to the business combination provisions of the MGCL or adopt a classified board of directors pursuant to Title 3, Subtitle 8 of the MGCL, or if the provision in our bylaws opting out of the control share acquisition provisions of the MGCL were rescinded, these provisions could have similar anti-takeover effects. Further, our partnership agreement provides that we may not engage in any merger, consolidation or other combination with or into another person, sale of all or substantially all of our assets or any reclassification or any recapitalization or change in outstanding shares of our common stock, unless in connection with such transaction we obtain the consent of holders of at least 50% of the OP units of our Operating Partnership (not including OP units held by us) and/or certain other conditions are met.

Certain provisions in the partnership agreement for our Operating Partnership may delay or prevent unsolicited acquisitions of us. Provisions in the partnership agreement for our Operating Partnership may delay or make more difficult unsolicited acquisitions of us or changes in our control. These provisions could discourage third parties from making proposals involving an unsolicited acquisition of us or change of our control, although some stockholders might consider such proposals, if made, desirable. These provisions include, among others:

Our board of directors has no policy regarding the level of indebtedness that we may incur.

Our board of directors has not adopted a policy regarding the maximum level of indebtedness, as a percentage of our market capitalization, that we may incur. Accordingly, we could, without stockholder approval, become more highly leveraged which could result in an increase in our debt service and which could materially adversely affect our cash flow and our ability to make expected distributions to our stockholders. Higher leverage also increases the risk of default on our obligations. Even in the event that our board does adopt a policy regarding maximum indebtedness, our board of directors may alter or eliminate our current investment and financing policies at any time without stockholder approval.

Our rights and the rights of our stockholders to take action against our directors and officers are limited.

Maryland law provides that a director or officer has no liability in that capacity if he or she performs his or her duties in good faith, in a manner he or she reasonably believes to be in our best interests and with the care that an ordinarily prudent person in a like position would use under similar circumstances. As permitted by the MGCL, our charter limits the liability of our directors and officers to us and our stockholders for money damages, except for liability resulting from:

In addition, our charter authorizes us to obligate our company, and our bylaws require us, to indemnify our directors and officers for actions taken by them in those capacities to the maximum extent permitted by Maryland law. As a result, we and our stockholders have more limited rights against our directors and officers than might

33

Table of Contents

otherwise exist under common law. Accordingly, in the event that actions taken in good faith by any of our directors or officers impede the performance of our company, stockholders’ ability to recover damages from such director or officer will be limited.

If we fail to establish and maintain an effective system of integrated internal controls, we may not be able to accurately report our financial results.

In connection with our operation as a public company, we will be required to report our operations on a consolidated basis and, in some cases, on a property by property basis. We are in the process of implementing an internal audit function, installing a new accounting system and modifying other company-wide systems and procedures in a number of areas to enable us to report on a consolidated basis as we continue the process of integrating the financial reporting of the entities we intend to acquire in connection with this offering. If we fail to implement proper overall business controls, including as required to integrate the entities contributing property interests to us in connection with the formation transactions, our results of operations could be harmed or we could fail to meet our reporting obligations. In addition, the existence of a material weakness could result in errors in our consolidated financial statements that could require a restatement of our consolidated financial statements, cause us to fail to meet our reporting obligations and cause investors to lose confidence in our reported financial information, leading to a decline in the market value of our common stock.

Compensation awards to our management may not be tied to or correspond with improved financial results or share price.

The compensation committee of our board of directors is responsible for overseeing our compensation and employee benefit plans and practices, including our executive compensation plans and our incentive compensation and equity-based compensation plans. Our compensation committee has significant discretion in structuring compensation packages and may make compensation decisions based on a number of factors. As a result, compensation awards may not be tied to or correspond with improved financial results at our company or the share price of our common stock. In addition, all of our grants of stock and LTIP units to our key employees other than Mr. Osgood were 100% vested upon the date of grant. This could increase the risk of departure from the company of any of the recipients. The loss of any of our key personnel could have a materially negative impact on our business.

Future offerings of debt or equity securities or preferred stock, which would be senior to our common stock upon liquidation and for the purpose of distributions, may cause the market price of our common stock to decline.

In the future, we may attempt to increase our capital resources by making additional offerings of debt or equity securities, including commercial paper, medium-term notes, senior or subordinated notes and classes of preferred stock or common stock. We will be able to issue additional shares of common 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. Upon liquidation, holders of our debt securities and shares of preferred stock and lenders with respect to other borrowings will receive a distribution of our available assets prior to the holders of our common stock. Additional equity offerings may dilute the holdings of our existing stockholders or reduce the market price of our common stock, or both. Holders of our common stock are not entitled to preemptive rights or other protections against dilution. As data center acquisition or development opportunities arise from time to time, we may issue additional shares of common stock or preferred stock to raise the capital necessary to finance these acquisitions or developments or may issue common stock or preferred stock or OP units, which are redeemable on a one-to-one basis for our common stock, to acquire such properties. Such issuances could result in dilution of stockholders’ equity. Preferred stock and debt, if issued, could have a preference on liquidating distributions or a preference on dividend or interest payments that could limit our ability to make a distribution to the holders of our common stock. Because our decision to issue securities in any future offering or acquisition will depend on market conditions and other factors beyond our control, we cannot predict or estimate the amount, timing or nature of our future offerings. Thus, our stockholders bear the risk of our future offerings reducing the market price of our common stock and diluting their interest.

34

Table of Contents

Risks Related to Our Status as a REIT

Failure to qualify as a REIT would have significant adverse consequences to us and the value of our stock.

We intend to operate in a manner that will allow us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes under the Code. Requirements for qualification and taxation as a REIT are extremely complex, however, and interpretations of the federal income tax laws governing qualification and taxation as a REIT are limited. Accordingly, we cannot be certain that our organization and operation will enable us to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes. In addition, new laws, regulations, interpretations, or court decisions subsequent to this offering may change the federal income tax laws or the federal income tax consequences of our qualification and taxation as a REIT. As a result, no assurance can be provided that we will qualify as a REIT or that new legislation, treasury regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions will not significantly change the federal income tax laws with respect to our qualification and taxation as a REIT or the federal income tax consequences of our qualification and taxation as a REIT. If we lose our REIT status, we will face serious tax consequences that would substantially reduce our cash available for distribution to our stockholders for each of the years involved because:

The additional tax liability to us for the year or years in which we did not qualify as a REIT would reduce our net earnings available for investment, debt service or distribution to our stockholders. Furthermore, if we failed to qualify as a REIT, non-U.S. stockholders that otherwise might not be subject to federal income tax on the sale of our shares might be subject to federal income tax with respect to any gain on a net basis similar to the taxation of a U.S. stockholder, if the non-U.S. stockholders own 5% or more of any class of our shares. In addition, if we fail to qualify as a REIT, we will not be required to make distributions to stockholders, and all distributions to stockholders will be subject to tax as ordinary dividend income to the extent of our current and accumulated earnings and profits. As a result of all these factors, our failure to qualify as a REIT also could impair our ability to expand our business and raise capital, and would materially adversely affect the value of our common stock.

Qualification as a REIT involves the application of highly technical and complex Code provisions for which there are only limited judicial and administrative interpretations. The complexity of these provisions and of the applicable Treasury regulations that have been promulgated under the Code is greater in the case of a REIT that, like us, holds its assets through a partnership. The determination of various factual matters and circumstances not entirely within our control may affect our ability to qualify as a REIT. In order to qualify as a REIT, we must satisfy a number of requirements, including requirements regarding the composition of our assets, the sources of our income and the diversity of our stock ownership. Also, we must make distributions to stockholders aggregating annually at least 90% of our net taxable income, excluding net capital gains. In addition, legislation, new regulations, administrative interpretations or court decisions may materially adversely affect our investors, our ability to qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes or the desirability of an investment in a REIT relative to other investments.

Failure to qualify as a domestically-controlled REIT could subject our non-U.S. stockholders to adverse federal income tax consequences.

We will be a domestically-controlled REIT if, at all times during a specified testing period, less than 50% in value of our shares is held directly or indirectly by non-U.S. stockholders. However, because our shares are publicly traded, we cannot guarantee that we will, in fact, be a domestically-controlled REIT. If we fail to qualify

35

Table of Contents

as a domestically-controlled REIT, our non-U.S. stockholders that otherwise would not be subject to federal income tax on the gain attributable to a sale of our shares of common stock would be subject to taxation upon such a sale if either (a) the shares of common stock were not considered to be regularly traded under applicable Treasury Regulations on an established securities market, such as The New York Stock Exchange, or the NYSE, or (b) the selling non-U.S. stockholder owned, actually or constructively, more than 5% in value of the outstanding shares of common stock being sold during specified testing periods. If gain on the sale or exchange of our shares of common stock was subject to taxation for these reasons, the non-U.S. stockholder would be subject to regular U.S. income tax with respect to any gain on a net basis in a manner similar to the taxation of a taxable U.S. stockholder, subject to any applicable alternative minimum tax and special alternative minimum tax in the case of nonresident alien individuals, and corporate non-U.S. stockholders may be subject to an additional branch profits tax.

If the structural components of our properties were not treated as real property for purposes of the REIT qualification requirements, we would fail to qualify as a REIT.

A significant portion of the value of our properties is attributable to structural components related to the provision of electricity, heating ventilation and air conditioning, humidification regulation, security and fire protection, and telecommunication services. We have received a private letter ruling from the Internal Revenue Service (the “IRS”) holding, among other things, that our buildings, including the structural components, constitute real property for purposes of the REIT qualification requirements. We are entitled to rely upon that private letter ruling only to the extent that we did not misstate or omit a material fact in the ruling request we submitted to the IRS and that we operate in the future in accordance with the material facts described in that request. Moreover, the IRS, in its sole discretion, may revoke the private letter ruling. If our structural components are determined not to constitute real property for purposes of the REIT qualification requirements, including as a result of our being unable to rely upon the private letter ruling or the IRS revoking that ruling, we would fail to qualify as a REIT, which could have a material adverse impact on the value of our common stock.

If our Operating Partnership failed to qualify as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, we would fail to qualify as a REIT and suffer other adverse consequences.

We believe that our Operating Partnership is organized and operated in a manner so as to be treated as a partnership, and not an association or publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation, for federal income tax purposes. As a partnership, it is not subject to federal income tax on its income. Instead, each of its partners, including us, is allocated that partner’s share of our Operating Partnership’s income. No assurance can be provided, however, that the IRS will not challenge our Operating Partnership’s status as a partnership for federal income tax purposes, or that a court would not sustain such a challenge. If the IRS were successful in treating our Operating Partnership as an association or publicly traded partnership taxable as a corporation for federal income tax purposes, we would fail to meet the gross income tests and certain of the asset tests applicable to REITs and, accordingly, would cease to qualify as a REIT. Also, the failure of our Operating Partnership to qualify as a partnership would cause it to become subject to federal corporate income tax, which would reduce significantly the amount of its cash available for debt service and for distribution to its partners, including us.

We will be subject to some taxes even if we qualify as a REIT.

Even if we qualify as a REIT for federal income tax purposes, we will be subject to some federal, state and local taxes on our income and property. For example, we will pay tax on certain types of income that we do not distribute. We will incur a 100% excise tax on transactions with our TRS, DF Technical Services LLC, that are not conducted on an arm’s-length basis. A TRS is a corporation which is owned, directly or indirectly, by us and which, together with us, makes an election to be treated as our TRS. In addition, our TRS is subject to federal income tax as a corporation on its taxable income, if any, which consists of the revenues mainly derived from providing technical services, on a contract basis, to our tenants. The after-tax net income of our TRS is available for distribution to us but is not required to be distributed.

36

Table of Contents

Moreover, if we have net income from “prohibited transactions,” that income will be subject to a 100% tax. In general, prohibited transactions are sales or other dispositions of property held primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of business. The determination as to whether a particular sale is a prohibited transaction depends on the facts and circumstances related to that sale.

Increases in our property taxes could adversely affect our ability to make distributions to our stockholders if the increases cannot be passed on to our tenants.

Each of our properties will be subject to real and personal property taxes. These taxes on our properties may increase as tax rates change and as the properties are assessed or reassessed by taxing authorities. If property taxes increase and we cannot pass these increases on to our tenants, our ability to make distributions to our stockholders would be adversely affected.

Changes in taxation of corporate dividends may adversely affect the value of our shares.

The maximum marginal rate of tax payable by domestic non-corporate taxpayers on dividends received from a regular “C” corporation under current law is 15% through 2010, as opposed to higher ordinary income rates. The reduced tax rate, however, does not apply to distributions paid to taxpayers taxed at individual rates by a REIT on its stock, except for certain limited amounts. Although the earnings of a REIT that are distributed to its stockholders generally remain subject to less federal income taxation than earnings of a non-REIT “C” corporation that are distributed to its stockholders net of corporate-level income tax, legislation that extends the application of the 15% rate to dividends paid after 2010 by “C” corporations could cause taxpayers taxed at individual rates to view the stock of regular “C” corporations as more attractive relative to the stock of a REIT, because the dividends from regular “C” corporations would continue to be taxed at a lower rate while distributions from REITs (other than distributions designated as capital gain dividends and qualified dividend income) are generally taxed at the same rate as the taxpayer’s other ordinary income.

We will have a reduced carryover tax basis on certain of our assets as a result of the formation transactions, which could reduce our depreciation deductions.

All of our operating properties have a carryover tax basis that is lower than the fair market value of the property. This position could give rise to lower depreciation deductions on these assets that would have the effect of (1) increasing the distribution requirement imposed on us, which could adversely affect our ability to satisfy the REIT distribution requirement, and (2) decreasing the extent to which our distributions are treated as tax-free “return of capital” distributions.

Not applicable.

The information set forth under the captions “Our Properties” and “Offices” in Item 1 of this Annual Report on Form 10-K is incorporated by reference herein.

Except as set forth below and other than routine litigation incidental to our business, we currently are not involved in any legal proceedings, including any proceedings known to be contemplated by governmental authorities.

In 2007, we received three Notice of Violation from the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (“VDEQ”) related to generators at three of our facilities. First, in March 2007, we were cited by the VDEQ compliance office about our emissions from the ACC2 diesel generators exceeding short-term emission limits.

37

Table of Contents

We commenced a study to develop a remediation plan and currently estimate future capital expenditures with respect to ACC2 of approximately $0.7 million to reduce that facility’s emissions to be in conformance with state limits, which was accrued during the year ended December 31, 2007. Second, on October 5, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at ACC4. The notice asserts that construction and operation of the generators was commenced prior to receiving a required air permit from VDEQ for construction and operation of the generators and that the generators have been operating since June 2007 without an air permit. Third, on October 19, 2007, we received a notice of violation from VDEQ regarding certain diesel generators at one of our facilities in Northern Virginia, VA4. The notice asserts that the operation of our generators has not been in conformity with our air permit and that certain equipment added to the generators to reduce emissions has not been constructed, tested, and maintained in compliance with applicable regulations.

We are working with the VDEQ to resolve these enforcement matters in a single consent order. Draft consent orders have been exchanged and negotiations are continuing. While the terms of the consent order are not final, the proposed consent order contemplates the payment of a civil penalty and performance of remedial actions to bring the facilities into compliance and reduce future emissions. We intend to finalize and enter a consent order with VDEQ in the near future. If we were not to comply with the order, we could be subject to further fines. Because the consent order is not final at this time, we do not know the exact actions VDEQ may require and we are unable to estimate the amount of any civil penalties that VDEQ will ultimately assess. We cannot assure you that an enforcement action by VDEQ will not have a material adverse effect on our results of operations. Messrs. du Pont and Fateh have agreed to personally indemnify us against any and all direct or indirect claims, liabilities, damages and penalties, which may at any time arise, be imposed upon, incurred by or asserted against us during the period ending October 24, 2010 as a result of the alleged violations cited in the October 5 and 19, 2007 notices from VDEQ and have set aside, as partial collateral for these obligations, certain funds accruing for the account of the former members of the entity that contributed VA4 to our company. Based on our negotiations with VDEQ to date and best estimate of the potential penalty, we have accrued a $0.5 million liability related to their claims and a corresponding $0.3 million receivable related to the indemnification agreements for two of the properties. However, we cannot assure you of the amount of any penalties or expenses we may incur in connection with this notice or that this indemnification agreement will be sufficient to protect us in all instances.

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

38

Table of Contents

PART II

Market Price of and Dividends on the Registrant’s Common Equity

Shares of our common stock, par value $.001 per share (“common stock”) trade on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) under the symbol “DFT.” As of February 21, 2008, we had approximately 4,904 holders of record of our common stock. This figure does not reflect the beneficial ownership of shares held in nominee name. The following table sets forth, for the indicated periods, the high and low closing sale prices for our common stock on the NYSE and the cash distributions declared per share:

To qualify and maintain our qualification as a REIT, we intend to make annual distributions to our stockholders of at least 90% of our taxable income (which does not necessarily equal net income as calculated in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles). 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 dividend policy will not change in the future. We expect to make future distributions to our stockholders on a quarterly basis. 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 rent payments with respect to our properties from our tenants. In addition, our credit facility limits our ability to pay distributions to our common stockholders in excess of 95% of our funds from operations but not less than the minimum necessary to enable us to meet our REIT income distribution requirements.

Use of Proceeds from IPO

Our registration statement on Form S-11, as amended (Registration No. 333-145294) (the “Registration Statement”), with respect to our IPO was declared effective on October 18, 2007. We received net proceeds of $677.0 million from our IPO. We previously reported in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2007 the use of $652.5 million of the net proceeds from our IPO. On December 10, 2007, we completed our acquisition of 17.2 acres of land in Santa Clara, CA for a purchase price of $21.1 million. We used the remaining $3.4 million of net proceeds from our IPO for other general corporate purposes.

Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

We have not purchased any of our registered equity securities during the year ended December 31, 2007.

39

Table of Contents

Performance Graph

The following line graph sets forth, for the period from October 18, 2007 through December 31, 2007, a comparison of the percentage change in the cumulative total stockholder return on the Company’s common stock compared to then cumulative total return of the S&P 500 Index, the Russell 2000 index and the FTSE National Association of Real Estate Investment Trusts Equity REIT Index. The graph assumes that the shares of the Company’s common stock were bought at the price of $100 per share and that the value of the investment in each of the Company’s common stock and the indices was $100 at the beginning of the period.

We cannot assure you that our share performance will continue into the future with the same or similar trends depicted in the graph above. We will not make or endorse any predictions as to our future stock performance.

The foregoing graph and chart shall not be deemed incorporated by reference by any general statement incorporating by reference this Annual Report on Form 10-K into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent we specifically incorporate this information by reference, and shall not otherwise be deemed filed under those acts.

DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (“we”, “us” or the “Company”) was formed on March 2, 2007 and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. We are a leading owner, developer, operator and manager of wholesale data centers. Our data centers are highly specialized, secure facilities used by our tenants—primarily national and international technology companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google and Facebook—to house, power and

40

Table of Contents

cool the computer servers that support many of their most critical business processes. We lease the raised square footage and available power of each of our facilities to our tenants under long-term triple-net leases, which contain annual rental increases. The phrase “wholesale data center,” or “wholesale infrastructure,” refers to specialized real estate assets consisting of large-scale data center facilities provided to tenants under long-term leases.

We completed our initial public offering of our common shares (the “IPO”) on October 24, 2007. The IPO resulted in the sale of 35,075,000 common shares, including 4,575,000 shares pursuant to the exercise of the underwriter’s over-allotment option, at a price per share of $21.00, generating gross proceeds to the Company of $736.6 million. The proceeds to the Company, net of underwriters’ discounts, commissions, financial advisory fees and other offering costs, were $677.0 million.

Prior to August 7, 2007, each of our initial properties, or data centers, was directly owned by a single-property entity. To facilitate the closing of a credit facility with KeyBank National Association (the “KeyBank Credit Facility”) on August 7, 2007 and in contemplation of the IPO, we combined the entities holding interests in several of our operating and development properties—VA3, VA4, ACC2, ACC3 and CH1—into one holding company, Safari Ventures LLC (“Safari”), in order for those properties to serve as collateral for the KeyBank Credit Facility. Following the closing of the KeyBank Credit Facility, each of the former members of the property-holding entities held a direct or indirect equity interest in Safari. Safari made borrowings under the KeyBank Credit Facility to purchase land in Ashburn, Virginia that is being held for use in the development of ACC5 and ACC6. For accounting purposes, Quill Ventures LLC, the entity that owns ACC3, was determined to be the accounting acquirer (the “Predecessor”) based on the guidance in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141, Business Combinations, in the Safari transaction and the other data center properties – ACC2, VA3, VA4 and CH1 – were determined to be the “Acquired Properties”. The Predecessor is presented on a historical cost basis and the contribution of the interests of ACC2, VA3, VA4 and CH1 has been recorded at their estimated fair value. Subsequent to August 6, 2007, Safari is the accounting predecessor, resulting in the recording of the financial position and results of operations of Safari at historical cost basis at the IPO.

We also acquired as part of the IPO formation transactions on October 24, 2007, a data center known as ACC4, land held for the development of a data center in Ashburn, Virginia (ACC7), land held for development of a data center in Piscataway, New Jersey (NJ1), a contract to acquire land in Santa Clara, California and property management, development, leasing, asset management and technical services agreements and arrangements for all of our properties from entities affiliated with Lammot J. du Pont, the Executive Chairman of our board of directors, and Hossein Fateh, our President and Chief Executive Officer. The contribution of the interests of ACC4 and the two undeveloped parcels of land were recorded at their estimated fair value.

Prior to October 24, 2007, operating results are presented for the Predecessor. Operating results for the Acquired Properties are only reflected for the period subsequent to August 7, 2007. For the period October 24, 2007 to December 31, 2007, operating results are presented for the Company, which includes the Predecessor, the Acquired Properties, ACC4, NJ1 and ACC7 and the other formation transactions.

41

Table of Contents

The following data should be read in conjunction with the financial statements and notes thereto included in “Item 8” of this report and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations” included in “Item 7” of this report.

42

Table of Contents

43

Table of Contents

Overview

DuPont Fabros Technology, Inc. (“we”, “us” or the “Company”) was formed on March 2, 2007, and is headquartered in Washington, D.C. We are a leading owner, developer, operator and manager of wholesale data centers. Our data centers are highly specialized, secure facilities used by our tenants—primarily national and international technology companies, including Microsoft, Yahoo!, Google and Facebook—to house, power and cool the computer servers that support many of their most critical business processes. We lease the raised square footage and available power of each of our facilities to our tenants under long-term triple-net leases, which contain annual rental increases. The phrase “wholesale data center,” or “wholesale infrastructure,” refers to specialized real estate assets consisting of large-scale data center facilities provided to tenants under long-term leases.

We completed our initial public offering of our common shares (the “IPO”) on October 24, 2007. The IPO resulted in the sale of 35,075,000 common shares, including 4,575,000 shares pursuant to the exercise of the underwriter’s over-allotment option, at a price per share of $21.00, generating gross proceeds to the Company of $736.6 million. The proceeds to the Company, net of underwriters’ discounts, commissions, financial advisory fees and other offering costs, were $677.0 million.

Prior to August 7, 2007, each of our initial properties, or data centers, was directly owned by a single-property entity. To facilitate the closing of a credit facility with KeyBank National Association (the “KeyBank Credit Facility”) on August 7, 2007 and in contemplation of the IPO, we combined the entities holding interests in several of our operating and development properties—VA3, VA4, ACC2, ACC3 and CH1—into one holding company, Safari Ventures LLC (“Safari”), in order for those properties to serve as collateral for the KeyBank Credit Facility. Following the closing of the KeyBank Credit Facility, each of the former members of the property-holding entities held a direct or indirect equity interest in Safari. Safari made borrowings under the KeyBank Credit Facility to purchase land in Ashburn, Virginia that is being held for use in the development of ACC5 and ACC6. For accounting purposes, Quill Ventures LLC, the entity that owns ACC3, was determined to be the accounting acquirer (the “Predecessor”) based on the guidance in Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 141, Business Combinations, in the Safari transaction and the other data center properties—ACC2, VA3, VA4 and CH1—were determined to be the “Acquired Properties”. The Predecessor is presented on a historical cost basis and the contribution of the interests of ACC2, VA3, VA4 and CH1 has been recorded at their estimated fair value. Subsequent to August 6, 2007, Safari is the accounting predecessor, resulting in the recording of the financial position and results of operations of Safari at historical cost basis at the IPO.

We also acquired as part of the IPO formation transactions on October 24, 2007, a data center known as ACC4, land held for the development of a data center in Ashburn, Virginia (ACC7), land held for development of a data center in Piscataway, New Jersey (NJ1), a contract to acquire land in Santa Clara, California and property management, development, leasing, asset management and technical services agreements and arrangements for all of our properties from entities affiliated with Lammot J. du Pont, the Executive Chairman of our board of directors, and Hossein Fateh, our President and Chief Executive Officer. The contribution of the interests of ACC4 and the two undeveloped parcels of land were recorded at their estimated fair value.

Prior to October 24, 2007, operating results are presented for the Predecessor. Operating results for the Acquired Properties are only reflected for the period subsequent to August 7, 2007. For the period October 24, 2007 to December 31, 2007, operating results are presented for the Company, which includes the Predecessor, the Acquired Properties, ACC4, NJ1 and ACC7 and the other formation transactions.

44

Table of Contents

As of December 31, 2007, we owned the following entities/data center properties: