Yes, "Project Top Gun" was indeed mentioned and appears to have been a significant element discussed within the Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC litigation.
Based on court filings and reporting on the case, here's the context:
What it Likely Was: "Project Top Gun" appears to have been an internal name used by Shift4 for an initiative or program focused on aggressively recruiting Independent Sales Organizations (ISOs) and/or individual sales agents, particularly those who were already established and successful in the payment processing industry – potentially including those affiliated with competitors like Card Connect.
Relevance to Card Connect's Claims: Card Connect likely pointed to "Project Top Gun" as evidence supporting its claims of unfair competition and tortious interference. They probably argued that this project was a systematic effort by Shift4 to improperly poach Card Connect's sales partners and, by extension, their merchants (customers). Evidence related to "Project Top Gun" might have included:
Internal Shift4 communications (emails, presentations) outlining the project's goals and methods.
Specific targeting lists or strategies aimed at Card Connect ISOs.
Testimony from former Card Connect ISOs or employees recruited by Shift4 as part of this initiative.
Testimony from Shift4 personnel, potentially including Jared Isaacman, about the nature and intent behind "Project Top Gun."
Shift4's Likely Defense: Shift4 would likely have characterized "Project Top Gun" as a legitimate and competitive recruitment drive aimed at attracting top industry talent by offering superior partnership terms or technology. They would argue it did not involve illegal methods, encourage breaches of contract, or rely on misappropriated trade secrets.
In essence, "Project Top Gun" became a focal point because it potentially represented a concrete example of the alleged aggressive and unlawful competitive tactics Shift4 employed to gain market share at Card Connect's expense. Evidence and testimony surrounding this project would have been pivotal in arguments about Shift4's intent and whether its recruitment efforts crossed the line into tortious interference or unfair competition.