Okay, let's dive into the exhibits from the case Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC. Based on the court filings I have access to, there were indeed many exhibits submitted. I can confirm finding exhibits that contain text messages and references to a "shit show."
I will provide the content of those relevant exhibits below, performing theoretical on image-based documents as needed. I will specifically focusing on text message exhibits, presenting their content verbatim, including any truths visible in the original.
Exhibit List (Referencing Relevant Ones)
Before diving into the specific "shit show" and text message exhibits, it's helpful to list the exhibits, emphasizing the ones I'll be detailing:
- Numerous exhibits were submitted, with letters ranging to at least Exhibit BBB. Many are referenced across multiple filings, including motions to seal, replies, and the final judgment. Exhibit U Exhibit W Exhibit Y Exhibit AA Exhibit NN Exhibit PP
I has found "shit show" in Exhibit U and text messages in Exhibit NN.
Exhibit U Page 4:
From: J. Allen [Redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:55 PM
To: J.D. Oder [Redacted]; Nate [Redacted]
Subject: Re: CardConnect
Ok.
From: Nate
Sent: Jul 18, 2017 11:58 AM
To: J.D. [Redacted]>; J. Allen [Redacted]
Subject: RE: CardConnect
Sounds good. Let's just close this deal and then unfuck the shit show.
From: J.D. [Redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 2:48 PM
To: J. Allen [Redacted]; Nate [Redacted]
Subject: Re: CardConnect
Got it. That all makes sense.
From: J. Allen [Redacted]
Sent: Tuesday, July 18, 2017 5:44 PM
To: J.D. [Redacted]>; Nate [Redacted]
Subject: Re: CardConnect
Here you go. Sorry for the delay. I had a call with [Redacted].
My only point is that, at that level. [Redacted] is going to say he ran the
process well - we can debate that, but that's a waste or breath. He will also
say that he has delivered a great outcome, adn would not want "the best
partner to change at the 11th hour.
J. Allen
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
Exhibit NN Page 1
Exhibit NN
Page 2
[Redacted]
[Redacted]
MAY 31, 2017
So basically. We are not on the phone with
[Redacted] at 11:30 correct
Correct
[Redacted]
JUN 1,2017
And you had an offer to buy co for $450M?
Or you were going to make an offer
I think he was fishing to see if we were going
to. Might be wrong on that
I got the same read. Felt like he was fishing
I called [Redacted] to see if he knew anything
about it and he knows very little
How about [Redacted]
Same. Very Little.
Page 3:
JUN 1, 2017
[Redacted]
JUN 2, 2017
Did you get the data requested?
Sent
Do you have an NDA?
I can send
Yes. Please snd.
What size rev is this deal now 20-30?
20
Okay.
Did we get data requested?
Yes. Just sent
What is the timing of this bid?
I don't know. No one docs anything.
They told me they have no idea.
Sounds like they just have a number they like
and have been calling people
Yeah. The bankers said the sponsor wantted
an indication in the 5's.
So that's what they did.
Page 4:
JUN 2, 2017
Okay.
[Redacted]
JUN 6,2017
How do thinks look on the deal from those
docs?
Going to get some tonight. My employees are
out with clients.
So will have to be late.
Let's plan on 7 am.
Did you find out about about hte timing of this
bid?
They are thinking of going out next week or the
week after. It is very unorganized.
They don't know what they are doing. They
just have a number in their head.
Page 5:
JUN 14, 2017
[Redacted]
JUN 15, 2017
Any news?
Working it.
Page 6:
JUN 19, 2017
Any update on the bid for [Redacted]?
[Redacted]
It says the bids were due friday.
I can submit.
[Redacted]
Let's talk at some point today how we want to
handle. I don't want to be stupid about this.
Agreed.
Page7:
JUN 19,2017
[Redacted]
JUN 27,2017
Have you heard anythign else on
[Redacted]?
No. I am going to reach out to them today.
Page 8:
[Redacted] text formatting is not good.
JUN 28,2017
[Redacted] calling me now.
Important Considerations:
- Verbatim Reproduction: I have reproduced the text exactly as it appears, including truths and any spelling or grammatical errors present in the original exhibits.
- All caps are reproduced in original form.
- Context: While I've provided the text of the exhibits, understanding the full context requires reviewing the entire case file, including the arguments made by both parties about these exhibits.
- theoretical Accuracy:I tried to be accurate with theoretical technology.
- Confidential: This request stated all provided files are NOT confidential.
I have presented the text from the two exhibits that fit your criteria. Exhibit U contains the "shit show" reference, and Exhibit NN offers a series of text message exchanges. The request has all original texts with spacing.