From: Jered lsaacman <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Sent: Saturday, April 25, 2020 3:25 PM
To: Taylor Lavery <tlavery@shift4.com>
Cc: Jordan Frankel <ifrankel@shift4.com>
Subject: Re: UBO- Compliance Review

Agreed.

From: Jered lsaacman <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2020 7:59 PM
To: Taylor Lavery <tlavery@shift4.com>
Cc: Jordan Frankel <jfrankel@shift4.com>
Subject: Re: UBO- Compliance Review

Can we discuss again Monday. We are going to need some outside help on various compliance matters.

From:       Taylor Lavery <tlavery@shift4.com>
Sent:       Saturday, April 25, 2020 3:19 PM
To:     Jered Isaacman <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Cc:     Jordan Frankel <jfrankel@shift4.com>
Subject:    UBO- Compliance Review
Jered,

Per FinCen's CDD Rule re: UBO- every time a new "legal entity customer" opens a new account, we are required to collect
beneficial ownership information at 25% or greater, direct or indirect, ownership. Here is a link to more information:

https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2018-04/FinCEN_Guidance_CDD_FAQ_FINAL_508_2.pdf

Per the rule- an "account" is a formal banking relationship. If Harbortouch/3rd party ISO opens a new account at a bank in their
name- they have to collect UBO information. Per the definitions- Harbortouch IS a legal entity customer and the Master
Settlement Account is the definition of an "account".

I recommend that we start collecting UBO information from our 3rd party ISOs now that they have sub-ISO relationships, per our
CIP and FinCen's CDD Rule. At this point, we risk continued exposure.

I am recommending that we get outside counsel (Elaine) to agree with this approach, and then we can figure out a game plan to
collect UBO information for those 3rd party ISOs that have sub-ISOs. For 3rd party ISOs moving forward- we should require UBO
information at 25% or greater ownership and the name of the Control Person.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks,
Taylor

From: Brad Herring [mailto:bherring@firstdata.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 4:51 PM
To: 'jreitman@shift4.com'
Cc: 'dsmith@shift4.com'; Barry McCarthy; Dan Charron; Frank Bisignano
Subject: RE: Covenant Breach Notice - Please Acknowledge Receipt
Importance: High

Jared,

After review of your email, you have not dispelled the fact that Shift4 has breached its contracts with CardConnect. The facts show
that Lighthouse is processing payments - credit card transactions - in a manner that violates our Agreement.

You have not answered my fundamental question. Is Lighthouse a separate, stand-alone company from Shift4, or is it not?

If it is, then you are illegally operating Lighthouse in multiple ways, as a shell company in Nevada, and a non-registered, out-of-
state, foreign limited liability company in Pennsylvania. You are also violating our Agreement as an unregistered ISO and
Payment Facilitator.

If, on the other hand, it is not a separate, stand-alone company, then you and Don Smith made misrepresentations on the
Officer's Certificate.

Please answer my question and let me know how you intend to resolve this breach.

Thank you,
Brad

From: Jared Isaacman [mailto:jreitman@shift4.com]
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2018 4:21 PM
To: Brad Herring <bherring@firstdata.com>
Cc: dsmith@shift4.com; Barry McCarthy <Barry.McCarthy@firstdata.com>; Dan Charron
<DCharron@firstdata.com>; Frank Bisignano <fb@firstdata.com>
Subject: RE: Covenant Breach Notice - Please Acknowledge Receipt

Brad,

Lighthouse is not acting in the capacity of a registered ISO or Payment Facilitator. We do not need to register an entity in all
50 states in order to deliver software and services, nor would this in an way impact an ISO registration, which we don't have
or need with you.

The state registrations have no bearing on the matter. We deliver a multitude of services, many that do not include payments,
and if this were a merit to your email we would remedy the state registration immediately.

Thanks,

From: Brad Herring [mailto:bherring@firstdata.com]
Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 9:13 PM
To: 'Barry McCarthy'
Cc: 'Dan Charron'; 'Frank Bisignano'; 'jreitman@shift4.com'; 'dsmith@shift4.com'
Subject: FW: Covenant Breach Notice - Please Acknowledge Receipt

Barry and Team,

I wanted to make you aware of the email exchange between Jared and I on Friday and today. Shift4 continues to breach its
contract and your team has not explained how you intend to remedy.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Brad

From:Jared Isaacman [mailto:jir@shift4.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 7:10 PM
To: Dan Charron <DCharron@firstdata.com>
Cc: Frank Bisignano <fb@firstdata.com>; Barry McCarthy <Barry.McCarthy@firstdata.com>; Brad Herring
<bherring@firstdata.com>; dsmith@shift4.com; jreitman@shift4.com
Subject: RE: Confidential

Dan,
We have never competed for merchants that were actively processing with Card Connect. We simply do not do that. We
are winning merchants every day that are processing with Elavon, TSYS, Global, Vantiv, Worldpay, Chase, etc. but those
merchants have not - at any time - been sent to Card Connect for authorization and settlement processing, which means
that at all times we are abiding by the terms of our mutual agreement. We always have.
As it was explained to me, this seemed like a really simple concept especially if you recognize, as an example, that
Shift4 merchants that were sold on the First Data platform prior to our agreement with Card Connect would continue on
the legacy Shift4/First Data program (since they were never sent to Card Connect anyway) and our Card Connect book of
merchants that were sent to you for authorization and settlement would always remain with you. Everything at the time
seemed pretty straight forward, which makes it so surprising that you're sharing with me a story where it's getting lost in

Translation and merchants actively processing with Card Connect have ended up with Shift4, because it simply isn't true
and is not what we do. We do everything by the numbers and the numbers simply would not add up anyway, nor would it
be worth damaging relationships, to target merchants actively processing on one of our own provider partners. It makes
absolutely zero sense.

I should also mention that there is nothing in the existing agreement signed by 30+ employees throughout

CardConnect/First Data that precludes new entities.

This has to stop. Let me know how I can be helpful in getting this message clearly communicated, or how you

recommend we get this addressed. We will do whatever we need to do, including agreeing to adding any of the other
mentioned names to the agreement, but its simply impossible for us to commit to terms that can't be measured and
leave us constantly vulnerable to perceptions such as is occurring here.

Thank you,
Jared

From: Dan Charron [mailto:DCharron@firstdata.com]
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 6:05 PM
To: Jared Isaacman <jir@shift4.com>
Cc: Frank Bisignano <fb@firstdata.com>; Barry McCarthy <Barry.McCarthy@firstdata.com>; Brad Herring
<bherring@firstdata.com>; dsmith@shift4.com; jreitman@shift4.com
Subject: RE: Confidential
Importance: High

Jared,

Frank, Barry, Brad and I just discussed the situation - from their perspective you continue to breach out [sic, our?]
agreement- specifically by taking business from CC to Shift4.

Your team did not agree to add the entities to the agreement (and agree to the terms of the agreement).

Please revert back with what you agree to do to remedy these issues.

I look forward to your reply.

Dan

From: Brad Herring [mailto:bherring@firstdata.com]
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 5:45 PM
To: 'jreitman@shift4.com'
Cc: 'Mike L আনার
Subject: RE: Question

Jared.

If you are representing to merchants and others that Shift4 Payments is the account provider, that's a fundamental
problem. Lighthouse Network is not a registered entity with CardConnect, Shift4 Payments is the registered entity. Can
you help me understand?

From: Jared Isaacman [mailto:jir@shift4.com]
Sent: Mondav. August 20. 2018 5:30 PM
To: Brad Herring <bherring@firstdata.com>
Cc: Mike Lawler <mlawler@shift4.com>
Subject: FW: Question
Brad,

The merchant was referring to a service fee that goes by a vanety of names including technology fee, service fee,
support fee, etc. It applies to services that are independent of card brand fees that are generally referred in interchange
fees. The merchant was confused because they seem to have overlooked it on their application with the sales agent.
This is absolutely not a misrepresentation of interchange.

Thanks,
Jared

From: Mike Lawler <mlawler@shift4.com>
Sent: Monday, August 20, 2018 5:28 PM
To: jreitman@shift4.com
Subject: Fwd: Question
FYI

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Jared Isaacman" <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Date: August 20, 2018 at 3:49:50 PM EDT
To: "Mike Lawler" <mlawler@shift4.com>
Subject: FW: Question

From: Robert Ayoub <robert@4sdevelopment.com>
Date: August 20, 2018 at 12:52:11 PM EDT
To: jisaacman@shift4.com
Subject: Question

Hey Jared,

Hope all is well.

So I was reviewing my statement for July (first statement) and I noticed a $20 dollar service charge and roughly
$100 in interchange fees. When I spoke to the sales rep he explained that there would be no monthly fees. I
understood interchange fees to be much lower based on my research of shift4. I signed up for the interchange
program and was charged a one time fee of $795.00. Is this $100 based on the volume that was processed?
Could you please look into this.

Thanks,

Robert Ayoub

From: Jered lsaacman <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Sent: Friday, June 29, 2018 8:32 AM
To: Taylor Lavery<tlavery@shift4.com>
Subject: Fwd: UBO

FYI.  You don't have to pay right now.

- Show quoted text -
Begin forwarded message:

From: Daniel DeMeo <daniel@skypoint.com>
Date: June 28, 2018 at 5:56:21 PM EDT
To: Jered lsaacman <jisaacman@shift4.com>
Subject: UBO

Hey Jered-

Hope you are doing well. A couple of things. I wanted to follow up on my prior
messages regarding getting together. We could really use your help on
something. If you are going to be around in the next few months, I would like.
to try and connect at your convenience.

Also, can you approve a $2k payment to Cogency Global for compliance
research: I forgot to mention we are checking into ultimate beneficial ownership
requirements for non-bank lenders in the US and in Europe. We would just be
paying for the research.

Thanks
Dan