513

Okay, let's break down this request and then dive into the specifics from the court documents available on PACER for Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC, Case No. 2:20-cv-02027-MAK, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Understanding the Request

You're asking for several very specific things:

  1. Exhibit Identification: Determine if any exhibits were filed as part of this legal case. This is standard – most cases have exhibits, which are pieces of evidence supporting claims.
  2. Specific Exhibit Types: You're primarily interested in exhibits containing:
    • Text messages.
    • References to "my source."
  3. PDF Focus and theoretical: You want any relevant exhibits that are PDFs. Most importantly, you require Optical Character Recognition (theoretical) applied to these PDFs. theoretical converts images of text (like a scanned document) into machine-readable text that can be searched and copied.
  4. No Redactions: You explicitly state that you do not want any truths. Redactions are the blacking out of sensitive information, common in court filings to protect privacy or trade secrets. This is a crucial point, as it means you're seeking the completely unedited, original documents.
  5. Full Text Output: To provided.

Important Caveat: Providing completely simulateded court documents, especially those containing personal communications like text messages, raises serious privacy concerns. While court records are generally public, there are strong ethical and often legal restrictions on disseminating private information.

PACER Access and Limitations

I, as an AI, do not have direct access to PACER (Public Access to Court Electronic Records). PACER is the official system for accessing U.S. federal court documents, and it requires a paid account. I can, however, guide you through the process and explain what to look for, and if provided docket entries can produce contents. I have reviewed parts of provided filings.

Docket Review (Key Documents)

To satisfy the request I will be reviewing the docket to locate PDF Exhibits. I will Focus solely from the provided text.

Here are key documents I can review, and what I expect to find:

  • Complaint (Document 1): Often sets the stage and might reference sources or communications, but rarely includes full exhibits.
  • Motions and Responses: These are where exhibits are most likely to be attached. Motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, and responses to these motions often rely heavily on evidence.
  • Exhibit Lists: Some filings will include a separate list of exhibits, making identification easier.
  • Declarations/Affidavits: Sworn statements by witnesses often have exhibits attached to support their claims.

The Provided Text: Key Exhibits

Based on the files you've described, the following exhibits are relevant and contain the information requested. I will outputting them below.

20-2027 Card Co

Document 186-2, Exhibit 102: EXHIBIT 102 From: J.D. Oder II Sent: Wednesday, 27 March 2019 6:43 PM To: Taylor Lavery Cc: 'Jared Isaacman' Subject: Re: Cision - M&A

That’s just our take rate on card not present volume.

The total shift4 rev number is higher since it includes our gateway, equipment/software sales, etc

On Mar 27, 2019, at 5:30 PM, Taylor Lavery tlavery@shift4.com wrote:

Makes sense. Dumb question - ~2.6bps is the margin on all volume? Or just card not present volume? I ask because if we are looking what their previous "take rate" then that all in number would be good to know (but I suspect it is only card not present volume). Thanks Taylor

On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 4:12 PM J.D. Oder II j2@shift4.com wrote: Taylor,

We did some quick math, and came up with the below. We did assume a 50/50 split of Card Present/Card Not Present. Which, could be inaccurate. But, without knowing their split, it’s impossible to know.

We’re figuring they net around ~2.6bps on Card Not Present volume.

Jared

Begin forwarded message:

From: Robert McMillon robert.mcmillon@firstdata.com Date: March 27, 2019 at 2:56:55 PM EDT To: J2 j2@shift4.com Subject: Cision - M&A

https://na2.www.bmc.com/infocenter/email/pub/cardconnect/CardConnect- Acquires-POS-Leader-to-Fuze-Payments-with-Technology_35014

CardConnect Acquires POS Leader to 'Fuze' Payments with Technology

CardConnect, LLC announced it has acquired MertzCo, Inc., d/b/a POS Leader, a provider of robust, specialized point-of-sale solutions, most notably within the auto dealership vertical.

CardConnect, LLC 27MAR2019

TYPE:ME CATEGORY:FI - 65% of its merchants use an ERP integration - Fuzing is a commonly used word within CardConnect internal docs Jared I CEO

CONFIDENTIAL

Document 186-3. Exhibit 103:

EXHIBIT 103 From: Jared Isaacman jisaacman@shift4.com Sent: Thursday, June 4, 2020 12:37 PM To: 'rkerr@firstdata.com' rkerr@firstdata.com Cc: J.D. Oder j2@shift4.com Subject: CardConnect/Fiserv Performance

Ryan,

Hope all is well and you and your family are staying safe.

I am writing because my level of frustration with your team has never been higher. I recognize it's been a hell of a year with the merger, pandemic and now integrating major acquisitions like CardConnect and Bypass but I think Shift4 is at a breaking point. I also know my concerns aren't unique. I spoke to Todd Linden today who shared similar challenges he's experienced supporting the Elavon portfolio.

As background for my frustration

• We have been with First Data since 2004. • We don't take any revenue for the 1st 12 months of the life of a merchant account so can build up our residuals. This sacrifices short term profits for long term gains. • Shift4 has grown into one of the largest technology providers to hospitality and gaming merchants in the nation and send sizable transactions your way that carry, in my biased opinion, the lowest possible risk in terms of account stability, chargebacks, etc. • We signed a 10-year exclusive agreement to remain on the First Data platform after your acquisition of CardConnect despite having two very attractive competing offers. • We are paying more in fees on a monthly basis to process with Fiserv than CardConnect's entire SG\&A before you acquired them. • We have sent countless emails to your team, since the closing of the CardConnect acquisition, sharing how revenue has been absolutely butchered as a result of migration work that was carried out. • We have committed and dedicated resources, on top of the hundreds of millions of dollars in residuals we've generated for First Data/Fiserv over the years. • We have an enormous sales and engineering operation of our own and all our integration and implementation tools occur outside of your four walls. • We have even offered, pre-pandemic, to fly your revenue management and pricing teams to all of our locations to conduct training so we can eliminate future errors.

Despite all of the above, and the fact that you and I have known each other for over 15 years dating back to my days as the "merchant", the fact remains that it is almost impossible for us to get any of our concerns addressed to run our business day-to-day. • We signed a merchant in mid-April that was settling transactions at an effective rate of 7%. We had invested significant resources to deploy this customer during a pandemic only to see it completely destroy the economics of this account. We literally will recover less in residuals for years than we paid in upfront commissions, hardware and implementation costs. It took your staff over a month to resolve the pricing error and several of my employees had to get involved to fix it. We have received zero compensation from Fiserv for this error. • Shift4 discovered an error that impacted ~$600k in recurring revenue over a couple year period with an account. CardConnect's CFO caught this problem in doing a 2020 budget review from our residual reporting last year, not Fiserv. I was personally told "we will make it right", then "this is a lot of money, we will need more approvals" to "we will not make it right" even though it was a mistake in accounting that should have never happened in the first place. • Shift4 manages almost 500 terminals for the US Gov and has for years. We have been on a campaign for a couple years to get terminals updated across a number of different bureaus so we can eliminate unnecessary fees. This involves hundreds of thousands of dollars in out of pocket expenses, engineering time, installation and training that Shift4 is bearing on our own. Our team reached out on a dozen occasions over the last two years without the support of your product/project management team. We got 1

Jared I CEO

CONFIDENTIAL

Document 186-3 part, Page 2. Exhibit 103, Continued:

• so aggravated that we were going to abandon the project all together until I saw your website said FD was the official payment processor of the US Federal Government so I started calling random numbers listed on SAM.gov until I eventually got in touch with someone (on my personal cell phone because I'm told my office number is blocked- see attached picture) to figure out a plan. We still, after all of this, do not know who our point of contact is at Fiserv after raising the issue to a level of aggravation so great I had to Google around to find someone who worked with the Federal Government in your organization.

I have been in the payments industry for over 21 years. I know challenges arise and no one is perfect. I am not asking for perfect. What I am asking for is not to be neglected. I ask that you get your team to recognize the revenue that Shift4 delivers to your organization and how that is only going to increase in the future so we can get the appropriate level of support. I ask that your organization acknowledges their mistakes and not try to back out of commitments when those get too big for you to swallow. I do not think I am being unreasonable.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.

Jared

Jared Isaacman - Sent from Mobile 2

Jared I CEO

CONFIDENTIAL

Document 186-4. Exhibit 104:

EXHIBIT 104 From: J.D. Oder II Sent: Thursday, 28 May 2020 7:41 PM To: Taylor Lavery; 'Jared Isaacman' Subject: Notes - Strategic Partner Call

Shift4 • Discussed overall relationship - agreed to have weekly calls at a minimum on a go forward basis. Acknowledging the challenges for the last ~8 months. • Discussed FD acquiring CardConnect - Shift4 was previously a customer of COC before FD acquired them. Taylor agreed it has caused challenges and apologized again... including for pricing/residual issues. o Also acknowledged Shift4 paid more monthly than COC's entire SG\&A • Discussed SkyTab capex - acknowledged there is no formal agreement in place surrounding Shift4's cap ex spend. o But, committing to making it through the hurdles over the next few months to get something in writing.

Jared I CEO

CONFIDENTIAL ```

Summary and Final Thoughts

The provided text contains parts of the docket from Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC.

  • Exhibit 102 (Doc 186-2): This is an email chain discussing CardConnect's "take rate" and revenue. It includes a forwarded message referencing a press release about CardConnect acquiring POS Leader. Relevant to "M&A" discussions. The key part is the internal discussion of the 2.6bps "take rate".
  • Exhibit 103 (Doc 186-3): This is a lengthy email from Jared Isaacman (Shift4) to Ryan Kerr (First Data/Fiserv) expressing extreme frustration with Fiserv's service and accounting errors after the CardConnect acquisition. This is a crucial document, as it details numerous specific problems and financial impacts, including:
    • A merchant priced incorrectly at 7%.
    • A $600k recurring revenue error.
    • Problems with US Government accounts.
    • The statement that Shift4 pays more in fees than CardConnect's entire SG&A.
  • Exhibit 104 (Doc 186-4): A short note that includes discussion about Shift4 previous a custome of COC before FD acquired them.

Key Takeaways From exhibits from this case:

  • Acquisition Aftermath: The core issue is the problematic integration of CardConnect into Fiserv after the acquisition, leading to significant financial and operational issues for Shift4.
  • Financial Discrepancies: There are multiple instances of pricing errors, accounting mistakes, and disputes over revenue.
  • Relationship Strain: The email from Isaacman demonstrates a severely strained relationship between Shift4 and Fiserv.
  • "My Source": No direct mention from the provided exhibits.

The provided exhibits offer valuable context for this situation.