- 7 months ago
Dive deep into the legal and corporate showdown between CardConnect and Shift4 — two major players in the payment processing industry. This video brings you unfiltered insights into the conflict, what led to it, and what it means for the future of fintech partnerships.
The Lucky Trigger -
The Lucky Trigger -
Category
🛠️
LifestyleTranscript
00:00Welcome to the deep dive. Sometimes the absolute core of a complex legal battle, you know, the real silly, it isn't buried deep in the formal court filings, the complaints or the motions.
00:12No, not at all. Often it's kind of hidden right out in the open.
00:14Exactly. Within the raw evidence, those everyday emails and text messages, the sometimes brutally honest ones exchanged between the key players.
00:24Caught right in the middle of it all.
00:26These communications are often, well, unvarnished, aren't they? Captured right in the moment.
00:30Yeah, they're not polished legal arguments. They're often just off the cuff remarks or notes on like operational hitches or strategic chats happening in real time.
00:38And when those get pulled into discovery, you know, filed as court exhibits.
00:42Then you get this unique, unfiltered glimpse into what was really going on behind the scenes.
00:47And that right there, that's the heart of our deep dive today. This exploration was actually specifically requested by you.
00:54That's right. You asked us to focus on extracting the most impactful insights from, well, this stack of source material related to a pretty significant legal case.
01:04In the payment processing industry, no less.
01:06Yeah, the case we're zoning in on is Card Connect, LLC v Shift 4 Payments, LLC.
01:12The source is placed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.
01:16And we've got the case numbers here from the source, 2.19CV01304-MAK and 2.19CV01333-MAK.
01:26Based only on the material you shared with us, the core of this whole dispute, well, as alleged, it revolves around claims of breaches of contract, accusations of tortious interference.
01:38And critically, assertions of misappropriation of trade secrets.
01:42Exactly. And it all centers around payment processing services, which, you know, is just critical infrastructure for so many businesses today.
01:49Absolutely. So what are we working with here? What's our source material look like?
01:53Well, we've got excerpts that are directly related to the court filings.
01:56Things like descriptions of docket entries, lists of exhibits, and crucially, transcriptions or maybe theoretical outputs of specific exhibits.
02:04And the focus, like you asked for, is on the specific emails and text messages right there in the exhibits.
02:09Got it. So our mission for this deep dive is pretty clear then.
02:14Yeah.
02:14We are going to go through these very specific pieces of evidence, these messages, these emails pulled directly from the sources you gave us.
02:22Right. To try and understand the pivotal moments, the core arguments.
02:25And the underlying tensions, too, of this really substantial legal dispute.
02:30All revealed through the direct, often pretty candid communications of the people involved.
02:36And we need to stress this. We are strictly sticking to only this provided material to build our understanding.
02:43Absolutely. No outside info.
02:45It's about seeing this serious legal case through the very specific, sometimes, well, uncomfortable lens of these raw exhibits.
02:53Okay. So where do we start? Maybe lay out the fundamental battle lines first.
02:57Good idea. The overall legal claims and the core disagreements, just based on what the sources tell us.
03:02Right. So from Card Connect's perspective, based on what we see in the material, their position is that Shift 4 was essentially trying to walk away from its obligations under their agreement.
03:11Just trying to bail.
03:12Well, and maybe more than that. Card Connect also alleged that Shift 4 went further.
03:17They claim Shift 4 built a competing product, like a gateway technology, using Card Connect's proprietary information.
03:25Okay. Now that gets right to the heart of that trade secrets claim you mentioned.
03:28Exactly. And there's this really fascinating detail in the source that Card Connect apparently used to support that claim.
03:37Oh, yeah. What's that?
03:39Card Connect alleged that Shift 4 actually asked to purchase Card Connect's intellectual property at one point.
03:44And Card Connect's argument, which sounds pretty logical based on the source, was that you wouldn't need to purchase something if you already legitimately owned it or had the right to use it.
03:56That makes perfect sense. If they were using your proprietary info improperly than them later asking to buy it, yeah, that would look pretty damning.
04:03It undermines any claim they had prior rights.
04:05Precisely.
04:05The sources also detail Card Connect's argument that Shift 4's notice of termination when they tried to end the agreement was untimely.
04:13Untimely how?
04:14They contended Shift 4 couldn't just give notice to terminate for convenience, like whenever they wanted during the contract term.
04:21Okay.
04:21And Card Connect specifically alleged that Shift 4's real motive for terminating, well, it was because, and this is supposedly Shift 4's own words, according to Card Connect's allegations in the source.
04:35What did they allegedly say?
04:36We are the losers on the deal, because pitting on the active accounts was just too expensive.
04:41Wow. Okay, let's pause there.
04:44Card Connect alleging Shift 4 said, we are the losers on the deal, because it was too expensive.
04:50That's a really powerful claim about motive, isn't it?
04:52It absolutely is. It paints this picture of Shift 4 just trying to ditch an unprofitable situation.
04:58Which Card Connect argues wasn't a valid reason for termination under their specific agreement.
05:03Exactly right. And the source reveals the scale of what Card Connect was actually going after here.
05:08Meaning?
05:08Card Connect's CEO, according to the material we have, wasn't just focused on recovering, say, lost payments.
05:14No, they were seeking long-term protection.
05:16Long-term protection. Okay, that sounds like more than just money.
05:19It suggests they were looking for a much more fundamental resolution.
05:23They even discussed the possibility, get this, that a judge might order Shift 4 to sell the technology back to them as a specific remedy.
05:31Whoa. A forced sale of technology.
05:35Technology built using allegedly misappropriated info. That's a serious remedy to pursue.
05:41You're telling me. And the potential financial scale. Just huge.
05:45The source mentions this.
05:47Yeah, it notes Card Connect's CEO discussing an estimated value potentially in the, wait for it, $200 to $300 million range, depending on the number of merchants.
05:55$200 to $300 million.
05:56And no mistakes. And the source also adds that Shift 4's view, well, as presented in the material, was that this estimation sounded a bit optimistic.
06:06Ah, I bet they did. But that back and forth on the value, even that little detail, it just underscores how much was really on the line here.
06:13Absolutely. This wasn't some minor disagreement. We're talking potentially hundreds of millions of dollars.
06:17Okay. So that's Card Connect's side, as laid out in the sources. Shift 4 naturally had their own counter-arguments. Also detailed in the material, right?
06:26Oh, absolutely. They disputed Card Connect's interpretation of the contract. Shift 4 argued they did have the right to terminate.
06:33But not just whenever.
06:35Well, importantly, they contended the termination wasn't for convenience. That's the key distinction they were making.
06:41Okay. So if not for convenience, then why?
06:43They framed it more as a response to Card Connect's alleged breaches and also tied it to other strategic business decisions, like the potential data cap acquisition mentioned in the sources.
06:57Ah, data cap. Let's talk about that. What was Shift 4's position there?
07:00The source material highlights Shift 4 arguing that a term sheet they had concerning that data cap acquisition, well, they had too many open material terms.
07:09Meaning?
07:09Meaning it could be considered a binding agreement. That was their stance.
07:13And the implication of that is?
07:14Therefore, in their view, just entering into that term sheet didn't trigger any exclusivity clauses they might have had with Card Connect.
07:21Okay, I see. So if the data cap term sheet wasn't legally binding?
07:25Then pursuing it didn't violate their agreement with Card Connect. That was Shift 4's argument.
07:31And they believe their legal position on what constitutes a binding agreement and its implications, they felt it was supported by precedent.
07:40The source mentions specific courts.
07:42Yes, specifically Delaware courts.
07:44Okay, so this whole legal interpretation of whether a document is binding versus non-binding, that seems pretty central to Shift 4's defense.
07:52Oh.
07:52Especially against that tortious interference claim.
07:55Exactly. If the data cap document wasn't binding, Shift 4's argument is basically, hey, we didn't violate any exclusivity with Card Connect.
08:03Makes sense. But Shift 4's justification for termination wasn't just about costs or this separate deal, right?
08:08You mentioned alleged breaches by Card Connect?
08:11Correct. They also pointed the finger back at Card Connect.
08:14How so?
08:14The source specifically mentions that on October 26, 2017, Shift 4 sent Card Connect a formal notice via certified mail, detailing what Shift 4 considered to be material breaches by Card Connect.
08:26And what were those alleged breaches?
08:29The ones listed in the source include Card Connect adding merchants who've been previously terminated, specifically merchants placed on the terminated merchant file, or TMF.
08:39Right, the TMF. That's basically the blacklist for merchants, isn't it? High risk, problematic.
08:44Pretty much. Onboarding merchants from that list is a huge compliance issue in the payments world. It's a big red flag.
08:50What else did Shift 4 allege?
08:52They also claimed Card Connect was disregarding card brand rules, you know, rules set by Visa, MasterCard, Amex, etc., specifically with its advertising, how they were marketing payment services.
09:03Okay. So Shift 4 sends this formal notice. What happened then?
09:08Well, according to the source, Shift 4 alleged that Card Connect basically just ignored this formal notice of material breaches.
09:14Ignored it.
09:14And continued these alleged violations. So this helps frame Shift 4's later actions, including the termination.
09:21Ah, I see. Not just as them trying to escape an unprofitable deal.
09:25Right. But as a potentially justified response to Card Connect's own alleged failures and noncompliance.
09:33That's the narrative Shift 4 presented based on our sources.
09:37Okay. So we have these really competing narratives taking shape.
09:40Card Connect saying Shift 4 breached by using proprietary info, building competing tech, trying to buy IP they didn't own, and ultimately trying to ditch the agreement when it got expensive.
09:50Claiming Shift 4 literally said, we are the losers.
09:52And then Shift 4 countering saying, no, you breached first, TMF merchants, advertising rules, plus our termination was justified based on those breaches and our interpretation of the contract terms, especially regarding that data cap deal.
10:07And that whole dispute over whether the data cap term sheet was truly binding seems like a critical legal linchpin in their argument as presented in the source material.
10:15Absolutely. Okay. Now that we've kind of set the legal stage, the battle lines, based on the sources, let's dive into the specific communications, the exhibits.
10:24Yes. This is where things often get really interesting. You see the details, the human element, maybe even the potential smoking guns.
10:31Let's start with the early interactions. Around 2016, 2017, you said they paint a picture of enthusiasm, right? Partnership.
10:38Yeah, it's quite a contrast to where things ended up. If we look at Exhibit 39, that's part of Docket Entry 26440, there's an email from Jay Isaacman to Jeffrey Shanahan, dated August 26th, 2016.
10:53And the tone.
10:54Genuinely eager, almost excited about working together. Isaacman writes, pretty straightforwardly, just let me know when and where to sign stuff.
11:02Uh-huh. Ready to go.
11:03Totally. And he lays out a clear plan. Integrate a hosted solution to the Card Connect gateway.
11:09Okay.
11:10And the explicit strategic goal, to eliminate a pretty big dependency on First Data.
11:15Whoa. Okay, so this wasn't just some minor tech hookup. This was aimed at shifting a core business dependency away from First Data, Card Connect's parent.
11:22Seems that way. And the benefit was framed as mutual, too. The email explicitly states,
11:27So this is kind of a big deal for Shift 4 and good for Card Connect, as it will equate to a lot of quality volume.
11:32Quality volume. That's the language of a symbiotic business relationship right there.
11:37Exactly. It wasn't positioned as competitive at this stage. It was framed as a partnership that would bring good business to Card Connect.
11:43And the closing line.
11:44The excitement's palpable. Can't wait to get started. So this email, filed as an exhibit, it really captures the optimistic start of this relationship. Before it all went south.
11:54Okay, moving forward a bit. September 2017. What do the communications show then?
11:59Well, we see Shift 4 clearly innovating, building new tech, and actually pitching it. There's an email from JD Order II to Mike Summers and others, September 14, 2017. It's part of the docket 18811 Exhibit 10.
12:14And what's in this email?
12:16It goes into quite a bit of detail about significant improvements to Shift 4's API and gateway capabilities.
12:21JD Order is highlighting specific technical advancements.
12:24Like what?
12:25Like a consolidated enterprise gateway. Explaining it would eliminate the need for older components like the P2PE manager and UTGs.
12:31Okay. Those sound like technical payment processing terms.
12:34They are. Specialized software hardware for things like encryption and data handling and payments.
12:39Gotcha. What else was new?
12:41He also mentions expanding supported devices, enhancing reporting, talking about a real-time BI dashboard.
12:48BI. Business intelligence. Tools for tracking performance.
12:52Right. And simplifying the API, you know, the interface that lets different software systems talk to each other.
12:57Basically, this email shows Shift 4 building out a modern, potentially quite competitive payment processing platform.
13:05And were they just building it for themselves?
13:07Well, importantly, in this same email, JD Order offers to discuss supporting Card Connect's merchant portfolio on this new system.
13:14He even attaches a new product brochure.
13:16So, Shift 4 is actively pitching their new tech to Card Connect, looking for them to potentially use it, migrate onto it.
13:23Seems like it.
13:24Which makes the response from Michael James at Card Connect really interesting.
13:27When was that?
13:28The very next day, September 15, 2017.
13:30He replies requesting a demo of this new gateway.
13:33Ah.
13:34So, Card Connect's, at least at this specific moment, was interested.
13:38They wanted to see what Shift 4 had built.
13:39Exactly. This whole sequence of communications from 2016 into late 2017 presented as exhibits.
13:47It really shows the foundation being laid for what could have been a strong partnership, integration, mutual benefit, Card Connect, even showing interest in Shift 4's evolving technology.
13:58But as we know from the case itself and as the sources reveal, that early optimism, well, it soured pretty significantly.
14:06Yeah. The growing tensions become really apparent in communications from late 2017 and rolling into 2018.
14:11The tenature change.
14:12Dramatically.
14:13Let's look at Exhibit A. That's Document 20 to 1.
14:17It contains a text exchange between Jared Isaacman and Randy Temming on September 20, 2017.
14:22Okay.
14:22And the source specifically notes this exhibit was filed in the context of those trade secrets and misappropriation claims we mentioned earlier.
14:28Right. So that gives specific weight to what's in the texts.
14:32Definitely. The messages are highly technical. They're discussing access infrastructure.
14:35What do they say?
14:36Isaacman asks, any luck?
14:39Then those backups, I'm told, are the real deal.
14:41Backups.
14:42Then there are updates flying back and forth.
14:44Getting firewall changed now and the confirmation firewall is rock solid now. Great job.
14:48So firewall changes, talk of backups, what else?
14:52Then come requests for specific kinds of technical access.
14:56Can we get some port forwards through that firewall?
14:59VPN, RDP.
15:01Port forwarding, VPN, RDP.
15:03Those are all ways to get into computer systems remotely, right?
15:06Sometimes bypassing normal security.
15:08Often, yes.
15:09Or creating secure tunnels.
15:10There are definitely methods for accessing systems.
15:12Yeah.
15:13Often requiring privilege setup.
15:15Highly technical actions.
15:16Okay.
15:16Is there more to that exchange?
15:18Yes.
15:19And this is the line that really jumps out, especially given the context trade secrets claims.
15:24Isaacman asks, also, do we pound their external DNS now?
15:27Pmin, PWN.
15:29Yeah, PWN.
15:30It's hacker slang.
15:32Essentially, it's to own or compromise something.
15:34An external DNS.
15:35That's like the internet's address book for a domain name.
15:37Exactly.
15:38If you control it, you can redirect web traffic for that domain wherever you want.
15:41So this technical discussion, backups, firewalls, remote access methods, controlling DNS, happening around the same time, SHIFT 4 sent that formal breach notice.
15:53Right.
15:53Late 2017 and before the lawsuit was filed.
15:56The source material presents this exchange as potentially highly relevant evidence for those trade secrets or misappropriation claims.
16:03That seems to be the clear implication from its inclusion as an exhibit in that context.
16:08That language.
16:09Do we pew in their external DNS now?
16:11I mean, wow.
16:12That is incredibly aggressive.
16:14It's certainly not your standard business chat.
16:16Not at all.
16:16And its inclusion as an exhibit strongly suggests it was seen as key evidence related to technical access and control, potentially unauthorized access, which could directly support those trade secret claims.
16:27Yeah, it definitely shifts the picture from just a business dispute to something potentially involving serious technical maneuvering behind the scenes.
16:34For sure.
16:35But even while these tensions are clearly simmering underneath, we also see interactions continuing at a higher level.
16:41There's an email from Jay Isaacman to John Barrett at First Data, remember, CardConnect's parent company.
16:48Okay.
16:48When was this?
16:49January 28, 2018.
16:51The subject is SHIFT 4 MasterCard, which suggests, you know, maybe discussions related to card brands or broader partnerships at the corporate level.
16:59And what was the response?
17:01John Barrett replies, offers to stop over in Allentown to discuss it on Wednesday.
17:06And he emphasizes, I value our relationship and want to ensure we are staying in good communication.
17:11Interesting.
17:12So even with the friction growing between the CardConnect division and SHIFT 4, there were still efforts at the senior levels within First Data Fiserv to keep lines open with SHIFT 4.
17:21Seems that way.
17:23Now, operational issues also pop up in these communications.
17:26And those constrain any business relationship, right?
17:29Absolutely.
17:30What do we see?
17:30There's a text message from J.D. Oder to Randy Oder and Jared Shine.
17:34It's Exhibit E, Docket 108.5, dated April 29, 2018.
17:39He's forwarding an email about a new First Data policy.
17:42Another policy change.
17:43What was this one about?
17:44It impacted merchants using EMV devices, the standard chip card readers.
17:48Okay.
17:49It meant they'd incur a 10 basis point downgrade fee.
17:51Basis point.
17:52That's tiny, right?
17:5311 hundredth of a percent.
17:54Yeah.
17:55So 10 basis points is 0.1%.
17:57They get hit with that fee on transactions that weren't read via the chip, with some exceptions like mail order, telephone order.
18:03Why the fee?
18:05Well, the forwarded email highlights that while it's presented as a card brand rule, First Data, as the acquirer, can get fined if merchants don't comply.
18:14So it seems like they needed a workaround.
18:15And was there one?
18:17Apparently Card Connect was working on a solution but had no ETA, no estimated time for it, which indicates delays.
18:24And J.D. Oder's reaction?
18:26He asks someone named Stephanie Maciasek to investigate if this is a systemic issue.
18:31So this shows how these complex operational and compliance issues, often driven by mandates from the big card brands or processors,
18:39they directly impacted the businesses, created friction, and were being tracked internally through these kinds of communications.
18:46It's the real world stuff hitting the merchants caught in the middle.
18:48Makes sense.
18:49Okay, what else?
18:50The sources mentioned something about contacting Jeffries.
18:52Ah, yes.
18:53Exhibit 92 from one of the Lucky Trigger sample PDFs.
18:57It's a text from J. David Oder to Jared Isaacman on July 28, 2018.
19:02And it says,
19:04Jared, we are not allowed to contact Jeffries.
19:07Per our agreement with FT, call me whenever.
19:10Jeffries, the investment bank.
19:11Exactly.
19:12A big one, often involved in M&A, financing deals.
19:15So being prohibited from contacting them, especially linked to FT, which probably means First Data Reserve.
19:22Right.
19:22That strongly suggests that maybe discussions or potential deals around mergers, acquisitions, financing, strategic partnerships,
19:28they were being restricted by the terms of the actual agreement between Shift4 and CardConnect First Data.
19:33Yeah, it hints at strategic maneuvering happening in the background, but bumping up against contractual limits.
19:39Very interesting tidbit.
19:40And the emails also show specific examples of problems hitting merchants, right?
19:44Making the tension worse.
19:45Oh, definitely.
19:46There's an email from J. David Oder dated August 15, 2018.
19:50It's Docket 16123, Exhibit 69.
19:55And it paints a pretty vivid picture of frustrated customers.
19:57He describes pissed off merchants.
20:00Why?
20:00Because they received bills from CardConnect for July services before they were even converted over to Shift4's platform or even received their new equipment.
20:10Seriously, they were scheduled to convert later.
20:12Yeah, scheduled for August 29th.
20:14So billing them for July from CardConnect.
20:17That's a clear operational mess up.
20:19Yeah, billing customers for services they weren't getting from that provider anymore or before the new one even started.
20:24That's bad.
20:25Exactly.
20:26J. David Oder clearly believes it's a CardConnect error.
20:29Says the merchants need credit memos.
20:32Offers to email their names separately.
20:34So this wasn't just some theoretical contract dispute.
20:37It had direct negative impacts on shared customers.
20:40And that would inevitably strain the relationship even further.
20:43It shows the messy reality of trying to migrate merchant portfolios between providers.
20:48Okay, so things are getting tense operationally.
20:50Does it spill over into direct confrontation in the messages?
20:53It sure does.
20:54Around the same time, late August 2018, there's an email from Jared Isaacman to Taylor Lavery, also from that lucky trigger sample part1.pdf.
21:05And it is remarkably candid and frustrated.
21:08What does Isaacman say?
21:09He writes very pointedly, how long has this been now?
21:12Four or five months?
21:13About what?
21:14He continues, you're on a crusade over 25k per month that is less than 1bps of CardConnect volume and you are jeopardizing the entire relationship.
21:22Okay, let's unpack that.
21:2325k per month.
21:25Less than 1 basis point.
21:27Less than 0.01% of CardConnect's volume.
21:30Yeah, Isaacman is clearly framing the disputed amount as tiny relative to CardConnect's overall business.
21:35And accusing Lavery of being on a crusade over it, jeopardizing the whole relationship.
21:39That's strong language.
21:40Very.
21:40And he asked Lavery to resolve this specific issue before he goes out of office for two weeks, implying this seemingly minor financial dispute was a major roadblock and needed immediate attention.
21:52This email feels like powerful evidence.
21:54A direct, high-level confrontation over a specific dollar amount and the perceived risk it posed.
21:59Absolutely.
22:00And the response from Taylor Lavery.
22:02According to the source, it signals that clear shift towards formal legal engagement we talked about.
22:07How so?
22:08It's an email response.
22:09Yeah.
22:10But it requests all further communications go through counsel.
22:13And it references a formal letter.
22:15Ah.
22:16That's often the point of no return, isn't it?
22:18Informal business chat, stop.
22:20Lawyers take over.
22:21Pretty much.
22:22Yeah.
22:22The dispute transitions fully into the legal realm.
22:24And the escalation continues into late 2018, 2019.
22:29Are they trying to resolve things or just positioning for the fight?
22:32Looks like a bit of both.
22:33Mm-hmm.
22:33There's a text chain between Jared Isaacman and J.D. Oder II on December 9th, 2018.
22:39Again, from Lucky Trigger Sample Part 1.pdf.
22:42It really seems like they're deep in some kind of negotiation.
22:45Maybe a buyout, maybe a strategic deal.
22:47What makes you say that?
22:48What's in the texts?
22:48Well, they're discussing figures that sound very much like valuations or deal terms.
22:53Someone, presumably the other side, is at 11.5.
22:55Okay.
22:5611.5 million.
22:57Billion.
22:58We don't know, but it's a number.
22:59Right.
23:00Then there's talk like, it's a huge step backwards from the 14 plus the two bumps and the option
23:05of a purchase right.
23:0614 plus the two bumps, purchase right.
23:09Sounds like deal structure talk.
23:10Exactly.
23:10And earlier in the chain, J.D. Oder mentions roffer at your price.
23:16Paro FR, right of first refusal.
23:18Correct.
23:19Giving someone the first shot to buy something before it's offered elsewhere at that price.
23:23So this whole exchange, 11.5, 14 plus bumps, purchase right, ROFR.
23:28It strongly suggests they're haggling over a potential transaction, right?
23:33Yeah.
23:33Maybe acquiring Shift4's rights under the Card Connect agreement, maybe buying a merchant
23:37portfolio, maybe something bigger.
23:39But clearly there's a significant disagreement on the price or terms compared to what they
23:44hoped for or maybe discussed before.
23:46And how does that negotiation end?
23:47Well, J.D. Oder says, let's make the decision together, showing collaboration between them.
23:52Okay.
23:52Then Jay Isaacman replies, agreed, don't respond anymore.
23:55Followed quickly by, I think we just pass and make out next move.
23:59Wow.
24:00That sounds pretty definitive.
24:02Like, okay, these terms aren't working, negotiation over, time for plan B.
24:06Exactly.
24:06Make out next move.
24:08It reads like the end of that particular negotiation attempt, deciding to walk away and pursue
24:12an alternative strategy.
24:14So by 2019, are things just focused on the impending lawsuit?
24:18Seems like it.
24:19The focus shifts to really compiling and formalizing the grievances, which is a clear sign litigation
24:25is either imminent or already underway.
24:27What evidence shows that?
24:29There's an email from Jay Isaacman to Taylor Lafee and others on August 9th, 2019.
24:34It's Exhibit 54.
24:36In it, Taylor Lafee is forwarding an attachment and mentions being on a call with their CEO,
24:41presumably Card Connect Fizzer's CEO.
24:44Oh, dad.
24:45Lafee asks if Jay Isaacman has the email that lays out all their grievances.
24:49All their grievances.
24:50Okay, that's pretty explicit.
24:51Card Connect, or its parent, is actively formally putting together a comprehensive list of complaints
24:56against Shift 4.
24:58Yeah, likely prepping for or already part of the legal action.
25:01It signifies that shift from informal disputes to very structured legal claims.
25:05And what about internal strategic decisions that Shift 4 around this time?
25:08Anything in the messages?
25:09There's a text message exchange mentioned in the source, page 48, between individuals
25:14identified just as JJT and JPD, dated March 5, 2019.
25:19Okay, what's the gist?
25:20JJT asks, what is the feedback?
25:22And JPD replies, he is not going to do a deal with anyone, going to build the risk side himself.
25:28Hmm, not going to do a deal with anyone.
25:31Sounds like maybe discussions about partnering or acquiring someone else fell through, maybe
25:35related to risk management.
25:36But it seems plausible, and the strategic response was decisive.
25:40Build it internally.
25:42Going to build the risk side himself.
25:44The risk side in payments.
25:45That's stuff like merchant underwriting, assessing risk, fraud monitoring, chargeback management,
25:50right?
25:50Exactly.
25:51Those functions.
25:52So this text reveals what sounds like a key strategic decision point for Shift 4.
25:56A commitment to internal development, possibly because external options didn't pan out,
26:01may be fueled by the whole Card Connect situation.
26:04Okay, this is fascinating context.
26:06Now, let's really zero in on what the sources highlight as some of the most impactful content.
26:10Communications that speak directly to the seriousness, the gravity of this legal case.
26:14Right.
26:15And there is one specific text message exchange that stands out dramatically.
26:18It's from Exhibit 2410, part of Docket Entry 54, parts 11 and 12, deeded April 9th, 2019.
26:26Okay.
26:26Who is it between?
26:27It's the exchange between Taylor Lavery and Jared Isaacman.
26:31And the message from Taylor Lavery sent at 4.18 p.m. on that day.
26:36It's presented verbatim in the source.
26:39And it is, well, quite striking, especially in the context of litigation.
26:43Read it out.
26:44What does it say?
26:45It reads,
26:46As for the future, I'd suggest getting ahead and deleting any of the text messages between
26:49you and I related to this topic.
26:51I obviously don't know if they have the ability to get texts, but better safe than sorry.
26:55Wait, deleting any of the text messages related to this topic?
27:00Explicitly suggesting deleting communications?
27:02Explicitly.
27:03Better safe than sorry.
27:04And Isaac Menman, the response.
27:05Immediately following, also at 4.17 p.m. according to the exhibit details?
27:09Okay.
27:10Got it.
27:10I will do the same.
27:11Wow.
27:11Okay.
27:12That exchange.
27:13Suggesting deleting communications about the topic, which is clearly the dispute that's
27:17incredibly significant, legally speaking.
27:19Huge.
27:20In any litigation, there's a legal obligation to preserve relevant evidence.
27:26Actively suggesting or undertaking the destruction of that evidence, that's called spoiliation.
27:32And that has serious consequences.
27:33Oh, absolutely.
27:34It can lead to severe penalties for the party involved, monetary sanctions.
27:38Maybe the judge tells the jury they should assume that deleted evidence would have been
27:41unfavorable.
27:42It could be devastating to a case.
27:44So this text message, it directly addresses that point you asked us to focus on the most
27:48impactful content and seriousness of the legal case.
27:51Without a doubt.
27:52It introduces this element of potential evidence concealment.
27:55And that can drastically affect how a judge or jury perceives a party's conduct and credibility,
28:02completely separate from the actual merits of the original claims.
28:04It's just a stark reminder, isn't it?
28:06In this age of digital everything, these seemingly casual texts can become absolutely critical
28:12pieces of evidence.
28:13And attempts to erase them can be profoundly damaging.
28:16It's also interesting you mentioned the source contrasts this private text with Shift 4's later
28:21formal legal stance on text messages.
28:23Yes.
28:24The source mentions their formal response to request for production number two, which
28:28specifically asked about text message retention policies.
28:31And in that formal legal document, what did they say?
28:34They raised a whole laundry list of objections, saying the request assumes facts not in evidence,
28:40that it seeks information protected under applicable privacy laws, that is vague, ambiguous,
28:46overly broad, not proportional to the needs of the case, harassing, and unduly burdensome.
28:52Lots of legal jargon.
28:54And also that it calls for premature disclosure of expert witness opinion, just a wall of
28:59formal objections.
29:00So comparing that extensive legal pushback to the simple informal text message, okay, got
29:05it.
29:05I will do the same.
29:06Yeah.
29:07It highlights that vast difference between private communication and carefully crafted
29:11legal maneuvering.
29:12And, you know, it potentially draws some pretty sharp scrutiny given the content of that specific
29:17exhibit.
29:18Okay.
29:18What about other communications that reveal attempts to maybe access sensitive?
29:22information?
29:23Anything else that speaks to the intensity here?
29:25Yes.
29:26There's another text chain noted.
29:28Between Jared Isaacman and someone named D.
29:30Lau, from that lucky trigger sample, part 1.pdf again.
29:35This one's from November 13, 2019.
29:37Okay.
29:38What's happening here?
29:39In this exchange, Isaacman makes a very specific request to Lau.
29:43He asks, send me a picture of the current monthly revenue and number of transactions from the
29:48CardConnect platform.
29:49Whoa, that's sensitive stuff.
29:51Internal business data from the competitor's platform, their actual revenue and transaction
29:55volume.
29:55Exactly.
29:56And Isaacman continues, I want to see what would happen if we applied our pricing model
30:00to it.
30:01Okay.
30:01So he wants the raw data to run his own analysis.
30:04But wait, you said there was more to the message.
30:06Yes.
30:07The next part adds a really crucial layer of context.
30:10Isaacman instructs, send it to me on Signal since Bruce is on this chain.
30:14Signal?
30:15The encrypted messaging app?
30:16That's the one, often chosen specifically for its privacy features, end-to-end encryption.
30:21So requesting sensitive competitive data and specifically telling the person to send
30:26it via Signal and mentioning that someone named Bruce is on a different communication
30:30chain.
30:31Right.
30:31In the context of this intense legal and competitive battle, what does that suggest to
30:36you?
30:37It sounds like an attempt to get proprietary information and maybe ensure the communication
30:42happens outside of normal corporate channels, like email or standard messaging apps that
30:47might be easily discoverable in litigation.
30:49That's certainly how it could be interpreted.
30:51It adds another layer of perceived strategic or potentially improper action.
30:56What did Lau say?
30:57Did he send it?
30:57The source notes, D. Lau's response was just about not having Signal on his new phone yet.
31:03It doesn't say if the info was ever sent another way.
31:05But the request itself and the instruction about Signal, like the delete text message,
31:10it gives us a look at communications that seem to go well beyond standard business practice,
31:14raising questions about intentions and methods in this highly competitive space.
31:18Definitely.
31:19Now, there's also another apparently lengthy email chain described.
31:23Yeah.
31:23From late 2017, early 2018.
31:25Who was involved in this one?
31:27J.D.
31:27Oder the 7, Taylor Lavery, Jeff Shanahan, and others.
31:30It's sourced from LuckyTriggerSamplePart2.pdf and SamplePart3.pdf.
31:36And what's the focus here?
31:37It provides a really detailed view of that fundamental dispute over the data cap acquisition
31:43we discussed earlier.
31:44And crucially, the underlying motivations for Shift4's actions, particularly their view
31:50on termination rights.
31:51Okay.
31:51So what was J.D.
31:53Oder arguing in these emails?
31:55He's laying out Shift4's position very emphatically.
31:58Based on their legal advice, Shift4 believes the data cap term sheet is definitively not binding.
32:04Right.
32:05And therefore, the LOI, the letter of intent, doesn't violate the exclusivity clause they
32:10had with CardConnect First Data.
32:12Okay.
32:12Same argument as before.
32:14Yes.
32:14But he goes further.
32:15He argues, countering CardConnect's claims, that Shift4 is not terminating for convenience,
32:20but rather to avoid the payment obligation under the agreement.
32:24Avoid the payment.
32:24Why?
32:25Because they view that payment obligation as being triggered incorrectly, or perhaps
32:30based on an agreement they felt justified in exiting for other reasons, like CardConnect's
32:34alleged breaches.
32:35So he's saying the reason for termination relates to avoiding a payment they felt wasn't
32:39legitimately owed.
32:40Seems to be the gist.
32:41He's quoted directly on the source, saying,
32:44It is obvious that the only reason to terminate is to avoid the payment.
32:48This is not fair to valued partners.
32:50Strong words again.
32:51Very.
32:52He also strongly challenges CardConnect First Data's transparency, and he calls their legal
32:57position that the LOI is non-binding and doesn't violate the agreement ridiculous.
33:02Ridiculous.
33:03He really wasn't holding back.
33:05No.
33:05The source quotes him, stating confidently,
33:08I am confident no court would agree with this.
33:10It shows this deep, passionate disagreement on the legal interpretation of the agreements
33:15and the real motivations behind the termination.
33:18And the sources show Taylor Lavery's response to this?
33:21Yes.
33:22His direct counter-response.
33:23He states their legal team disagrees, maintains the LOI is non-binding, and therefore the notice
33:28of termination stands.
33:30Okay.
33:30Stick into their guns.
33:31But Lavery also reiterates valuing the relationship, while arguing the termination is actually in
33:36the best interest of both parties to move quickly on data cap, citing the competitive
33:40environment as the real driver.
33:42So this email chain presented as exhibits.
33:46It's like a direct transcript of the core legal and business arguments flying back and
33:50forth, right as the conflict was really hooting up.
33:53Exactly.
33:54It shows the opposing legal interpretations of key documents side by side, and it reveals
33:59the stated business justifications and the frustrations on both sides.
34:03It goes way beyond just the simple claims you'd see in a formal complaint.
34:07And amidst all this conflict, were there other strategic moves happening?
34:11Yes.
34:11The sources also show evidence of shift for actively acquiring business that was previously
34:15associated with CardConnect.
34:17Really?
34:17Like what?
34:18There's an email from JD Oder II to someone named Andy.
34:21It's from luckytriggersamplepart3.pdf, and it discusses shift for purchasing HarborTouch
34:27CardConnect accounts.
34:28HarborTouch?
34:29They were connected to CardConnect?
34:31Yes.
34:31JD Oder writes, CardConnect's parent, CardConnect LLC, FTC-owned, agreed to sell 2,000 HarborTouch
34:38merchant accounts to shift for.
34:39The purchase agreement has already been executed by the parties.
34:42Wow.
34:43So CardConnect's parent sold 2,000 accounts to shift for, even while this dispute was brewing
34:48or ongoing.
34:49Apparently so.
34:51And Oder frames this acquisition positively internally, saying, it's looking like a terrific
34:57and large portfolio that we will be excited to add.
35:00So that email shows shift for successfully acquiring a substantial block of merchant accounts
35:05that were previously in the CardConnect ecosystem.
35:08Another strategic play happening alongside the legal battle.
35:12Precisely.
35:13Okay.
35:13We've gone through a lot of the communications.
35:15What about the outcome?
35:16Do the sources give us any insight into the court findings?
35:20They provide some limited information, yes.
35:22While we clearly don't have the full picture, the text does include summaries of some key
35:27outcomes, which definitely speak to the seriousness and the resolution of some of the claims.
35:31Again, based only on the text you provided us.
35:33Right.
35:34What does it say?
35:35Let's start with breach of contract.
35:36Okay.
35:37Specifically relating to CardConnect's claim that shift for breached by soliciting merchants
35:41away from them, the source states pretty clearly the court found in favor of shift
35:46for.
35:47In favor of shift for on the solicitation.
35:49Okay.
35:49What about the claim that shift for breached by not onboarding certain merchants?
35:53On that one, the source provides the court's finding as shift for was not obligated to onboard
36:00merchants that did not meet their criteria.
36:03So, another finding favoring shift for on that specific point.
36:07Hmm.
36:08Does it mention other breach claims?
36:10The source just notes mixed results on various other alleged breaches, which suggests some
36:15might have gone CardConnect's way, but it highlights these two specific findings in favor
36:19of shift for.
36:20Okay.
36:21What about the tortious interference claim, where CardConnect alleged shift for improperly
36:25interfered with their business relationships?
36:27The summary provided in the source for that claim is unambiguous.
36:31The court found in favor of shift for.
36:33Found in favor of shift for on tortious interference as well.
36:36Wow.
36:36Yeah.
36:37Now, regarding the misappropriation of trade secrets claim, while the source definitely mentions
36:42it as a core part of the dispute, the provided summary of court findings does not
36:46detail the specific outcome on that particular claim.
36:48Okay.
36:49So, the outcome on trade secrets isn't specified in this summary.
36:52Correct.
36:53But it's crucial to remember, as noted in the source, that evidence like those technical
36:58text messages, you know, discussing backups, firewalls, VPN, RDP, and pooning their external
37:05DNS.
37:06Right.
37:06From Exhibit A.
37:07That stuff was filed and presumably considered by the court, specifically in relation to the
37:12trade secrets allegations, even if the final outcome isn't in this snippet.
37:16Okay.
37:17So, summing up the court findings as provided in our source material, it indicates that significant
37:21parts of Card Connect's case specifically, the claims about soliciting merchants, tortious
37:26interference, and shift for's obligation to onboard all merchants were ultimately not
37:31successful.
37:31The court found in favor of shift for on those points, according to the summary.
37:35That's what the provided text indicates, yes.
37:37So, reflecting on this whole deep dive, going through these specific exhibits and messages,
37:42I mean, from those hopeful beginnings in the early emails, to the really technical messages
37:47about system access and pooning DNS, the operational frustrations over billing and compliance,
37:53the blunt negotiations, the conflicting legal interpretations laid bare in those long email
37:58chains.
37:59And especially that really striking delete texts message.
38:03Right.
38:03And the request for sensitive data via signal.
38:06Right.
38:07All of it.
38:08It offers such a level of granular detail, doesn't it?
38:11Such raw insight into this dispute that you just wouldn't get from the formal legal documents
38:16alone.
38:17Absolutely.
38:18Those formal documents are often stripped of the real-time context, the human emotion.
38:23These exhibits put some of that back in.
38:25They really show the human element, the strategic maneuvering, sometimes the operational chaos,
38:31the frustrations, and potentially, you know, legally problematic actions happening behind
38:36the scenes.
38:37All within what became this high-stakes, multi-million dollar legal battle.
38:41It's a stark reminder that business relationships, even at this massive scale, are played out in
38:45these everyday communications.
38:47And the very fact that these specific communications, the emails, the texts, were deemed relevant enough,
38:52important enough by the parties or the court.
38:54To be pulled into discovery, produced, and actually filed as exhibits in a federal court
39:00case.
39:01That just underscores their significance, right, in presenting evidence, building arguments.
39:05Definitely.
39:05And accessing these kinds of specific documents, these exhibits, it usually requires navigating
39:10official systems like PACER public access to court electronic records.
39:15Which isn't always easy and often charges fees page by page.
39:18Exactly.
39:18So this deep dive, curated entirely from your sources, it offers a very specific, targeted
39:24look at select pieces of that much larger official court record.
39:28It really provides a powerful, maybe sometimes uncomfortable, glimpse into the realities of a
39:34major business conflict.
39:36Playing out and being documented right there in the digital communications of the key people
39:40involved.
39:41Yeah.
39:41It highlights just how quickly relationships can deteriorate and how these informal messages
39:46can suddenly become absolutely central to formal legal proceedings.
39:50So this deep dive has given us a truly granular look at the CardConnect vShift4 payments legal
39:55battle, drawing exclusively from the source materials you provided.
39:59We've traced that arc, haven't we?
40:01From the initial hopes and the contracts through all the operational friction and strategic plays.
40:06To the differing interpretations of fundamental agreements, the arguments over termination
40:10motives.
40:11And culminating in some really, frankly, eye-opening communications.
40:16Yeah.
40:16Like that alleged instruction to delete texts or the request for competitive data via signal.
40:22We've seen how these specific messages, emails, exhibits, they provide such a vivid, almost immediate
40:28illustration of the seriousness of the claims and counterclaims.
40:32Yeah, offering insights and exposing potential conduct that those abstract legal descriptions
40:36just might miss entirely.
40:38And it really serves as a powerful reminder for all of us, I think, that disputes, even
40:42in these complex, multimillion-dollar industries like payment processing, they often boil down
40:48to fundamental human disagreements, strategic calculations, tensions played out in everyday
40:53communications.
40:54And those communications, captured digitally, they can become absolutely critical evidence
40:58under legal scrutiny.
40:59Understanding that helps us appreciate the multifaceted nature of conflict in business
41:04and, you know, the potential consequences of what we say or text or email.
41:08It's a stark illustration, isn't it?
41:10In our digital age, the lines between just informal communication and formal evidence are
41:16getting blurrier all the time.
41:18Every single keystroke can potentially become part of the official record down the line.
41:23Okay, so here is a final thought for you to consider, based only on the source material
41:27we've explored today, given the court's findings, as summarized in our sources, remember, finding
41:32in favor of Shift 4 on solicitation, tortious interference, and merchant onboarding claims.
41:38Right.
41:38Alongside those massive financial stakes discussed, that $200, $300 million valuation range mentioned
41:45by CardConnect's CEO.
41:46And the really dramatic nature of some communications, like the delete text message.
41:50What does this specific glimpse into this one case reveal about the nature of competition
41:55and conflict in this industry?
41:57How did the pursuit of these high states' financial outcomes and strategic advantage
42:01intersect with the way business relationships and disputes are actually managed?
42:05Yeah, and how are they sometimes captured in the most informal and potentially damning of
42:09messages?
42:10Think about that contrast we saw between the formal legal claims and the official responses
42:16presented by the parties versus the raw, unfiltered, sometimes aggressive, or, you know, potentially
42:23incriminating communications presented in the exhibits themselves.
42:27What does that juxtaposition, drained directly from the source material we looked at, tell
42:31us about the reality versus the formal presentation of a major legal battle like this one?
42:36Something substantial to mull over, for sure.
42:38Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into the raw communications at the heart of a legal
42:42dispute.
42:43Until next time.
Be the first to comment