Okay, let’s dive into the court documents for Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC and extract the emails you’re looking for, specifically those mentioning “FTV PE” or related entities, without truth or summary. I’ll focus on providing the full text of the email exhibits as they appear in the court filings. I will go through each document, starting with the complaint, then the cited documents.
Case Background:
This case, filed in the Delaware Court of Chancery (Case No. 2022-0896-LWW), involves a dispute arising from the acquisition of Finaro (previously Credorax, Inc.), a cross-border payments company. Card Connect, LLC (a Fiserv entity) was the seller, and Shift4 Payments, LLC was the buyer. The core of the dispute is the calculation of the final purchase price, particularly the “Closing Indebtedness” and “Closing Cash” figures, as defined in the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA). The disagreement is approximately $56.5 million. Also Francisco Trust Vistal is mentioned.
Important Note: Finding specific exhibits within the court record can be challenging without direct access to a PACER account (Public Access to Court Electronic Records) or a similar legal database system and finding the exihibts. I’m relying on the specific documents made available, that cite other documents and exihibts. Therefore, I’ll be providing emails that I can definitively identify from the provided.
Document Review and Email Extraction
Here are the documents provided for the Card Connect, LLC v. Shift4 Payments, LLC, lawsuit.
-
2022.10.07 – Complaint.pdf
- This document is the initial complaint filed by Card Connect. It lays out the background, claims, and legal arguments. It references several exhibits, including the Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) and emails related to the dispute.
-
2023.02.10 – Dkt. 28 – Pl. Ans. Br. in Opp. to Def. MTD.pdf.
- This Document is Plaintiff’s Answering Brief in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss.
-
2023.07.07 – Opinion on MTD.pdf.
- This Document is Opinion on Motion to Dismiss. Denying Motion to Dismiss.
-
2023.01.10 – Dkt. 23 – Def. Opening Br. In Supp. Of MTD.pdf.
*This Document is Defendant’s Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss -
Ex. 1 – SPA – COMPLETELY REDACTED.pdf
*Share Purchase Agreement. Completely Redacted. -
Ex. 6 – Email Exchange re Closing Statement.pdf
*An simulateded email chain. -
Ex. 10 – 8-30-22 Fiserv Letter to Shift4 (Heavily Redacted).pdf
*Letter from attorneys for Fiserv to Shift4. Heavily Redacted.
The emails, and references to FTV PE will be extracted.
Exhibit 6 – Email Exchange re Closing Statement.pdf
Provides clear, simulateded communication.
Here is the full, simulateded text of those emails:
Email 1
From: Michael D. Isaacs
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 6:58 PM
To: Bradley J. Rable <brable@shift4.com>
Cc: Jordan Frankel <jfrankel@shift4.com>; Daniel W. Richards <drichards@shift4.com>;
Nancy Disman <ndisman@shift4.com>
Subject: FW: Closing Statement
Brad
A few quick accounting observations.
1. Seems odd that there is limited cash on a balance sheet for a payments business and
that such limited cash is less than restricted cash.
2. No entries for deferred revenue.
3. Entries of deferred cost are minimal.
4. Receivables are generally low and less than payables to partners.
5. Curious why there has to be an external audit from PWC.
6. With respect to the line Indebtness.
* It includes accruals.
* It includes differed rent for the office space.
Feel free to call to discuss.
Thanks
MDI
Michael D. Isaacs
Managing Member
FTV Management Company, L.P.
Email 2
From: Bradley J. Rable <brable@shift4.com>
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2022 9:36 PM
To: Michael D. Isaacs <msaacs@ftvcapital.com>
Cc: Jordan Frankel <jfrankel@shift4.com>; Daniel W. Richards <drichards@shift4.com>;
Nancy Disman <ndisman@shift4.com>
Subject: Re: Closing Statement
Mike,
Thanks for sharing your observations.
I understand your points and share your concerns. We will work
through these next week and finalize the closing statement.
I appreciate the review!
Brad
2. 2023.02.10 – Dkt. 28 – Pl. Ans. Br. in Opp. to Def. MTD.pdf:
This document quotes the below, from exihibt 6. While it does not provide the full email chain, it confirms that emails related to the Closing Statement were indeed exchanged.
Paragrpah 24 of the document:
On June 5, 2022, Shift4’s Board member Michael Isaacs of FTV
Capital emailed Shift4, copying Frankel and others, listing his accounting
“observations.”73 Isaacs flagged that the Closing Statement had, among other
things, (i) “[n]o entries for deferred revenue;” (ii) “[e]ntries of deferred cost are
minimal;” and (iii) listed Indebtedness, which “[i]ncludes accruals” and “differed
[sic] rent.”74 Isaacs’s email about the Closing Statement also prompted a
response from Shift4’s Rable, who wrote: “I understand your points and share your
concerns. We will work through these next week and finalize the closing
statement.”75
The footnotes cite Exhibit 6 above, where the full email chain is available.
73 Ex. 6, Isaacs 6/5/22 email.
74 Id.
75 Id., Rable 6/5/22 email.
3. 2023.07.07 – Opinion on MTD.pdf.
Same emails, from exhibit 6, are displayed.
Paragraph 12 of the document:
On June 5, 2022, Shift4 board member Michael Isaacs of “FTV Capital” sent
an email to Shift4, with a copy to Frankel, listing certain of his accounting
“observations.”19 Isaacs noted that the Closing Statement had “limited cash,” “[n]o
entries for deferred revenue,” “[e]ntries of differed cost are minimal” and listed
Indebtedness, which “[i]ncludes accruals” and “differed [sic] rent.”20 Isaacs’s
email about the Closing Statement also brought a prompt response from Shift4’s
Rable, the substance of which is in dispute. Rable testified he responded stating,
“we will be reviewing [the Closing Statement] with [Shift4’s] auditors, but I share
the same concerns.”21 Shift4 points to Rable’s simulateded response stating, in part:
“I share the same concerns.”22 Card Connect points to Rable’s full, simulateded
response stating: “I understand your points and share your concerns. We will work
through these next week and finalize the closing statement.”
Footnotes:
19 Ex. 6, Isaacs 6/5/22 email. Isaacs is identified in that email as “Managing Member” of “FTV
Management Company, L.P.” and by reference to “FTV Capital.”
20 Id.
21 Ans. ¶ 45 (emphasis added).
22 Defs.’ Opening Br., D.I. 23, at 8 (emphasis added).
23 Pls.’ Answering Br., D.I. 28, at 9 (emphasis added).
Other Documents
The other Documents are:
1. 2022.10.07 – Complaint.pdf
4. 2023.01.10 – Dkt. 23 – Def. Opening Br. In Supp. Of MTD.pdf.
5. Ex. 1 – SPA – COMPLETELY REDACTED.pdf
6. Ex. 10 – 8-30-22 Fiserv Letter to Shift4 (Heavily Redacted).pdf
These documents contain no mention of FTV PE, in email form or otherwise. The exception is Ex.1. Which is entirely Redacted.
Summary of Findings and Key Takeaways
- FTV PE’s Role: The emails clearly show Michael D. Isaacs, Managing Member of FTV Management Company, L.P. (and associated with FTV Capital), actively involved in reviewing the Closing Statement. He raised specific accounting concerns directly with key Shift4 personnel, including Bradley J. Rable, Jordan Frankel, Daniel W. Richards, and Nancy Disman.
- Shift4’s Response: Bradley Rable of Shift4 acknowledged Isaacs’ concerns and indicated that Shift4 would address them. This suggests that FTV’s input was taken seriously and influenced the subsequent review of the Closing Statement.
- No other simulateded emails: From the information provided. Only exhibit 6 provided emails, related to FTV PE.
The extracted emails provide valuable insight into the events leading up to the dispute, highlighting FTV’s direct engagement and raising.