Matt Seidler fired back on Tuesday.
In a letter addressed to the “Padres Partners and Faithful Fans” and sent Tuesday afternoon to the team’s corporate partners, Seidler refuted allegations in Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit against him and his brother, Robert, and provided accounts of events counter to Sheel Seidler’s claims.
Sheel Seidler, the widow of former Padres chairman Peter Seidler, filed suit Monday in Texas, alleging “fiduciary breaches of trust” and “fraud” by Matt and Robert Seidler, trustees of Peter Seidler’s trust. The suit also contests control of the Padres.
In the letter, Matt Seidler wrote that “Sheel’s claims against Bob and me are entirely untrue, and we will vigorously defend ourselves against them. That said, the false accusations in her complaint will not distract the Padres organization from continuing its great momentum on and off the field in San Diego.”
The letter also emphatically denies an assertion in Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit that the Seidler family may be considering relocating the team. He called the idea “laughable” and declared Padres fans, who have set franchise attendance records the past two seasons, as the “best in baseball.”
In the only portion of the letter that is bolded and underlined, Matt Seidler wrote, “To clarify the record without ambiguity, relocating the Padres from San Diego has never been discussed or contemplated.”
The trustee of Peter Seidler’s trusts, Matt Seidler last month appointed his oldest brother, John, as the Padres’ control person. Unless Sheel Seidler seeks and receives a temporary restraining order, that appointment is still expected to be decided upon by a vote of the other MLB control persons before spring training, according to multiple sources.
Sheel Seidler contends in her lawsuit that she should be the Padres’ control person based on what she said was the wish of her husband and her being the “beneficial owner” of approximately 25% of the team. (In all, members of the Seidler family, including Sheel Seidler and Peter Seidler’s siblings and cousins, hold a 45% stake in the franchise, multiple league sources have said.)
Among the claims by Matt Seidler in his letter were that Sheel Seidler told multiple Seidler family members she knew Peter did not want her to be the Padres’ control person; that she signed a document in 2020 that said she had no right to be or to name the control person; and that she told Matt Seidler in May that John should be control person.
A representative for Sheel Seidler refuted all those claims in an email.
In Tuesday’s letter, which was also posted on www.peterseidlertrust.com, Matt Seidler wrote: “Peter had many conversations with Bob, John, and me regarding the Control Person role, including identifying those family members he considered to be potential candidates for this position, and consistently reaffirmed his confidence in each of us, if and when the time came for any of us to designate the Padres’ Control Person. Peter never mentioned Sheel as a potential candidate for Control Person to Bob, John, or me.”
Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit claims Matt and Robert Seidler’s failure to fulfill their fiduciary responsibility as trustees should void actions taken by them, including Matt Seidler’s appointment of John Seidler as control person. And much of the 50 pages of her complaint lay out a case for her being the rightful control person.
That she asked to be given the role is one thing the sides agree on.
“Last July, after months of discussion about the permanent Control Person decision, Sheel unexpectedly asked me to designate her as the Control Person,” Matt Seidler wrote in Tuesday’s letter. “It was a confusing request, as Sheel had previously told multiple family members that she knew that Peter did not want her to be the Control Person. In fact, on May 30, 2024, she told me that she felt John would be the optimal Control Person for the Padres franchise to fulfill Peter’s vision. Nevertheless, I considered Sheel’s request, and ultimately determined, consistent with Peter’s perspective, that she was not qualified.”
A member of Sheel Seidler’s counsel also denied she endorsed John Seidler, writing via email: “John’s name came up in a discussion with Matt about his desired control people. After Peter’s death, Sheel assumed that the person acting as trustee and control person would act in her best interests. That did not happen, as described in the complaint. When Sheel uncovered the wrongdoing described the complaint after this conversation with Matt, she realized she had to take on the role herself.”
Early in Tuesday’s letter, Matt Seidler provided background on Peter Seidler’s business dealings and relationship with his brothers as a prelude to the assertion that Peter Seidler was “an expert on methodically setting up partnerships with clear governance.”
The letter stated: “He left clear instructions regarding how he wanted key decisions related to the Padres – including the selection of his successor as the Club’s Control Person – to be made if he was no longer with us.”
The letter says Seidler’s decision to leave the choice regarding his successor as control person up to the trustee was “entirely consistent with” how he ran his businesses.
“With a long track record as a successful investor, he believed that important decisions are best made by those who had earned trust by working hard and, most importantly, always doing right by people,” Matt Seidler wrote.
Peter Seidler’s trust, which is attached to Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit, states that his trustee shall be Robert Seidler, followed by Matt and then John. Matt Seidler said in his letter that Peter Seidler designated his brothers as trustees based largely on their long business relationship and trust.
Robert Seidler resigned as trustee in May 2024, citing a family health issue. Matt Seidler took over oversight of the trust; he called it a “heavy responsibility” he did not ask for but said he felt he must “honor Peter’s legacy.”
Matt Seidler opined in the letter that Sheel Seidler was “disappointed that Peter did not designate her as the trustee of his trust, name her as the Padres’ Control Person, and/or give her the right to approve the Control Person.”
As part of her lawsuit, Sheel Seidler submitted a copy of a handwritten document dated “2020” in which Peter Seidler purportedly ranked his desired successors. She was atop the list of 14 names, followed by the couple’s three young children.
Via email, the member of Sheel Seidler’s counsel said: “Peter kept the document in his papers. The genesis is that it was Peter’s thinking about who should be the future Padres Control Person after him. It is entirely consistent with Peter leaving all of his interests in the Padres to Sheel, and none of his interests to his brothers, and obligating his brothers to act in Sheel’s best interest.”
in his letter, Matt Seidler contended, “Had Peter intended any of these things, he could have easily made that intention clear in the governing documents, which he amended for other matters several times before and after he became Control Person in 2020,” Matt Seidler wrote in Tuesday’s letter. “He completely restated his trust in July 2021 which reaffirmed the trustee’s responsibility to designate the Control Person. Additionally, Peter’s trust agreement specifically excludes Sheel from ever serving as trustee and gives her no role or rights with respect to the Control Person designation. During Peter’s leadership of the Padres, he never chose to make Sheel an executive, director, officer, or employee of the Padres.”
Matt Seidler’s letter also refers to what is commonly referred to as a “spousal consent” document, which the spouses of MLB control persons are required to sign that states they cannot be nor assign a control person. The letter says Sheel Seidler agreed in 2020 that “if Peter passed away she would not seek any order in any legal proceeding that would in any way restrain the control of the Club or the duties of the designated Control Person.”
Said Sheel Seidler’s counsel: “This is a standard MLB form, which states that no one (including a spouse) has a right to be control person unless and until that person is approved by MLB. There is no prohibition on Sheel obtaining that approval.”
Asked about Matt Seidler’s contention that Sheel Seidler told multiple family members that she knew Peter did not want her to be control person, her representaive responded, “No, it did not happen. What Sheel expected was that if the Control Person wasn’t her, it was required to be someone acting in her interests. The complaint demonstrates that it did not turn out that way.”
Matt Seidler also addressed an inference of racism included in the lawsuit, which Sheel Seidler based on emails she received from Robert Seidler’s wife, Alecia, who the lawsuit claims suffers from mental health issues.
Matt Seidler pushed back on what he called “allegations against the Seidler family, particularly in regard to messages with inappropriate language from one sister-in-law who has never had any involvement in Peter’s trust or the Padres. Sheel is well aware that this individual faces difficult personal health challenges and, most importantly, that the hurtful language does not at all reflect the thoughts or feelings of any other family member.”
Matt Seidler went on to write: “My siblings and I have always loved and supported Peter and Sheel’s family all throughout their 15-year marriage. In the final months of Peter’s life, at least one of his siblings was in San Diego by his side all day, every single day that he was in the hospital. Since Peter’s death, we have repeatedly sought to support and comfort Sheel and her children, and we will continue to do so.”
This story was updated with further reporting after a representative for Sheel Seidler responded to an earlier e-mail requesting comment.
Originally Published:
This post was originally published on this site be sure to check out more of their content.
