Matt Seidler on Monday filed a response to Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit that ostensibly argues former Padres chairman Peter Seidler’s widow is waging war against her late husband’s wishes and damaging his legacy in the process.
The Jan. 6 suit brought by Sheel Seidler alleges that Matt and his brother Robert Seidler defrauded her in their roles as trustees of Peter Seidler’s trust.
Monday’s answer from Matt Seidler contains what it says are a list of specifics that refute that claim, contends that multiple factors preclude Sheel Seidler from bringing such a lawsuit and outlines a case that she has concocted stories in order to get control and money that Peter Seidler purposely did not give her.
“Dissatisfied that Peter’s Trust Agreement, the Padres governing documents, and MLB requirements give her no path to controlling the Padres, Sheel apparently decided that the best way forward was to attempt to take a wrecking ball to Peter’s Trust, his reputation, and the Seidler family name,” the response reads. “These actions reveal what Sheel will likely never it: she does not care about what Peter wanted, as expressed in his legal documents; Sheel cares about what she wants.”
A statement on Tuesday afternoon from Dane Butswinkas, counsel for Sheel Seidler, read: “The response, for all of its bravado, is especially thin in responding to the very specific and serious allegations of Matt and Robert Seidler’s breaches of fiduciary duty. It’s ironic that they accuse Sheel — Peter’s wife of two decades and the mother of his three children — of misusing his assets, while at the same time they have reaped the benefits of Peter’s generosity for decades. The fact is, we will win in court because the defendants have shown they have no case. In short, their response is a total strike out.”
Matt Seidler had three weeks to file an answer to the lawsuit, which he did by filing the response Monday night. The brothers also have before the court a motion to compel certain aspects of the lawsuit to be determined by an arbitrator in California, as they requested in December.
Monday’s response seeks to explain the moves Peter Seidler’s brothers Matt and Robert made as trustees that Sheel Seidler alleges breached their fiduciary responsibilities to her and her children.
Her suit seeks removal of Matt Seidler as the trustee of the trust and the reversal of actions taken by Matt and Robert Seidler as trustees. Those actions include Matt naming John Seidler, Peter Seidler’s oldest brother, as control person of the Padres.
Sheel Seidler contends in her lawsuit that she is the “natural” control person based on her being the beneficial owner of the 24% stake in the Padres controlled by the trust, which is the largest single stake in the team, and that she was “prepared” by Peter Seidler to run the Padres.
Monday’s filing counters Sheel Seidler’s contentions in her lawsuit that she was a “partner” to her late husband in the running of the Padres. The filing points out that Peter Seidler’s trust designates Robert, Matt and John Seidler as successor trustees and states that the trustee shall name the Padres control person. A vote by MLB’s other 29 control people on John Seidler is expected next week; baseball’s owners meetings run from Tuesday to Thursday.
“Simply put,” the filing reads, “Peter’s instructions were clear: he did not want Sheel to ever become Trustee of his Trust or to have the power to dictate the Trustee’s actions.”
The suit points out that Peter Seidler amended his trust at least seven times and did not name Sheel Seidler as a trustee in any of those.
“In fact,” the response reads, “… the Trust Agreement precludes Sheel from ever serving as a successor Trustee under any circumstance. Conversely, Peter provided that, after Sheel’s death, each of his Children would have the right to become cotrustees of their own trusts once they reached the age of (40).”
The response also lays out what it says are multiple transactions the trust made to the benefit of Sheel Seidler since Peter Seidler’s death in November 2023, including transfer of ownership of a $30 million ranch in Texas to her name, purchase and furnishing of an $8.5 million home in Coronado and more than $4.5 million in cash disbursements.
Matt Seidler’s filing alleges that in October, after Sheel’s request to be made Padres control person had been denied by Matt Seidler, she demanded $20 million and the promise of $20 million annually. This was, the response said, 10 times the annual budget Sheel Seidler had submitted and that the trust had paid to her months earlier.
“It also ignored the composition of the Trust’s assets, its liabilities, its limited uncommitted cash, and the Trust Agreement, Matt Seidler’s filing said. “Moreover, had Matt acceded to this demand without evidence of a material change to Sheel’s financial circumstances, he would likely have violated his fiduciary duties to Sheel’s Children, the remainder beneficiaries.”
The response says Matt Seidler’s attempts to get information from Sheel Seidler regarding why she needed the additional money were unsuccessful. The response also states Matt Seidler investigated other income sources available to Sheel Seidler “such as the $2.5 million in cash that Sheel, using a power of attorney, took from one of Peter’s s while Peter was in the ICU.”
Peter Seidler died in November 2023 from an infection related to a compromised immune system.
Eric Kutsenda, Peter Seidler’s longtime business partner, took over as temporary control person of the Padres at that time. Robert Seidler was trustee of the trust at the time before reg from the role in May to attend to a family medical situation.
Monday’s filing states that the transactions Sheel Seidler has alleged as fraud were covered by legal agreements involving Seidler Kutsenda Management Company, which is owned by the trusts of Peter, Robert and Matt Seidler and Kutsenda. The response said Sheel Seidler signed a document in 2022 stating she was “irrevocably bound” by SKMC’s governing agreement.
The response to the suit says the transactions Sheel Seidler alleges were fraud actually benefited the trust (of which Sheel Seidler and her three children are the beneficiaries) at a rate twice what would have been expected. The response states that when Sheel Seidler claimed the value the trust received was far below market value, the trustee and SKMC reversed the transaction. Sheel Seidler, the response says, then decried the reversal.
“These inconsistent positions,” the filing states, “again demonstrate that Sheel’s goal is to manufacture claims against the Trustees in pursuit of the control that Peter intentionally chose not to give her.”
Matt Seidler’s response accuses Sheel Seidler’s lawsuit as a public relations vehicle that “sought to prejudice the Padres fanbase against Matt, Bob, and John.” The response also alleges “the consequences went far beyond that” and goes on to insinuate the suit’s claim the brothers were possibly considering moving the Padres affected negotiations with Japanese pitcher Roki Sasaki.
“Any person who had any insight into the Padres business — as Sheel claims she does — would know this statement was absurd and without any foundation whatsoever,” Monday’s response states. “It was a total fabrication made recklessly to alarm fans, sponsors, players, employees, and MLB.”
In a statement, Butswinkas responded: “Matt and Robert Seidler must be relieved to have an easy scapegoat for their failure to sign Roki Sasaki. The outcome could have been different if they hadn’t blocked Sheel from participating in the recruitment process, despite her many pleas to put aside any differences and help do what’s best for the Padres.”
Sasaki and his agent have been quoted as saying they were aware of the Padres’ ownership turmoil, but they did not indicate their decision to sign with the Dodgers was significantly swayed by anything wrong with the Padres.
This story was updated with further reporting. It also corrected the initial version, which stated that Monday’s filing was made by Matt and Robert Seidler.
