The fate of the Binghamton Mets (Class AA; Eastern League) could be clearer this week, as an April 30 court date could free owners to sell the franchise or uphold a purchase agreement with Main Street Baseball and Clark Minker.
Main Street Baseball and Clark Minker were granted a temporary restraining order earlier this month, halting B-Mets owners from discussing the sale of the team to another buyer. Their legal argument: Main Street Baseball and Clark Minker had been negotiating the purchase of the B-Mets and entered into a purchase agreement, with a legally binding letter of intent as well as $100,000 in escrow. But the B-Mets owners failed to follow through on the purchase agreement, and two days after it expired they announced the sale to another party, who would keep the team in town. Main Street Baseball and Minker were issued a temporary restraining order barring the sale of the team; that TRO was extended once and currently runs through April 30, the date of the hearing before Judge David Hurd in U.S. District Court Northern District of New York.
Since those filings, Beacon Sports, a named defendant in the lawsuit, which had represented the B-Mets owners in this sale and previous negotiations to Ryan-Sanders Baseball, who were seeking to move the team to Ottawa, has backed the B-Mets’ legal argument with a nine-page filing, per Press Connects:
Beacon Sports Capital Partners of Needham, Massachusetts, responded Friday to a breach of contract suit filed by Main Street Baseball, a Florida-based minor league baseball ownership group. Beacon Sports said it sided with the B-Mets’ claim that an initial letter of intent was merely a starting point for negotiations, not an ironclad contract to sell the franchise.
The nine-page response denies virtually every breach of contract claim made by Main Street Baseball, which claims to have had an enforceable contract to buy the Binghamton Double-A franchise and relocate it to Wilmington, Delaware.
“The letter of intent terminated after the parties failed to execute an asset purchase agreement, and the parties have no further obligation to each other,” according to the nine-page document filed with the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York.