Detailed Explanation
Caution: The Eggless Cantor involves an extremely delicate subject matter. Even the slightest detail can significantly alter the ruling. Additionally, often local needs and far-reaching implications must be considered. Thus, when seeking to engage in a venture, which could adversely damage pre-
existing establishments, it is prudent to seek Halachic advice.
The Eggless Cantor implicates the following four laws.
1. Unless absolutely necessary it is wrong to engage in a venture that could put one's fellow out of business [Shulchan Aruch HaRav Hilchos Hasagas Gevul 13].
2. A stranger may not start a business, which could harm the local pre-existing establishment [Choshen Mishpat 151:5]. However, if the public will benefit significantly from the new business, the public's interest is preferred over the pre-existing establishment [Nimukei Yosef Maseches Bava Basra 11a].
3. Generally, one local does not have a preferred right over a particular line of business more so than does his/her neighbors. Consequently, a local may open a competing business to a pre-existing establishment [Choshen Mishpat 151:5].
4. Nevertheless, when a local's opening of a competing practice (B) may harm the pre-existing establishment to such an extent that (A) can no longer make ends meet, Halachic guidance should be sought [ibid.]
Application
Optimally, the younger congregants should have attempted to initiate a workable compromise with the older generation, instead of simply opening up a competing congregation. Generally, peaceful resolutions are preferred. Nevertheless, as locals, they are legally entitled to open a place of worship, which suits their style even if by doing so, Hope of Israel would suffer financially.
In situations comparable to our case when the resultant losses were so significant that (A) or the pre-existing synagogue could not meet their budgetary demands, there is often valid room to rule stringently. (As noted in 4, in each particular case, Halachic guidance should be sought).
However, in the Eggless Cantor there is another issue to consider towards vindicating the AAFB congregants.
The community was stagnant. Uninterested in Cantor Herbert's style, Hope of Israel lost its appeal to the younger generation. Bereft of a service of their liking, the younger generation could simply have moved away to a different location where they could feel comfortable praying in their preferred style. As such, Hope of Israel's days were inevitably numbered. Arguably, it was not the opening of AAFB per se which brought Hope of Israel to financial distress.
This being said; coupled with the aforementioned legal right for the locals to open a synagogue to suit their liking, they could not be held liable for Cantor Herbert's unfortunate situation.