Rupert Murdoch loses candidacy in royal ‘succession’ battle with children

A real-life “succession” battle over Rupert Murdoch’s media empire ended when a Nevada court commissioner denied the billionaire’s attempt to change a family trust and give control to his eldest son.

The case pitted the 93-year-old against three of his children over who would get the power to control News Corp and Fox News when he dies.

It has been reported that Murdoch wanted to amend a family trust created in 1999 to allow his son Lachlan to take control without “interference” from his siblings Prudence, Elisabeth and James.

A Nevada commissioner ruled that Murdoch and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” and called the efforts a “carefully crafted sham.” according to the New York Times.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Prudence, Elisabeth and James said: “We welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships between all family members.” .

Adam Streisand, Murdoch’s lawyer, told the New York Times that they were disappointed and planned to appeal.

A spokesman for Murdoch declined to comment to the BBC. Streisand did not immediately respond to questions.

The famous family was one of the inspirations behind the popular TV series Succession, something the Murdochs always refused to comment on.

But according to the New York Times report, which is based on a copy of the sealed court ruling, the billionaire’s children had begun discussing their father’s death and how they would deal with it after an episode of the HBO series in which ” The family patriarch dies, leaving his family and his business in chaos.”

The episode prompted Elisabeth’s representative at the trust to write a “‘succession’ memorandum” that sought to prevent this from happening in real life, according to reports.

The case unfolded behind closed doors in Nevada, a state that offers one of the most confidential legal environments for matters including family trust disputes.

It has a “closure on request” statute that allows parties involved in certain sensitive cases to request that court proceedings be kept sealed from public access, ensuring complete privacy.

Murdoch, who has been married five times, also has two minor children, Grace and Chloe, who do not have any voting rights under the trust agreement.

The case was brought after Murdoch decided to change the trust over concerns about a “lack of consensus” among the children, the Times reported.

Lachlan is believed to be more conservative than his brothers and would preserve the legacy of their media brands.

Starting in the 1960s, Murdoch built a global media giant with great political and public influence.

Its two companies are News Corporation, which owns newspapers such as the Times and Sun in the United Kingdom and the Wall Street Journal in the United States, and Fox, which broadcasts Fox News.

Murdoch had been grooming his two sons to follow in his footsteps since they were teenagers, journalist Andrew Neil told the 2020 BBC documentary The Rise of the Murdoch Dynasty.

“Family has always been very important to Rupert Murdoch, particularly from the point of view of building a dynasty,” the former Sunday Times editor said.

In 1999, the Murdoch Family Trust, which owns the media companies, had to largely sort out succession plans.

This led Murdoch to give his older children various jobs within his companies.

The trust gives the family eight votes, which they can use to have a say on the boards of News Corp and Fox News. Murdoch currently controls four of those votes, with his eldest children holding one each.

The trust agreement said that once Murdoch died, his votes would pass equally to his four eldest children.

However, differences of opinion and political views were said to have led to a family breakdown.

The battle over changes to the trust was not about money, but about power and control over the future of the Murdoch empire.

The commissioner’s ruling is not final. The court filing acts as a recommended resolution, but a district judge will still intervene and could choose to rule differently.

It could take weeks or months for the judge to make a decision, which will not be available to the public.

Additional reporting by Michelle Fleury and Charlotte Edwards