In a high-profile case resembling the fictional drama of HBO's "Succession," a Nevada court has ruled against Rupert Murdoch’s bid to alter a family trust to grant his eldest son, Lachlan, more control of the family media empire. This ruling denies the 93-year-old billionaire's request amid a fierce power struggle between him and three of his children—Prudence, Elisabeth, and James—over control of News Corp and Fox News when he passes.
The court's commissioner stated that both Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in "bad faith," characterizing their attempts to amend the trust as a "carefully crafted charade." Following the decision, a spokesperson for Rupert's other children expressed relief and a desire to move past the dispute, highlighting the hope for rebuilding familial relationships. Adam Streisand, the lawyer representing Rupert Murdoch, expressed disappointment with the ruling and indicated plans to appeal.
The Murdoch family's internal conflict reportedly intensified after they began contemplating their patriarch’s death, spurred by a particular episode of "Succession." In response, Elisabeth’s representative drafted a "Succession memo" aimed at preventing the family chaos depicted in the show from materializing in real life.
The family trust, established in 1999, had been intended to delineate future governance of the media empire. Under current terms, Rupert controls four out of eight votes within the trust, with his eldest children holding one vote each. Tensions among the siblings, in part due to differing political ideologies, have fueled the ongoing disputes, which center around power rather than financial considerations.
Although this ruling by the Nevada court commissioner is significant, it is not final. A district judge will provide a new ruling after reviewing the case further, a process which may take several weeks or months. The ongoing drama continues to underscore the complexities of family dynamics intertwined with immense wealth and influence in the media landscape.
