RENO, Nev. — A recent ruling by a probate commissioner has dismissed Rupert Murdoch’s initiative to modify his family trust, which aimed to designate one of his sons as the leader of his vast media holdings while ensuring that Fox News continues to reflect a conservative viewpoint. This ruling comes from a confidential document cited by The New York Times.
On Saturday, the commissioner in Nevada concluded that both Rupert Murdoch, aged 93, and his son Lachlan had engaged in “bad faith” while attempting to amend the trust, which is deemed irrevocable, as reported by The New York Times on Monday.
The current structure of the trust mandates equal control of the company among Rupert Murdoch’s four children—Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan, and James—following his death. Lachlan has been leading Fox News and News Corp since late last year when Rupert Murdoch retired from those roles.
Rupert Murdoch has contended that altering the trust is essential to preserve his business’s market value for all successors. This change is aimed at allowing Lachlan to maintain the conservative direction of Fox News, especially since James and Elisabeth Murdoch have publicly expressed more liberal political opinions than their father and brother, complicating the prospect of ensuring the network’s conservative tone.
In a 96-page decision, Nevada Probate Commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. characterized the intention to modify the trust as a “carefully crafted charade,” suggesting it was designed to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” within the media empire without considering its implications for the companies or other beneficiaries of the family trust.
Adam Streisand, legal counsel for Rupert Murdoch, expressed disappointment over the ruling, indicating that both Rupert and Lachlan plan to appeal the decision.
In a statement from a spokesperson representing Prudence, Elisabeth, and James Murdoch, they welcomed the ruling and expressed hope for the family to “move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
Commissioner Gorman’s judgment emphasized that the attempt to modify the trust was an effort to favor Lachlan in the succession process, making it immutable after Rupert’s eventual passing. He likened the evidentiary hearing to a poker game, where strategies meet reality, ultimately revealing all truths and nullifying any deception. He concluded firmly that, after reviewing the case with legal precision, this altered agreement would not stand under his authority as a probate commissioner.
