A Nevada commissioner has made a decisive ruling that prevents Rupert Murdoch from altering his family trust to vest control of his media empire in his preferred successor. This decision followed confidential testimonies from various Murdoch family members earlier this year.

The commissioner, Edmund J. Gorman Jr., issued a verdict over the weekend, with a 96-page document that, according to an insider, severely criticized both Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan Murdoch for their conduct. Gorman accused them of acting in "bad faith," a factor that could influence any potential appeals.  

Rupert Murdoch had sought to modify his irrevocable family trust, which currently grants equal voting rights to his four eldest children upon his demise. The proposed amendments were designed to concentrate authority in Lachlan, who aligns more closely with his father's conservative stance. However, the other three children—Prudence, Elisabeth, and James—opposed this shift and challenged it in a Nevada court.

The court's opinion remains under seal, and it has not been reviewed publicly. The New York Times, which initially reported on the ruling, claimed to have obtained a copy. According to their report, Gorman indicated that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch attempted to "rig the system in Lachlan Murdoch's favor post-Rupert Murdoch's death to ensure his succession was unchangeable."

The situation bears a striking resemblance to the HBO series "Succession," with Murdoch's children reportedly discussing how to avoid a similarly dramatic outcome within their own family. The commissioner even referenced the show in his opinion.    

Despite the potential for family discord, the stakes are high, with significant assets like Fox News at the center of the dispute. The family trust, established by Rupert Murdoch over two decades ago, has been seen as a conduit for potential political shifts. James, in particular, has privately expressed his distaste for Fox's polarizing right-wing content and has financially supported Democrats and progressive organizations. Associates of James have speculated on a scenario where he might collaborate with Prue and Elisabeth to overthrow Lachlan in the event of their father's passing. However, sources have insist that no such plan exists.    

Rupert Murdoch, suspecting James of "scheming" to alter the legacy he has built, took steps to ensure Lachlan's continued control. Last year, Murdoch transitioned to the role of chairman emeritus at both Fox Corp and News Corp, a move interpreted as a sign that Lachlan would be firmly in command of both entities. Additionally, Murdoch petitioned the Nevada probate trust to revise the trust. His representatives, including former attorney general Bill Barr, argued that since Lachlan would maintain the conservative direction of the company's media outlets, the amendment would be financially beneficial for all beneficiaries, even those in opposition.  

Rupert essentially made a paternalistic argument—that he knew what was best for the family's financial interests. This stance infuriated James, Elisabeth, and Prue. The conflict reached a head in a Reno, Nevada, courtroom in September, where the family members faced off over several days as Gorman heard arguments from both sides. The proceedings were sealed and intended to remain confidential, but the Times was aware of the dispute beforehand, and photographers spotted Murdoch family members entering and exiting the court. A coalition of news organizations has since taken legal action to make the case records public.  

Gorman's ruling was unequivocal, denouncing the attempt to dismantle the trust as a "meticulously orchestrated facade." A spokesperson for James, Elisabeth, and Prue Murdoch expressed  their desire to "move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members." An attorney for Rupert Murdoch has not responded to requests for comment. The attorney informed the Times of their intention to appeal the decision.  

This ruling has significant implications for the future of the Murdoch media empire and the family's internal dynamics. The commissioner's decision to uphold the original trust structure maintains the balance of power among the siblings and preserves the status quo. It also highlights the complexities of family governance within large media conglomerates and the challenges of succession planning in the face of divergent political views and personal ambitions.  

The Murdoch family's struggle over the trust is not just a tale of wealth and power; it is a reflection of the broader issues faced by dynastic families in the media industry. As the family navigates the aftermath of this ruling, they will need to address not only the legal and financial ramifications but also the emotional and relational consequences of their actions. The path forward may be fraught with challenges, but it also presents an opportunity for the family to redefine their legacy and chart a new course for the future.