Media
A Nevada commissioner ruled resoundingly against Mr. Murdoch, who was trying to give full control of his empire to his son Lachlan and lock in Fox News’s right-wing editorial slant.
By Jonathan Mahler and Jim Rutenberg, New York Times Service
A Nevada commissioner ruled resoundingly against Rupert Murdoch’s attempt to change his family’s trust to consolidate his eldest son Lachlan’s control of his media empire and lock in Fox News’ right-wing editorial slant, according to a sealed court document obtained by The New York Times.
The commissioner, Edmund J. Gorman Jr., concluded in a decision filed Saturday that the father and son, who is the head of Fox News and News Corp., had acted in “bad faith” in their effort to amend the irrevocable trust, which divides control of the company equally among Murdoch’s four oldest children — Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence — after his death.
A lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, Adam Streisand, said Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal.
In a statement, James, Elisabeth and Prudence said: “We welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
The battle over the family trust is not about money — Rupert Murdoch is not seeking to diminish any of his children’s financial stakes in the company — but rather about future control of the world’s most powerful conservative media empire, which includes Fox News, The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post.
Rupert Murdoch, now 93, has long intended to bequeath the media conglomerates to his children. But he is also determined to preserve the right-wing bent of his empire.
James and Elisabeth are both known to have less conservative political views than their father or brother. In seeking to consolidate Lachlan’s control, Murdoch has argued that maintaining the political bent of his outlets — and stripping the voting power of three of his children — is in the financial interest of all his beneficiaries.
The commissioner’s ruling is not the final word in the case. The commissioner acts as a “special master” who weighs the testimony and evidence and submits a recommended resolution to the probate court. It falls to a district judge to ratify or reject that recommendation. Even then, the losing party is free to challenge the determination.
This article originally appeared in The New York Times.
Boston.com Today
Sign up to receive the latest headlines in your inbox each morning.
