Murdoch’s attempt to alter the trust in the real-life ‘Succession’ battle fails.

A real-life “Succession” drama involving Rupert Murdoch’s media empire has concluded with a Nevada court commissioner rejecting the billionaire’s attempt to modify a family trust and grant control to his eldest son. The legal battle saw the 93-year-old Murdoch at odds with three of his children over who would inherit control of News Corp and Fox News upon his death. Reports suggest that Murdoch sought to amend a 1999 family trust to enable his son Lachlan to take charge without interference from his siblings—Prudence, Elisabeth, and James. However, the Nevada commissioner ruled that Murdoch and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” and described their actions as a “carefully crafted charade,” according to the New York Times.

In a statement, a spokesperson for Prudence, Elisabeth, and James expressed their support for Commissioner Gorman’s ruling, saying: “We welcome the decision and hope to move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”

Adam Streisand, a lawyer representing Rupert Murdoch, told the New York Times that they were disappointed by the decision and intended to appeal.

A spokesperson for Murdoch declined to comment to the BBC, and Streisand did not immediately respond to inquiries.

The Murdoch family, widely regarded as one of the inspirations for the hit TV show Succession, has consistently refrained from commenting on the show’s portrayal of their dynamics. However, according to the New York Times, the family’s discussions about their father’s eventual death were influenced by an episode of the HBO series in which “the patriarch of the family dies, leaving his family and business in chaos.” This episode prompted Elisabeth’s representative to draft a “‘Succession’ memo” aimed at preventing a similar scenario from unfolding in real life, the report said.

The case has been handled privately in Nevada, a state known for its confidentiality in legal matters, including family trust disputes. Nevada’s “close on demand” statute allows parties in sensitive cases to request that court proceedings be sealed from public access, ensuring total privacy.

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

The case was initiated after Rupert Murdoch sought to amend the family trust due to concerns over a “lack of consensus” among his children, according to the Times.

Lachlan, believed to be more conservative than his siblings, is seen as someone who would preserve the legacy of the Murdoch media empire.

Since the 1960s, Murdoch has built a global media conglomerate with significant political and public influence. His two primary companies are News Corporation, which owns newspapers such as The Times and The Sun in the UK, as well as The Wall Street Journal in the US, and Fox, the broadcaster behind Fox News.

Murdoch had been preparing his two sons for leadership roles in his companies, starting when they were teenagers, as described by journalist Andrew Neil in 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 forming a dynasty,” Neil, the former Sunday Times editor, said.

In 1999, the Murdoch Family Trust was established to largely settle the succession plan, leading Murdoch to assign various roles within his companies to his eldest children.

The trust gives the family eight votes, which can be used to influence the boards of News Corp and Fox News. Currently, Murdoch controls four of those votes, with each of his eldest children overseeing one. The trust stipulates that after Murdoch’s death, his votes will be divided equally among his four eldest children.

However, differing opinions and political views reportedly contributed to a family rift.

The dispute over changes to the trust centers not on money but on control and power over the future of the Murdoch media empire.

The commissioner’s ruling is not final. While the court filing serves as a recommended resolution, a district judge will still review the case and may issue a different ruling. The judge’s decision could take weeks or even months to finalize, and it will not be made public.