In an obscure courtroom in Nevada, one of the world’s richest families has been battling over the future of a conservative media empire that includes iconic brands like the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. When the Reno court issues a decision on the case, it could alter not only the future of news and entertainment—but also the U.S. political landscape.
The high-profile clash has all the trappings of a Shakespearean play or the HBO drama Succession, which is based on real-life events. The star at the story’s center is Rupert Murdoch, the 93-year-old billionaire media mogul who has for years used his control of brands like Fox News, WSJ, and the New York Post to push an aggressive conservative agenda, and to elevate figures like former President Donald Trump.
Exactly who will take control of the media conglomerate when the patriarch dies has been a source of fascination for onlookers for years. And in late 2023, the plot thickened in the family’s well-publicized succession saga, when the elder Murdoch reportedly decided to amend the irrevocable trust he constructed decades ago to “ensure that his eldest son and chosen successor, Lachlan, would remain in charge of his vast collection of television networks and newspapers,” the New York Times wrote earlier this year, citing sealed court records. Lachlan is currently chief executive officer of Fox and chairman of News Corp., and his politics are seen to align more closely with his father’s than those of his more liberal-leaning siblings.
Prior to that late-season plot twist, Murdoch’s four eldest children were set to receive equal shares of the patriarch’s empire, which also includes outlets in Australia and Britain. His recent change of heart and the ensuing legal battle has come as a surprise to Murdoch’s other children, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence, the Times reports, who are fighting against the changes.
As its name implies, an irrevocable trust cannot be changed or amended. The legal vehicle is often used by the ultrawealthy for estate planning purposes, in order to avoid probate and, typically, estate taxes.
But earlier this year, a judge in Nevada, where the trust was formed, ruled that “Mr. Murdoch could amend the trust if he is able to show he is acting in good faith and for the sole benefit of his heirs,” the Times reported. The family was back in court last week, and a decision is expected in the coming days or weeks (though the exact timeline is unknown).
Exactly what went on in the courtroom isn’t open to the public, and news outlets including the Times and CNN unsuccessfully tried to open up the proceedings. That’s one of the reasons that the Murdochs likely decided to form their trust in Nevada, experts tell Fortune. The state is known for its friendly trust laws: It does not impose state income tax on the vehicles (which file their own income taxes), and it does not require them to be filed with a state agency or court, like some other states do—shielding the terms from the press and other third parties.
The state also allows trusts to last up to 365 years, enabling assets to be passed on through the generations without paying estate taxes; permissible as well are so-called silent trusts, which don’t require the trustee to reveal the existence of the trust to beneficiaries, among other benefits.
What’s good for the family’s privacy, however, leaves investors and other shareholders less certain about the future of the companies Murdoch controls. These businesses are making decisions based on the structure and design that is currently in place, says Monique Hayes, an estate and succession planning attorney at South Florida–based DGIM Law.
“If you’ve had [a trust] in place for decades, people start to make business decisions and family decisions based on that design,” Hayes tells Fortune of the stakes.
The outcome of the court battle also carries big implications for the public, because the companies in question have such a significant impact on the political environment in the U.S. and the everyday lives of Americans, she says. This isn’t a simple disagreement between family members.
According to the Times, the patriarch’s lawyers are arguing that giving more control to Lachlan will “protect” the other siblings “by ensuring that they won’t be able to moderate Fox’s politics or disrupt its operations with constant fights over leadership.”
“In this case it is not just a family business. Whoever has control of that empire will have an impact on the United States,” notes Hayes. “For a normal person, maybe you’ll have a difficult Thanksgiving, but it won’t have an effect on an election or different corporate industries involved.”
How to make an irrevocable trust more revocable
Though irrevocable trusts are mostly set in stone, there are a few ways they can be changed. Some states, including Nevada, allow them to be modified if all of the beneficiaries agree to the changes, says Warren Racusin, a trust and estate attorney at Lowenstein Sandler.
“Clearly, here, they don’t all agree,” says Racusin of the Murdoch situation. But “there apparently is a specific provision in this trust to let somebody modify the trust if it would be in the best interests of the beneficiaries. It would be interesting to know, who has that power?”
Hayes says the judge will have to accept the argument that giving more control to Lachlan will not prejudice another party, and will in fact be in his siblings’ best interest. If the change does hurt their bottom line, for example, they will need to be compensated in another way. In this case, swapping control of one company worth $100 million for another of equal value probably doesn’t work, “because the assets in this dynasty don’t have the same long-term social and political value,” she says.
It isn’t clear which way the decision will go, but in recent years, laws and court decisions in various states have allowed more flexibility in modifying irrevocable trusts, says Racusin. It’s also become table stakes to include provisions in irrevocable trusts that allow for some changes without needing to rely on the courts or state laws, he says.
“Years ago, they probably couldn’t have changed it, he says. “Now, the answer is probably or maybe.”
Whatever the outcome, Racusin says it’s likely the losing side will appeal and that the case will make it to the Nevada Supreme Court. Given Murdoch’s advanced age, it is possible that the succession battle won’t be resolved in his lifetime.
“It will make a messier situation even messier, that’s for sure,” says Racusin. “King Lear is the greatest example in the English language of how not to do estate planning. This kind of reminds me of that.”
