Jean Catuffe/GC Images
The Nevada commissioner ruling over the Murdoch family court case has denied Rupert and Lachlan’s attempt to amend the irrevocable trust.
Ruling resoundingly against the media mogul and his son Lachlan, commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. delivered a scathing summary of the pair’s “carefully crafted charade.”
Which, as revealed in the 96-page opinion document obtained by The New York Times, was characterised by a motive to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” as part of the media empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries.”
As soon as the ruling became public knowledge, siblings, James, Elisabeth and Prudence issued a statement that read: “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.”
Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch’s lawyer, Adam Streisand, also responded, outlining his clients’ shared disappointment with the outcome of the ruling and noting their intention to appeal.
Ah, to be a fly on the wall at this year’s Murdoch family Christmas….
As it stands, in an effort to avoid an episode of life imitating art, it seems the Murdoch family court saga might have just achieved the opposite.
But first, how did the Murdochs end up here and what exactly occurred in that court room?
The Bid To Amend The Irrevocable Murdoch Family Trust
Back in September, it was revealed that Lachlan and Rupert had begun court proceedings to amend the Murdoch family’s irrevocable trust in order to ensure Rupert’s posthumous legacy, and by extension, Lachlan’s position as the head of the global media empire, remained uncontested.
The existing trust was set up 25 years ago following Rupert’s divorce from his second wife, Anna Maria dePeyster (née Torv), as part of their settlement. The agreement gave their three children – Lachlan, older sister Elisabeth and younger brother James – as well as Rupert’s daughter from his first marriage, Prudence, equal voting rights and shares in the Murdoch empire.
The attempt to override the family trust was positioned by Rupert as an act of “good faith” in a wider strategy to mitigate a potential lack of consensus among his children and maintain the editorial direction of the conservative media empire.
At the time, one couldn’t help but draw comparisons to a certain hit series that – most definitely was not in any way – reminiscent of the real life events playing out inside a Nevada courtroom.
In an intriguing turn of events, it seems that speculation around the family’s wildly coincidental similarities with the show’s fictional storyline, may have collided in more ways than one.
During the proceedings, it was revealed that a swift move to amend the trust was sparked by none other than billionaire Logan Roy – CEO of Waystar Royco and patriarch of the Roy family himself, as depicted in HBO’s Succession (R.I.P).
But, how, you ask?
According to court documents obtained by The Times, Murdoch’s children had started secretly formulating a PR strategy for their father’s death in April 2023. The catalyst for these discussions, was the episode of Succession, as written by the commissioner, “where the patriarch of the family dies, leaving his family and business in chaos.”
The events depicted in the episode were clearly so impactful that it prompted Elisabeth’s representative to the trust, Mark Devereux, to craft and send a “Succession memo” in an attempt to mitigate a real-life reenactment.
A Failed Coup
Cut to December 10, and Lachlan’s optimistically named “Project Family Harmony” bid to single out brother James as the “troublesome beneficiary” and disenfranchise Elisabeth and Prudence by amending the trust, has failed to launch.
Despite Lachlan and Rupert’s attempt to imply otherwise, the commissioner’s decision found that the siblings, or “Objectors” did not share “any singleness of purpose in changing the management of Fox News,” or any other Murdoch media outlets following their father’s death.
Furthermore, the commissioner concluded: “The effort was an attempt to stack the deck in Lachlan Murdoch’s favour after Rupert Murdoch’s passing so that his succession would be immutable. The play might have worked; but an evidentiary hearing, like a showdown in a game of poker, is where gamesmanship collides with the facts and at its conclusion, all the bluffs are called and the cards lie face up.”
Adding – in a bitingly script-worthy end note: “The court, after considering the facts of this case in the light of the law, sees the cards for what they are and concludes this raw deal will not, over the signature of this probate commissioner, prevail.”
If there was ever a reason for Jesse Armstrong throw open doors to the Succession writers room one last time, this feels like as good a time as any, surely?
Related articles:
- From Fiction To Fate: How Rupert Murdoch’s Ex-Wife Predicted The Battle For Succession
- That Huge ‘Succession’ Death Has Twitter In A Tail Spin
