Connect with us

Published

on

A momentous court battle over the fate of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire gets under way in Nevada today.

At stake is the future of a string of newspapers and television channels consumed by millions of people around the world, as well as thousands of jobs – and billions of pounds.

The media mogul, who turned 93 this year, has spent decades building up his news brands, making them some of the most powerful and influential in the Western world.

But now, as he nears the end of his life, a rift has opened up in his family – and raised questions about what kind of legacy he will leave behind.

The case will decide who controls Murdoch’s family trust after he is gone and which of his children will have major voting rights in his companies. And it could result in the billionaire’s heir apparent Lachlan Murdoch being out-manoeuvred by some of his less conservative siblings.

Rupert Murdoch and Elena Zhukova. Pic: News Corp
Image:
Rupert Murdoch and his wife Elena Zhukova. Pic: News Corp

What are his family members fighting over?

The row centres around future power and influence over Mr Murdoch‘s two companies – News Corp and Fox.

News Corp owns newspapers including The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post in the US, The Australian, The Herald Sun and The Daily Telegraph in Australia, and The Sun, The Times and The Sunday Times in the UK.

Also under News Corp’s wing is publishing giant HarperCollins, along with several Australian TV channels.

Meanwhile, Fox News, Fox Sports and streaming service Tubi form part of his other major company.

Mr Murdoch has a roughly 40% stake in voting shares of each company.

Sky News, which Mr Murdoch launched in the UK in 1989, is no longer part of his empire.

At the end of 2018, Fox’s film entertainment assets, such as The Simpsons and the Avatar film franchise, were sold to Disney – while the company’s 39% stake in Sky was sold to Comcast.

Lachlan Murdoch and Sarah Murdoch attend the Vanity Fair Oscar party in Beverly Hills during the 92nd Academy Awards, in Los Angeles, California, U.S., February 9, 2020. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok
Image:
Lachlan Murdoch and his wife Sarah in February 2020. Pic: Reuters

Who is involved in the case and why?

Sorting out Mr Murdoch’s inheritance was never going to be easy – he has six children and has been married five times, most recently to retired molecular biologist Elena Zhukova.

However, it had long been presumed that his business succession plans were largely settled in 1999, following his divorce from his second wife Anna.

That year the Murdoch Family Trust was founded – establishing the principle that, when he died, his News Corp and Fox’s voting shares would be divided between his four oldest children – Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan and James.

Following the “irrevocable” agreement, Mr Murdoch began integrating some of his children into roles at his companies.

However, following a shift in relations with some of his offspring, it emerged earlier this year that the media mogul had changed his mind.

The New York Times revealed that Mr Murdoch had decided he wanted to change the terms of the trust, to ensure his eldest son Lachlan would go on to run his businesses without “interference” from his other siblings.

The newspaper reported that James, Elisabeth and Prudence “were caught completely off-guard” by the move and had decided to unite to stop him.

Lachlan has reportedly taken his father’s side in the case.

Kathryn Hufschmid and James Murdoch arrive at the Vanity Fair Oscar party after the 96th Academy Awards, known as the Oscars, in Beverly Hills, California, U.S., March 10, 2024. REUTERS/Danny Moloshok
Image:
James Murdoch with his wife Kathryn Hufschmid at the Oscars earlier this year. Pic: Reuters

Why did Murdoch change his mind?

The billionaire’s efforts to tweak the terms of the family trust come amid signs that he has increasingly favoured Lachlan as his chosen heir in recent years.

When Mr Murdoch revealed last year he was stepping down as chair of Fox and News Corp, it was announced that his eldest son would become the sole chair of News Corp – while also continuing as executive chair and chief executive of Fox.

The main reason, it is thought, is politics. Lachlan is seen as more similar and aligned with his father’s right-wing views, while James, Elisabeth and Prudence are seen as more moderate in their beliefs.

Indeed, the media mogul’s decision to give Lachlan “permanent, exclusive control” came amid worries over the “lack of consensus” among his children about the future of the Murdoch brands, according to court documents seen by The New York Times.

FILE - In this Jan. 29, 2009 file photo, Elisabeth Murdoch, daughter of Rupert Murdoch, takes part in a breakfast meeting about 'Digital Britain' at Downing Street in London. The latest twist in the family drama came Thursday, June 11, 2015, with news that James Murdoch, the 42-year-old second son, would take over as CEO of Twenty-First Century Fox Inc., leapfrogging 43-year-old first son Lachlan in the line of succession. "This cements the complete exclusion of Elisabeth from the gig, as well a
Image:
Elisabeth Murdoch, pictured in 2009. Pic: AP

Read more:
Rupert Murdoch: Success and controversy
End of era as 21st Century Fox exits Sky

James has been openly critical of Fox News – and recently endorsed Democrat Kamala Harris for president – while his sister Elisabeth has also “privately expressed discomfort about being associated with Fox News”, according to the Wall Street Journal.

The newspaper, which is owned by Mr Murdoch, also reported that “putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years”.

It quoted sources who said Mr Murdoch had been “dismayed that James and his wife seemed to be embarrassed by Fox yet were happy to enjoy the fruits of its financial success”, with the two not said to be on speaking terms.

Rupert Murdoch at his annual party at Spencer House, St James' Place in London. Picture date: Thursday June 22, 2023.
Image:
Mr Murdoch turned 93 earlier this year. Pic: PA


So what’s going to happen?

Despite the family rift, there is one thing the Murdochs involved agree on – they do not want their media rivals to feast on their fallout.

Consequently, the hearing to settle the dispute is being held in private – despite attempts from news agencies to grant public access – behind closed doors at the Washoe County Courthouse in Reno, Nevada, with probate commissioner Edmund J Gorman Jr due to rule on the case.

An earlier hearing concluded that Mr Murdoch could change the terms of the trust – if he could demonstrate he was acting in good faith, for the sole benefit of his heirs.

If the billionaire wins, News Corp and Fox are expected to continue along the same path after his death under Lachlan’s leadership, with, for example, Fox News continuing to loudly back the Republican Party in the US.

However, if the three siblings win, a battle over the future of the firms is likely to ensue. In theory, they could challenge the political leaning of Murdoch’s newspapers and channels, or even sell them off – as they could out-vote Lachlan on key decisions.

A third possibility is a compromise or some other kind of settlement being reached. Talks have reportedly been held in recent weeks over James and his sisters selling their stakes in the trust. However, these are said to have failed – possibly due to the potentially high sums involved.

FILE PHOTO: Media Mogul Rupert Murdoch (C) poses for a photograph with his sons Lachlan (L) and James as they arrive at St Bride's church for a service to celebrate the wedding between Murdoch and former supermodel Jerry Hall which took place on Friday, in London, Britain March 5, 2016. REUTERS/Peter Nicholls/File Photo
Image:
Rupert Murdoch with his sons Lachlan (left) and James (right) at his wedding to Jerry Hall in 2016. Pic: Reuters

The Murdochs involved have made no public statement on the case, with their spokespeople either declining to comment or not responding to requests.

It also comes amid uncertain times for the future of the news industry.

In an interview earlier this summer with Sky News Australia – which is separate from Sky News in the UK – Mr Murdoch predicted that printed newspapers will die out within 15 years due to changes in the ways people consume news.

If he is right, some of the tough questions facing his successors could be far bigger than just which party to back.

Continue Reading

Business

Visma owners close to picking banks for £16bn London float

Published

on

By

Visma owners close to picking banks for £16bn London float

The owners of Visma, one of Europe’s biggest software companies, are close to hiring bankers for a £16bn flotation that would rank among the London market’s biggest for years.

Sky News understands that Visma’s board and shareholders have convened a beauty parade of investment banks in the last fortnight ahead of an initial public offering (IPO) likely to take place in 2026.

Citi, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan and Morgan Stanley are understood to be among those in contention for the top roles on the deal, City insiders said on Friday.

Several banks are expected to be appointed as global coordinators on the IPO as soon as this month.

Visma is a Norwegian company which supplies accounting, payroll, HR and other business software to well over one million small business customers.

It has grown at a rapid rate in recent years, both organically and through scores of acquisitions, and has seen its profitability and valuation rise substantially during that period.

More from Money

The business is now valued at about €19bn (£16.4bn) and is partly owned by a number of sovereign wealth funds and other private equity firms.

The majority of the company is owned by Hg, the London-based private equity firm which has backed a string of spectacularly successful companies in the software industry.

Visma’s owners’ decision to pick the UK ahead of competition from Amsterdam represents a welcome boost to the City amid ongoing questions about the attractiveness of the London stock market to international companies.

Rachel Reeves, the chancellor, used last month’s speech at Mansion House to launch a taskforce aimed at generating additional IPO activity in the UK.

Spokespeople claiming to represent Visma at Kekst, a communications firm, did not respond to a series of enquiries about the IPO appointments.

Hg also failed to respond to a request for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Carlyle to seize control of online retailer Very Group from Barclay family

Published

on

By

Carlyle to seize control of online retailer Very Group from Barclay family

The American investment giant Carlyle is preparing to take control of Very Group, one of Britain’s biggest online retailers, in a deal that will end the Barclay family’s long tenure at another major UK company.

Sky News has learnt that Carlyle, which is the biggest lender to Very Group’s immediate parent company, could assume ownership of the retailer as soon as October under the terms of its financing arrangements.

On Friday, sources said that Carlyle was expected to hold further talks in the coming weeks with fellow creditors including IMI, the Abu Dhabi-based vehicle which assumed part of Very Group’s debts in a complex deal related to ownership of the Telegraph newspaper titles.

Carlyle will probably end up holding a majority stake in Very Group, which has about 4.5 million customers, once it exercises a ‘step-in right’ which effectively converts its debt into equity ownership, the sources said.

Very Group – which is chaired by the former Conservative chancellor Nadhim Zahawi – borrowed a further £600m from Arini, a Mayfair-based fund, earlier this year as it sought to stave off a cash crunch and buy itself breathing space.

Precise details of the company’s capital and ownership structure will be thrashed out before the change of control rights are triggered at the beginning of October.

The Barclay family drew up plans to hire bankers to run an auction of Very Group earlier this year, but a process was never formally launched.

More from Money

Carlyle, which declined to comment, may hold onto the business for a further period before looking to offload it.

IMI is also likely to end up with an equity stake or a preferred position in the recapitalised company’s debt structure, sources added.

Prospective bidders for Very Group were expected to be courted on the basis of its technology-driven financial services arm as well as the core retail offering which sells everything from electrical goods to fashion.

Retail industry insiders have long speculated that the business was likely to be valued in the region of £2.5bn – below the valuation which the Barclay family was holding out for in an auction which took place several years ago.

Very Group – previously known as Shop Direct – is one of the UK’s biggest online shopping businesses, owning the Very and Littlewoods brands and employing 3,700 people.

It boasts well over £2bn in annual sales, with about one-fifth of that generated by its Very Finance consumer lending arm.

Mr Zahawi was appointed as the company’s chairman last year, days after he announced that he was standing down as the MP for Stratford-on-Avon at July’s general election.

He replaced Aidan Barclay, a senior member of the family which has owned the business for decades.

In the 39 weeks to 29 March, Very Group reported a 3.8% fall in revenue to £1.67bn, which it said included “a decrease in Littlewoods revenue of 15.1%, reflecting the ongoing managed decline of this business”.

Nevertheless, it said sales in its home and sports categories were performing strongly.

IMI’s position is expected to be pivotal to the talks about the future of the business, given Abu Dhabi’s status as an important global backer of buyout, credit and infrastructure funds such as those raised and managed by Carlyle.

The UAE vehicle is expected to emerge from the protracted saga over the Telegraph’s ownership with a 15% stake in the newspapers.

Under the original deal struck in 2023, RedBird and IMI paid a total of £1.2bn to refinance the Barclay family’s debts to Lloyds Banking Group, with half tied to the media assets and the other half – solely funded by IMI – secured against other family assets including part of Very Group’s debt pile.

The Barclays, who used to own London’s Ritz hotel, have already lost control of other corporate assets including the Yodel parcel delivery service.

A spokesman for Very Group declined to comment, while IMI also declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves said this flagship policy would raise money – it may end up doing the opposite

Published

on

By

Why Rachel Reeves may want to rethink one of her pivotal policies

What do we do about the non-doms? 

It’s a question more than a handful of people have been asking themselves at the Treasury lately.

Politics Hub: Follow latest updates

It had seemed simple enough. In her first budget as chancellor, Rachel Reeves promised a crackdown on the non-dom regime, which for the past 200 years has allowed residents to declare they are permanently domiciled in another country for tax purposes.

Under the scheme, non-doms, some of the richest people in the country, were not taxed on their foreign incomes.

Then that all changed.

Standing at the despatch box in October last year, the chancellor said: “I have always said that if you make Britain your home, you should pay your tax here. So today, I can confirm we will abolish the non-dom tax regime and remove the outdated concept of domicile from the tax system from April 2025.”

The hope was that the move would raise £3.8bn for the public purse. However, there are signs that the non-doms are leaving in such great numbers that the policy could end up costing the UK investment, jobs and, of course, the tax that the non-doms already pay on their UK earnings.

If the numbers don’t add up, this tax-raising policy could morph into an act of self-harm.

Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters
Image:
Rachel Reeves has plenty to ponder ahead of her next budget. File pic: Reuters

With the budget already under strain, a poor calculation would be costly financially. The alternative, a U-turn, could be expensive for other reasons, eroding faith in a chancellor who has already been on a turbulent ride.

So, how worried should she be?

The data on the number of non-doms in the country is published with a considerable lag. So, it will be a while before we know the full impact of this policy.

However, there is much uncertainty about how this group will behave.

While the Office for Budget Responsibility forecast that the policy could generate £3.8bn for the government over the next five years, assuming between 12 and 25% of them leave, it admitted it lacked confidence in those numbers.

Worryingly for ministers, there are signs, especially in London, that the exodus could be greater.

Property sales

Analysis from the property company LonRes, shows there were 35.8% fewer transactions in May for properties in London’s most exclusive postcodes compared with a year earlier and 33.5% fewer than the pre-pandemic average.

Estate agents blame falling demand from non-dom buyers.

This comes as no surprise to Magda Wierzycka, a South African billionaire businesswoman, who runs an investment fund in London. She herself is threatening to leave the UK unless the government waters down its plans.

Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT
Image:
Magda Wierzycka, from Narwan nondom VT

“Non-doms are leaving, as we speak, and the problem with numbers is that the consequences will only become known in the next 12 to 18 months,” she said.

“But I have absolutely no doubt, based on people I know who have already left, that the consequences would be quite significant.

“It’s not just about the people who are leaving that everyone is focusing on. It’s also about the people who are not coming, people who would have come, set up businesses, created jobs, they’re not coming. They take one look at what has happened here, and they’re not coming.”

Lack of options for non-doms

But where will they go? Britain was unusual in offering such an attractive regime. Bar a few notable exceptions, such as Italy, most countries run residency-based tax systems, meaning people pay tax to the country in which they live.

This approach meant many non-doms escaped paying tax on their foreign income altogether because they didn’t live in those countries where they earned their foreign income.

In any case, widespread double taxation treaties mean people are generally not taxed twice, although they may have to pay the difference.

In one important sense, Magda is right. It could take a while before the consequences are fully known. There are few firm data points for us to draw conclusions from right now, but the past could be illustrative.

Read more on Sky News:
Reeves warned over tax rises
What is a wealth tax?

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Are taxes going to rise?

The non-dom regime has been through repeated reform. George Osborne changed the system back in 2017 to limit it to just 15 years. Then Jeremy Hunt announced the Tories would abolish the regime altogether in one of his final budgets.

Following the 2017 reforms there was an initial shock, but the numbers stabilised, falling just 5% after a few years. The data suggests there was an initial exodus of people who were probably considering leaving anyway, but those who remained – and then arrived – were intent on staying in the UK.

So, should the government look through the numbers and hold its nerve? Not necessarily.

Have Labour crossed a red line?

Stuart Adam, a senior economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said the response could be far greater this time because of some key changes under Labour.

The government will no longer allow non-doms to protect money held in trusts, so 40% inheritance tax will be due on their estates. For many, that is a red line.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

‘Rachel Reeves would hate what you just said’

Mr Adam said: “The 2017 reform deliberately built in what you might call a loophole, a way to avoid paying a lot more tax through the use of existing offshore trusts. That was a route deliberately left open to enable many people to avoid the tax.

“So it’s not then surprising that they didn’t up sticks and leave. Part of the reform that was announced last year was actually not having that kind of gap in the system to enable people to avoid the tax using trusts, and therefore you might expect to see a bigger response to the kind of reforms we’ve seen announced now, but it also means we don’t have very much idea about how big a response to expect.”

With the public finances under considerable pressure, that will offer little comfort to a chancellor who is operating on the finest of margins.

Continue Reading

Trending