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.
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.
Advertisement
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.
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.
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 chairof 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.
Image: Elisabeth Murdoch, pictured in 2009. Pic: AP
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.
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.
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.
Nvidia has signalled no drop in demand for its flagship chips among big artificial intelligence (AI) spenders despite the low-cost challenge posed by Chinese rival DeepSeek.
The leading AI chipmaker said it expected Blackwell sales to continue to grow after its latest earnings beat market expectations.
Nvidia forecast revenue of around $43bn (£34bn) for its first quarter after achieving a figure of $39.3bn (£31bn) over its last three months – up 12% from the previous quarter and 78% from one year ago.
Just a month ago, its shares took a hammering when it emerged DeepSeek‘s primary chatbot, which uses lower-cost chips, had become the most popular free application on Apple’s App Store across the US.
Nvidia’s shares lost almost $600bn in market value in a day.
It also prompted investors to question whether the AI-led stock market rally of recent years was overblown.
There was anxiety ahead of Nvidia’s earnings report though shares only fell fractionally in after-hours dealing.
More from Money
Market analysts suggested demand from Microsoft, Amazon and other heavyweight tech companies racing to build AI infrastructure remained robust, given Nvidia’s revenue guidance even though the bulk of it is accounted for through data centres.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
Nvidia founder Jensen Huang said Nvidia has ramped up the massive-scale production of Blackwell and achieved “billions of dollars in sales in its first quarter”.
“Demand for Blackwell is amazing as reasoning AI adds another scaling law – increasing compute for training makes models smarter and increasing compute for long thinking makes the answer smarter.
“AI is advancing at light speed as agentic AI and physical AI set the stage for the next wave of AI to revolutionise the largest industries,” he said.
Derren Nathan, head of equity research at Hargreaves Lansdown, said of the report: “The longer-term investment case for the driver of the AI train is looking difficult to pick holes in, with Meta’s $200bn just one of the latest mega investments in data centres to be unveiled recently.
“By virtue of scale, growth may be slowing a little but upgrades to analysts full-year numbers can be expected off the back of today’s results. At a around 30x forward earnings, the valuation still doesn’t look overcooked.”
How much have America, Britain and the rest paid Ukraine in aid since the Russian invasion? And do they have any hope of getting money back in return?
These are big questions, and they’re likely to dominate much of the discussion in the coming months as Donald Trump pressurises his Ukrainian counterparts for a deal on ending the war. So let’s go through some of the answers.
First off, the question of who has given the most money to Ukraine rather depends on what you’re counting.
If you’re looking solely at the amount of military support extended since 2022, the US has provided €64bn, compared with €62bn from European nations (including the UK).
But now include other types of support, such as humanitarian and financial assistance, and European support exceeds American (€132bn in total, compared with €114bn from the US).
Divide Europe into its constituent nations, on the other hand, and none of them individually comes anywhere close to the US quantity of aid.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
That being said, simple cash numbers aren’t an especially good measure of a country’s ability to pay.
Look at US support as a percentage of gross domestic product and it comes to 0.5% of GDP. That’s almost precisely the same as the aid from the UK.
Looked at through this prism, it’s other countries which are clearly the most generous: Denmark, Estonia and much of the Baltics providing around 2% of their GDP – a far bigger amount versus their ability to finance it.
Still, compare the aid this time around with previous amounts spent in other conflicts and they are nowhere close.
Lend-Lease during WWII, aid during the Vietnam and Korean Wars, and even the first Gulf War, involved significantly bigger outlays than currently being spent on Ukraine.
That goes not just for the US but also for the UK, Germany and Japan, all of which provided more aid to the Kuwaitis and other affected nations during the first Gulf War.
Even so, it’s clear that the US and others have put significant resources towards Ukraine.
President Trump has been talking recently about recouping $500bn from Ukraine in the form of revenues from mining rare earth metals.
This is, on the face of it, slightly odd. Rare earth metals represent an obscure corner of the periodic table and play a small if important role in electronics and military manufacturing.
The entire market is small – making it essentially implausible that, even if Ukraine suddenly produced the majority of the world’s supply, the president could expect that amount of revenue back in return.
More to the point, while there are a couple of rare earth deposits in Ukraine, they have languished, unexploited, for years. They are so expensive to mine no-one has worked out how to extract the elements and make a profit at the same time.
And even if you presumed they could do, Ukraine would still be a relative minnow in global rare earths production.
Assuming, as one probably should, that Donald Trump didn’t just mean rare earths, but was talking more broadly about “critical minerals” (the two are different things, but let’s not get too pedantic here), there are also one or two other promising mine sites in the country.
There is an old, shuttered alumina plant seized from Russian oligarch Oleg Deripaska. There is a large lithium resource which could, if all went well, be the single biggest lithium mine in Europe.
Yet even taking this into account, Ukraine would still be a relatively small player in global lithium. Not nothing – but not world changing either. Certainly not enough to generate the hundreds of billions of dollars Mr Trump is seeking.
Then again, Ukraine has other resources at its disposal too: vast seams of coal in the Donbas, large iron ore reserves in the south of the country.
Both of these are in or close to Russian occupied areas – which might, from the Ukrainians’ perspective, actually be the point. Old fashioned as this stuff is, it does actually generate significant revenue. It might be Donald Trump’s best hope for some payback.
The number of convictions linked to a second Post Office IT scandal being investigated for miscarriages of justice – has more than doubled, Sky News has learned.
Twenty-one Capture cases have now been submitted to the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) for review.
They relate to the Capture computing software, which was used in Post Office branches in the 1990s before the infamous faulty Horizon system was introduced.
Hundreds of sub-postmasters were wrongly accused of stealing after Horizon software caused false shortfalls in branch accounts between 1999 and 2015.
A report last year found that there was a reasonable likelihood that the Capture accounting system, used from the early 1990s until 1999, was also responsible for shortfalls.
If the CCRC finds significant new evidence or legal arguments not previously heard before, cases can be referred back to the Court of Appeal.
More on Post Office Scandal
Related Topics:
Lawyer for victims, Neil Hudgell from Hudgell Solicitors, says the next steps for the Capture cases and the CCRC are still “some months away”.
He said he is also hopeful that the first cases could be referred to the Court of Appeal before the end of this year.
Image: Lawyer Neil Hudgell described victims of the Capture IT system as ‘hideously damaged people’
“Certainly we will certainly be lobbying,” he said. “The CCRC will be lobbying, the advisory board will be lobbying any interested parties, that these are hideously damaged people of advancing years who need some peace of mind and the quicker that can happen the better.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:23
In December the government said it would offer ‘redress’ to Post Office Capture software victims
‘We didn’t talk about it’
Among those submitted to the CCRC – Pat Owen’s Capture case was the first.
Her family have kept her 1998 conviction for stealing from her post office branch a secret for 26 years.
Image: Juliet Shardlow shows Sky News paperwork which could explain discrepancies logged by Capture
Speaking to Sky News they have opened up for the first time about what happened to her.
Pat was a former sub-postmistress, who was found guilty and given a two-year suspended sentence.
She died in 2003 from heart failure.
Image: David Owen and his wife Pat in happier times
Her daughters describe her as coming home from court after her conviction “a different woman”.
“We didn’t talk about it,” said Juliet Shardlow. “We didn’t talk about it amongst ourselves as a family, we didn’t talk about it with the extended family.
“Our extended family don’t know.”
Image: Juliet Shardlow said her mum Pat was a different person after her conviction
David Owen, Pat’s husband, said she lost a lot of weight after her conviction and at 62 years old “looked like an old gal of 90”.
Capture evidence never heard in court
Pat’s family kept all the documents from her case safe for over two decades and now a key piece of evidence may turn the tide on her conviction, and potentially help others.
A document summarising the findings of an IT expert described the computer Pat used as having “a faulty motherboard”.
It also stated that this “would have produced calculation errors and may have been responsible for the discrepancies subsequently identified by Post Office Counters’ Security and Investigation team.”