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.
Ministers are to kick off the hunt for a new chair of the communications regulator as Lord Grade of Yarmouth prepares to bow out after a single term at the helm.
Sky News has learnt that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (DSIT) – which now leads oversight of Ofcom in Whitehall – is drawing up proposals to launch a recruitment process in the coming months.
Lord Grade, the veteran broadcast executive who held senior posts at the BBC, ITV and Channel 4, has served as Ofcom chair since May 2022.
His four-year term is not due to end for another 11 months, and there was no suggestion this weekend that he would leave the role ahead of that point.
Insiders said, however, that there was little prospect of him seeking to be reappointed for a second term in the job.
The now non-affiliated peer’s appointment to the post in 2022 came after a controversial recruitment process and was signed off by Nadine Dorries, the then Tory culture secretary.
Responsibility for Ofcom board appointments has switched since then from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport.
More from Money
Peter Kyle, the science secretary, authorised the recruitment of Tamara Ingram, an advertising industry stalwart, as Ofcom’s deputy chair, last November.
The search for a new Ofcom chair will come after a significant extension of its remit to encompass areas such as online harms.
Both DCMS, which has responsibility for the media industry, and the Department for Business and Trade also have substantial engagement with Ofcom.
As well as a role in appointing directors to the board of state-owned Channel 4, which is hunting both a chair and chief executive, Ofcom regulates companies such as Royal Mail, as well as the BBC.
This week, the watchdog said it was pursuing action against the formerly publicly owned postal services company over its failure to hit statutory delivery targets.
Ofcom also regulates the UK telecoms industry, making it one of the largest economic regulators in Britain.
Mr Kyle said this week that Ofcom should also prepare to be given regulatory oversight of the fast-growing data centre industry.
One of the tasks of Lord Grade’s successor is likely to be long-term executive leadership succession planning.
Dame Melanie Dawes, Ofcom’s chief executive, has held the role since 2020, although there is no indication that she intends to step down in the short term.
It was unclear this weekend whether any of Ofcom’s existing board members might seek to take over from Lord Grade.
Its slate of non-executive directors includes recently appointed Lord Allan of Hallam, a former MP, and Ben Verwaayen, the former BT Group chief executive.
Mr Verwaayen is due to step down from the Ofcom board at the end of the year.
The hunt for Ofcom’s next chair will come amid a push led by Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves to shake up Britain’s economic regulators as they seek ways to remove red tape from the private sector.
DSIT has been contacted for comment, while Ofcom declined to comment.
Glastonbury ticket holders have been left thousands of pounds out of pocket after a luxury glamping company went bust.
Festival-goers who booked their tickets and accommodation with Yurtel have been told the company can no longer fulfil its orders and has ceased trading with immediate effect.
Some had spent more than £16,500 through Yurtel, with hospitality packages starting at £10,000.
In an email, Yurtel said it was unable to provide customers with any refunds, advising them to go through a third party to claim back the money once the liquidation process had started.
To add insult to injury, customers found out that Yurtel had failed to purchase the tickets for the 25 -29 June festival that they thought had been booked as part of their packages.
In a letter to customers, Yurtel’s founder Mickey Luke said: “I am deeply sorry that you have received this devastating news and am writing to apologise.
More on Glastonbury
Related Topics:
“Yurtel is a hospitality business who pride themselves on looking after our customers, delivering a unique product and striving to create a better client experience year on year. Due to a culmination of factors over the past years, we have failed to be able to continue to do so and are heartbroken.”
The Money blog has contacted Yurtel to see if the business has anything to add.
Several people have also reported that they were unable to pay by credit card at the time of booking, with the company instead asking for a bank transfer.
This means they are unable to use chargeback to get a refund. You can read more about that here…
Image: Pic: PA
‘I feel really ripped off’
One of those customers was Lydia, who told Money she was “absolutely gutted” after spending thousands.
This year’s festival was “really important” to her as she was forced to miss out last year despite having tickets due to a health issue that left her needing an operation.
“We tried to get Glastonbury tickets through the normal kind of route and couldn’t get them,” the accountant said.
She ended up booking with Yurtel in November, sending over all the funds a month later.
“It’s super expensive. It was really, really important to us. Last year was gutting with the surgery and the whole situation around that was very traumatic, so it was a very special thing to then get the opportunity to go this year. It’s really gutting,” she said.
“I feel really ripped off and I’m really disappointed in the festival, to be honest. I think that response is just pretty rubbish.”
Yurtel did not pay for festival tickets, Glastonbury says
Glastonbury said Yurtel was one of a small number of campsites local to the festival site – Worthy Farm – with limited access to purchase hospitality tickets for their guests in certain circumstances.
But, it had not paid for any tickets for the 2025 festival before going into liquidation, and so no tickets were secured for its guests, it added. Every year, Glastonbury’s website says that ticketing firm See Tickets is the only official source for buying tickets for the festival.
“As such we have no records of their bookings and are unable to take any responsibility for the services and the facilities they offer,” the festival said.
“Anyone who has paid Yurtel for a package including Glastonbury 2025 tickets will need to pursue any potential recompense available from them via the liquidation process as outlined in their communication to you.
“We are not able to incur the cost or responsibility of their loss or replacement.”
Instead, the festival has urged Yurtel customers to contact Yurtel@btguk.com to confirm their consent for personal data and details of their party to be shared with Glastonbury.
“We will then be able to provide details of alternative potential sources for those customers to purchase tickets and accommodation for this year’s festival,” the festival added.
‘Only option’ on offer is ‘pretty weak’
Lydia said she agreed for her details to be passed on to Glastonbury, and the festival has told her the only option is to pay for the tickets again from another provider.
“They are not giving us the opportunity to buy the tickets at face value. We would then have to go again and spend another stupidly unreasonable amount of money to be able to go. It’s pretty disappointing,” she added.
“It’s pretty weak that the only option they’re giving people who’ve already lost out on huge amounts of money is to go and spend huge amounts more money.”
It’s left her feeling like she won’t go to the festival this year – and she’s not hopeful about getting her money back.
She said: “To be honest, I just don’t think I can afford it.
“It’s already so much money wasted, and I’m not at all optimistic we’ll get anything back.”
A federal appeals court has ruled that Donald Trump’s sweeping international tariffs can remain in place for now, a day after three judges ruled the president exceeded his authority.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has allowed the president to temporarily continue collecting tariffsunder emergency legislation while it considers the government’s appeal.
It comes after the Court of International Trade blocked the additional taxes on foreign-made goods after its three-judge panel ruled that the Constitution gives Congress the power to levy taxes and tariffs – not the president.
The judges also ruled Mr Trump exceeded his authority by invoking the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.
The CAFC said the lower trade court and the Trump administration must respond by 5 June and 9 June, respectively.
Trump calls trade court ‘backroom hustlers’
Posting on Truth Social, Mr Trump said the trade court’s ruling was a “horrible, Country threatening decision,” and said he hopes the Supreme Court would reverse it “QUICKLY and DECISIVELY”.
After calling into question the appointment of the three judges, and suggesting the ruling was based on “purely a hatred of ‘TRUMP’,” he added: “Backroom ‘hustlers’ must not be allowed to destroy our Nation!
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:14
Trump asked about ‘taco trade’
“The horrific decision stated that I would have to get the approval of Congress for these Tariffs. In other words, hundreds of politicians would sit around D.C. for weeks, and even months, trying to come to a conclusion as to what to charge other Countries that are treating us unfairly.
“If allowed to stand, this would completely destroy Presidential Power — The Presidency would never be the same!”
Mr Trump argued he invoked the decades-old law to collect international tariffs because it was a “national emergency”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:16
From April: ‘This is Liberation Day’
Tariffs ‘direct threat’ to business – Schwab
The trade court ruling marked the latest legal challenge to the tariffs, and related to a case brought on behalf of five small businesses that import goods from other countries.
Jeffrey Schwab, senior counsel for the Liberty Justice Center – a nonprofit representing the five firms – said the appeal court would ultimately agree that the tariffs posed “a direct threat to the very survival of these businesses”.
US treasury secretary Scott Bessent also told Fox News on Thursday that the initial ruling had not interfered with trade deal negotiations with partners.
He said that countries “are coming to us in good faith” and “we’ve seen no change in their attitude in the past 48 hours,” before saying he would meet with a Japanese delegation in Washington on Friday.