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

Ofwat to be swept away on tide of public anger over sewage spills

Published

on

By

Ofwat to be swept away on tide of public anger over sewage spills

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review of the water sector is comprehensive, clear-eyed, and about as radical as allowed by terms of reference that explicitly ruled out renationalisation of England’s private water and sewage companies.

With that key demand of many campaigners off the table, the former Bank of England deputy governor has focused on more effective regulation and securing a better deal for consumers and the investors without whom the industry will sink.

Sir Jon Cunliffe, Deputy Governor for financial stability at the Bank of England , during the Bank of England Monetary Policy Report Press Conference, at the Bank of England, London. Picture date: Wednesday July 12, 2023.
Image:
Author of the report Sir Jon Cunliffe, former deputy governor at the Bank of England. Pic: PA

So Ofwat, the embattled current regulator, is to be swept away on the tide of public anger at sewage outflows and shareholder dividends, and the disgruntlement of all its stakeholders.

Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Sewage in UK rivers a ‘disgrace’

Having succeeded in its primary aim of keeping consumer bills down, it is now a victim of the consequences: a shortage of investment in infrastructure and a failure to apply similar rigour to shareholder dividends and executive pay.

While campaigners and customers say it has failed to hold companies to account, the companies complain they are too tightly controlled to attract investment.

Ofwat privately points out it can only apply the powers and political direction it is given – but the new government, going with the flow of angry voters, will not hesitate to pull the chain.

More on Sewage

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Why sewage outflows are discharging into rivers

The new regulator that follows will have control over environmental as well as economic standards, which has to be better than the current division between three different bodies, and may help define targets and priorities for the industry, like cutting sewage outflows in half by 2030.

But to deliver those targets, water companies need to be both sustainable and financially attractive.

Like it or not, that means paying a return to investors, a fact that Sir Jon, a veteran of the financial crisis, does not attempt to hide.

Read more from Sky News:
Police search for missing woman last seen at petrol station
One of UK’s busiest train stations issues ‘do not travel’ warning

So while there will be tougher powers to vet and even block potential company owners, he wants to create a low-risk, low-return environment for investors who currently see better returns elsewhere without any of the political and public heat that comes with water.

Continue Reading

Business

Compulsory water meters and regulator abolished – key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry

Published

on

By

'Broken' water industry set to be overhauled - nine key recommendations from landmark report

The system for regulating water companies in England and Wales should be overhauled and replaced with one single body in England and another in Wales, a once-in-a-generation review of the sector has advised.

The report, which includes 88 recommendations, suggests a new single integrated regulator to replace existing water watchdogs, mandatory water metering, and a social tariff for vulnerable customers.

The ability to block companies being taken over and the creation of eight new regional water authorities, with another for all of Wales to deliver local priorities, has also been suggested.

Follow latest: ‘This is our Great Stink moment’, water report author says

The review, the largest into the water industry since privatisation in the 1980s, was undertaken by Sir Jon Cunliffe, a career civil servant and former deputy governor of the Bank of England who oversaw the biggest clean-up of Britain’s banking system in the wake of the financial crash.

The government confirmed at a news conference on Monday that Ofwat will be abolished as part of an overhaul of a “broken” water regulation system.

Environmentalist Feargal Sharkey told Sky News, “we were promised champagne, what we got was a glass of sour milk”.

File pic: iStock
Image:
File pic: iStock

Sir Jon was coaxed out of retirement by Environment Secretary Steve Reed to lead the Independent Water Commission.

Final recommendations of the commission have been published on Monday morning to clean up the sector and improve public confidence, as bills rise 36% over the next five years. Here are its nine key recommendations:

• Single integrated water regulators – a single water regulator in England and a single water regulator in Wales. In England, this would replace Ofwat, the Drinking Water Inspectorate and water-environment related functions from the Environment Agency and Natural England. In Wales, Ofwat’s economic responsibilities would be integrated into Natural Resources Wales.

It’s hoped this will solve the “fragmented and overlapping” regulation, and more stable regulation will improve investor confidence. Communications regulator Ofcom was given as an example of how combining five existing regulators into one worked.

• Eight new regional water system planning authorities in England and one national authority in Wales to be responsible for water investment plans reflecting local priorities and streamlining the planning processes.

The new authorities would be independent, made up of representatives from local councils, public health officials, environmental advocates, agricultural voices and consumers. The aim is they could direct funding and ensure accountability from all sectors impacting water.

• Greater consumer protection – this includes upgrading the consumer body Consumer Council for Water, into an Ombudsman for Water to give stronger protection to customers and a clearer route to resolving complaints. Advocacy duties are to be transferred to Citizens Advice.

• Stronger environmental regulation, including compulsory water meters. Also proposed by Sir Jon are changes to wholesale tariffs for industrial users and greater water reuse and rainwater harvesting schemes. A new long-term, legally binding target for the water environment was suggested.

• Oversight of companies via the ability to block changes in ownership of water businesses when they are not seen to be prioritising the long-term interests of the company and its customers, and the addition of “public benefit” clauses in water company licences.

To boost company financial resilience, as the UK’s biggest provider, Thames Water struggles to remain in private ownership, the commission has recommended minimum financial requirements, like banks are subject to. This could mean utilities hold a certain amount of cash. It’s hoped this will, in turn, make companies more appealing to potential investors.

• The public health element of water has been recognised, and senior public health representation has been recommended for regional water planning authorities, as have new laws to address pollutants like forever chemicals and microplastics.

• Fundamental reset of economic regulation – including changes to ensure companies are investing in and maintaining assets to help attract long-term, low-risk investment. A “supervisory” approach has been recommended to intervene before things like pollution occur, rather than penalising the businesses after the event.

• Clear strategic direction – a long-term, 25-year national water strategy should be published by the UK and Welsh governments, with ministerial priorities given to water firms every five years.

• Infrastructure and asset health reforms – companies should also be required to map and assess their assets and resilience.

Nationalisation of the water industry was not in the Independent Water Commission’s terms of reference and so was not considered.

Sir Jon said the report has “tried to attack the problem from all sides”.

He warned that bills are going to rise by 30% over the next five years.

“There are some inescapable facts here,” he said.

“The cost of producing water and dealing with our wastewater is going up.”

How has the report been received?

In a speech responding to Sir Jon’s report, Mr Reed said he was abolishing Ofwat.

The water industry lobby group Water UK said “fundamental change has been long overdue”.

“These recommendations should establish the foundations to secure our water supplies, support economic growth and end sewage entering our rivers and seas,” a spokesperson said.

“The Independent Water Commission has written a comprehensive, detailed review of the whole sector, with many wide-ranging and ambitious recommendations.

“Crucially, it is now up to government to decide which recommendations it will adopt, and in what way, but the commission’s work marks a significant step forward.”

Ofwat to be swept away on tide of public anger


Paul Kelso

Paul Kelso

Business and economics correspondent

@pkelso

Sir Jon Cunliffe’s review of the water sector is comprehensive, clear-eyed, and about as radical as allowed by terms of reference that explicitly ruled out renationalisation of England’s private water and sewage companies.

With that key demand of many campaigners off the table, the former Bank of England governor has focused on more effective regulation and securing a better deal for consumers and the investors without whom the industry will sink.

So Ofwat, the embattled current regulator, is to be swept away on the tide of public anger at sewage outflows and shareholder dividends, and the disgruntlement of all its stakeholders.

Having succeeded in its primary aim of keeping consumer bills down, it is now a victim of the consequences: a shortage of investment in infrastructure and a failure to apply similar rigour to shareholder dividends and executive pay.

While campaigners and customers say it has failed to hold companies to account, the companies complain they are too tightly controlled to attract investment.

Ofwat privately points out it can only apply the powers and political direction it is given – but the new government, going with the flow of angry voters, will not hesitate to pull the chain.

Read more here

Campaign group Surfers Against Sewage said the report “utterly fails to prioritise public benefit over private profit”.

“This is not transformational reform, this is putting lipstick on a pig - and you can bet the champagne is flowing in water company boardrooms across the land,” said its chief executive, Giles Bristow.

“Only one path forward remains: a full, systemic transformation that ends the ruthless pursuit of profit and puts the public good at the heart of our water services,” he said.

“We welcome Sir Jon’s calls for a national strategy, enshrining public health objectives in law and regional water planning. But we won’t be taken for fools - abolishing Ofwat and replacing it with a shinier regulator won’t stop sewage dumping or profiteering if the finance and ownership structures stay the same.”

Environmentalist Feargal Sharkey told Sky News, “we were promised champagne, what we got was a glass of sour milk”.

The regulator Ofwat said, it will now work with the government and the other regulators to form the new regulatory body in England, and “to contribute to discussions on the options for Wales set out in the report”.

“In advance of the creation of the new body, we will continue to work hard within our powers to protect customers and the environment and to discharge our responsibilities under the current regulatory framework. We will also work collaboratively with all our stakeholders to ensure a smooth transition.”

Continue Reading

Business

BT in talks to dial up successor to veteran finance chief

Published

on

By

BT in talks to dial up successor to veteran finance chief

BT Group is scouring for a new finance chief to succeed the veteran executive who joined the FTSE-100 telecoms company nearly a decade ago.

Sky News has learnt that Simon Lowth, who joined from BG Group in 2016, is preparing to step down in the next 12 months.

Industry sources said that Allison Kirkby, who became BT’s chief executive last year, had begun meeting candidates to succeed Mr Lowth.

An appointment could come later this year, they added.

Money blog: Funeral director on why she speaks to dead people

The identities of the contenders to replace Mr Lowth were unclear on Monday.

Mr Lowth’s retirement will come with Deutsche Telekom and the Indian billionaire Sunil Bharti Mittal collectively holding more than a third of BT’s shares.

Their respective intentions towards their stakes may help shape the company’s medium-term future, with Openreach – BT’s infrastructure arm – accelerating its rollout of full-fibre broadband across the UK.

BT said: “As part of its business-as-usual activity, the BT board undertakes regular succession planning to ensure it is preparing appropriately for the future.”

Read more from Sky News:
Key recommendations from landmark report into ‘broken’ water industry
Lakeland-owner Hilco eyes swoop for stricken jeweller Claire’s
EY partner in talks to become boss of new football regulator

The company declined to comment on details of the process to identify Mr Lowth’s successor.

On Monday morning, shares in BT were trading at about 198.7p, giving it a market value of about £20bn.

Continue Reading

Trending