Currently, the trust passes control of the company equally among Mr Murdoch’s four oldest children – Lachlan, James, Elisabeth and Prudence – after his death.
But Nevada commissioner Edmund Gorman rejected a bid to change the terms of the trust following a lengthy hearing.
Lachlan is head of Fox News parent Fox Corp and News Corp, which owns UK titles including The Sun and The Times.
Mr Murdoch’s proposed amendment would have blocked any interference by three of Lachlan’s siblings, who are more politically moderate.
Get set for more family infighting
This is a storyline which could be straight out of the TV drama Succession, which many already suspected was heavily based on the Murdoch family.
Rupert Murdoch, who is now 93, had been engaged in a lengthy court battle to try to hand over control of his media empire to his eldest son Lachlan when he dies.
Lachlan, who is more politically conservative than his siblings, would in theory consolidate the right-wing stance of some parts of Murdoch’s media empire – especially Fox News.
Today a document obtained by the New York Times revealed the commissioner in the case has whole-heartedly rejected the plan to change his trust, calling it a “bad faith” deal from Murdoch and his eldest son.
By bringing this case, Rupert Murdoch has made patently and painfully clear which of his children he favours.
There is some fascinating detail of art imitating life as the court heard how Mr Murdoch’s children had started secretly discussing a strategy for their father’s death.
They were prompted by an episode of Succession where media tycoon Logan Roy dies, throwing his family and empire into chaos.
The reality is that there will no doubt be more family infighting, as Rupert Murdoch’s lawyers say he is likely to appeal the judgment.
Mr Gorman said the plan to change the trust was a “carefully crafted charade”, according to The New York Times which first revealed details of the ruling.
More on Rupert Murdoch
Related Topics:
The newspaper also described that, in the commissioner’s opinion, it was an attempt to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” inside the empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the family trust.
Image: Rupert Murdoch (centre) poses with his sons Lachlan (left) and James (right) in 2016. Pic: Reuters
Potentially, three of the heirs could out-vote a fourth, setting up a battle over the future of the companies.
“The effort was an attempt to stack the deck in Lachlan Murdoch’s favor after Rupert Murdoch’s passing so that his succession would be immutable”, the commissioner ruled.
“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.”
A spokesman for Mr Murdoch could not immediately be reached for comment.
But his lawyer, Adam Streisand, said they were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal, The New York Times reported.
A spokesperson for Prudence, Elisabeth and James Murdoch said in an emailed statement to The Associated Press that they welcome the ruling and hope that their family can “move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
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.
Tesla’s board has signed off a $29bn (£21.8bn) share award to Elon Musk after a court blocked an earlier package worth almost double that sum.
The new award, which amounts to 96 million new shares, is not just about keeping the electric vehicle (EV) firm’s founder in the driving seat as chief executive.
The new stock will also bolster his voting power from a current level of 13%.
He and other shareholders have long argued that boosting his interest in the company is key to maintaining his focus after a foray into the trappings of political power at Donald Trump‘s side – a relationship that has now turned sour.
Musk is angry at the president’s tax cut and spending plans, known as the big beautiful bill. Tesla has also suffered a sales backlash as a result of Musk’s past association with Mr Trump and role in cutting federal government spending.
Image: Tesla’s Elon Musk is seen on stage during an event in Shanghai Pic: Reuters
The company is currently focused on the roll out of a new cheaper model in a bid to boost flagging sales and challenge steep competition, particularly from China.
More on Donald Trump
Related Topics:
The headwinds have been made stronger as the Trump administration has cut support for EVs, with Musk admitting last month that it could lead to a “few rough quarters” for the company.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:31
Could Trump cost Tesla billions?
Tesla is currently running trials of its self-driving software and revenues are not set to reflect the anticipated rollout until late next year.
Musk had been in line for a share award worth over $50bn back in 2018 – the biggest compensation package ever seen globally.
But the board’s decision was voided by a judge in Delaware following a protracted legal fight. There is still a continuing appeal process.
Earlier this year, Tesla said its board had formed a special committee to consider some compensation matters involving Musk, without disclosing details.
The special committee said in the filing on Monday: “While we recognize Elon’s business ventures, interests and other potential demands on his time and attention are extensive and wide-ranging… we are confident that this award will incentivize Elon to remain at Tesla”.
It added that if the Delaware courts fully reinstate the 2018 “performance award”, the new interim grant would either be forfeited or offset to ensure no “double dip”.
The new compensation package is subject to shareholder approval.
Banks will still most likely have to fork out over discretionary commissions – a type of commission for dealers that was linked to how high an interest rate they could get from customers.
The FCA, which banned the practice in 2021, is currently consulting on a redress scheme but the final bill is unlikely to exceed £18bn. Overall, the result has been better than expected for the banks.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:12
Car finance ruling explained
Lloyds, which owns the country’s largest car finance provider Black Horse, had set aside £1.2bn to cover compensation payouts.
Following the judgment, the bank said it “currently believes that if there is any change to the provision, it is unlikely to be material in the context of the group”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
0:58
‘Don’t use a claims management firm’
The judgment released some of the anxiety that has been weighing over the Bank’s share price.
Jonathan Pierce, banking analyst at Jefferies, said the FCA’s prediction was “consistent with our estimates, and most importantly, we think it largely de-risks Lloyds’ shares from the ‘motor issue'”.
Bank stocks have responded robustly to each twist and turn in this tale, sinking after the Court of Appeal turned against them and jumping (as much as 8% in the case of Close Brothers) when the Supreme Court allowed the appeal hearing.
Concerns about this volatility motivated the Supreme Court to deliver its judgment late in the afternoon so that traders would have time to absorb the news.
Thousands of motorists who bought cars on finance before 2021 could be set for payouts as the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) has said it will consult on a compensation scheme.
In a statement released on Sunday, the FCA said its review of the past use of motor finance “has shown that many firms were not complying with the law or our disclosure rules that were in force when they sold loans to consumers”.
“Where consumers have lost out, they should be appropriately compensated in an orderly, consistent and efficient way,” the statement continued.
The FCA said it estimates the cost of any scheme, including compensation and administrative costs, to be no lower than £9bn – adding that a total cost of £13.5bn is “more plausible”.
It is unclear how many people could be eligible for a pay-out. The authority estimates most individuals will probably receive less than £950 in compensation.
The consultation will be published by early October and any scheme will be finalised in time for people to start receiving compensation next year.
What motorists should do next
The FCA says you may be affected if you bought a car under a finance scheme, including hire purchase agreements, before 28 January 2021.
Anyone who has already complained does not need to do anything.
The authority added: “Consumers concerned that they were not told about commission, and who think they may have paid too much for the finance, should complain now.”
Its website advises drivers to complain to their finance provider first.
If you’re unhappy with the response, you can then contact the Financial Ombudsman.
The FCA has said any compensation scheme will be easy to participate in, without drivers needing to use a claims management company or law firm.
It has warned motorists that doing so could end up costing you 30% of any compensation in fees.
The announcement comes after the Supreme Court ruled on a separate, but similar, case on Friday.
The court overturned a ruling that would have meant millions of motorists could have been due compensation over “secret” commission payments made to car dealers as part of finance arrangements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:34
Car finance scandal explained
The FCA’s case concerns discretionary commission arrangements (DCAs) – a practice banned in 2021.
Under these arrangements, brokers and dealers increased the amount of interest they earned without telling buyers and received more commission for it. This is said to have then incentivised sellers to maximise interest rates.
In light of the Supreme Court’s judgment, any compensation scheme could also cover non-discretionary commission arrangements, the FCA has said. These arrangements are ones where the buyer’s interest rate did not impact the dealer’s commission.
This is because part of the court’s ruling “makes clear that non-disclosure of other facts relating to the commission can make the relationship [between a salesperson and buyer] unfair,” it said.
It was previously estimated that about 40% of car finance deals included DCAs while 99% involved a commission payment to a broker.
Nikhil Rathi, chief executive of the FCA, said: “It is clear that some firms have broken the law and our rules. It’s fair for their customers to be compensated.
“We also want to ensure that the market, relied on by millions each year, can continue to work well and consumers can get a fair deal.”