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

EY partner in talks to become boss of new football regulator

Published

on

By

EY partner in talks to become boss of new football regulator

An expert in financial regulation at one of the big four accountancy firms is in talks to become the inaugural boss of English football’s powerful new watchdog.

Sky News has learnt that Richard Monks, a partner at EY, is the leading contender to become chief executive of the Independent Football Regulator (IFR).

The new body will be formally established once the Football Governance Bill receives Royal Assent, which is expected this month.

Mr Monks spent 18 years at the Financial Conduct Authority and its predecessor regulator, the Financial Services Authority, before becoming chair of the G20/OECD Taskforce for Consumer Financial Protection, according to his LinkedIn profile.

He became a partner at EY, where he focuses on financial regulation, in the autumn of 2022.

The prospective choice of a chief executive of the IFR with no professional experience of the football industry may spark alarm among club executives who will face an onerous new regulatory regime overseen by the IFR.

In recent weeks, football industry executives have circulated rumours that the IFR boss was likely to emerge from the professional services sector.

More from Money

It was unclear this weekend whether other candidates were vying with Mr Monks for the post.

The IFR has already been set up on a ‘shadow’ basis, with Martyn Henderson, former chief executive of the Sports Grounds Safety Authority, appointed in December 2023 as interim chief operating officer of the football watchdog.

The EY partner is understood to have held talks with David Kogan, the government’s preferred choice for the watchdog’s chairmanship but whose formal appointment has been delayed by an investigation sparked by his previous donations to Labour politicians.

William Shawcross, the commissioner for public appointments, is investigating the process through which Mr Kogan was recruited to the role, and is thought likely to produce his report in the coming weeks.

Lisa Nandy, the culture secretary, told MPs last month that she was delegating the final decision on Mr Kogan’s appointment to the sports minister.

Stuart Andrew, the shadow culture minister, said at the time: “The public has a right to know whether this was a fair and impartial process, or yet another case of political patronage disguised as due diligence.

“The decision to launch an inquiry is welcome [and] must include scrutiny of [Sir] Keir Starmer, his advisers, and whether any conflicts of interest were properly declared.”

If Mr Kogan’s appointment is ratified, the appointment of a chief executive would be a crucial step in paving the way for the most radical reforms to the supervision of English football in decades.

The legislation includes a new licensing regime for clubs, measures to ensure greater fan engagement and a backstop power allowing the IFR to impose a financial settlement on the Premier League in relation to distributions to English Football League clubs.

Revisions to the Bill have seen a requirement for the IFR to take decisions about club takeovers in the context of the government’s foreign and trade policy removed.

If Mr Monks does land the IFR chief executive’s post, ministers are likely to argue that his expertise as a regulator will balance Mr Kogan’s decades of experience as a negotiator of sports media rights deals.

Last year, Mr Kogan acted as the lead negotiator for the Women’s Super League and Championship on their latest five-year broadcasting deals with Sky – the immediate parent company of Sky News – and the BBC.

His current roles include advising the chief executives of CNN, the American broadcast news network, and The New York Times Company on talks with digital platforms about the growing influence of artificial intelligence on their industries.

The creation of the IFR was pledged by the last Conservative government in the wake of the furore over the failed European Super League project in 2021.

Its establishment comes with the top tier of the professional game gripped by civil war, with Abu Dhabi-owned Manchester City at the centre of a number of legal cases with the Premier League over the club’s financial affairs.

The Premier League has also been keen to agree a long-delayed financial redistribution deal with the EFL before the regulator is formally launched.

Tentative talks between representatives of both factions failed to produce meaningful progress, however.

This weekend, EY declined to comment on Mr Monks’s behalf, while the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been approached for comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Ofwat could be scrapped in water reforms

Published

on

By

Ofwat could be scrapped in water reforms

An independent review of the water industry is to recommend sweeping changes to the way the sector is managed, including the potential replacement of Ofwat with a strengthened body combining economic and environmental regulation.

Former Bank of England governor Sir Jon Cunliffe will publish the findings of the Independent Water Commission on Monday, with stakeholders across the industry expecting significant changes to regulation to be at its heart.

The existing regulator Ofwat has been under fire from all sides in recent years amid rising public anger at levels of pollution and the financial management of water companies.

Read more:
Serious water pollution incidents in England up 60% last year

Why has there been a surge in water pollution?

Campaigners and politicians have accused Ofwat of failing to hold water operators to account, while the companies complain that its focus on keeping bills down has prevented appropriate investment in infrastructure.

In an interim report, published in June, Sir Jon identified the presence of multiple regulators with overlapping responsibilities as a key issue facing the industry.

While Ofwat is the economic regulator, the Environment Agency has responsibility for setting pollution standards, alongside the Drinking Water Inspectorate.

More on Environment

Sir Jon’s final report is expected to include a recommendation that the government consider a new regulator that combines Ofwat’s economic regulatory powers with the water-facing responsibilities currently managed by the EA.

In his interim report, Sir Jon said options for reform ranged from “rationalising” existing regulation to “fundamental, structural options for integrating regulatory remits and functions”.

He is understood to have discussed the implications of fundamental reform with senior figures in industry and government in the last week as he finalised his report.

Environment Secretary Steve Reed is expected to launch a consultation on the proposals following publication of the commission report.

The commission is also expected to recommend a “major shift” in the model of economic regulation, which currently relies on econometric modelling, to a supervisory approach that takes more account of individual company circumstances.

Read more from Sky News:
Police taking no further action over Kneecap’s Glastonbury show
New fee for Britons travelling to EU will cost more than expected

How water can teach Labour a much-needed lesson


Liz Bates

Liz Bates

Political correspondent

@wizbates

On Monday, the government’s long-awaited review into the UK’s water industry will finally report.

The expectation is that it will recommend sweeping changes – including the abolition of the regulator, Ofwat.

But frustrated customers of the water companies could rightly complain that the process of taking on this failing sector and its regulator has been slow and ineffective.

They may be forgiven for going further and suggesting that how Labour has dealt with water is symbolic of their inability to make an impact across many areas of public life, leaving many of their voters disappointed.

This is an industry that has been visibly and rapidly declining for decades, with the illegal sewage dumping and rotting pipes in stark contrast with the vast salaries and bonuses paid out to their executives.

It doesn’t take a review to see what’s gone wrong. Most informed members of the public could explain what has happened in a matter of minutes.

And yet, despite 14 years in opposition with plenty of time to put together a radical plan, a review is exactly what the government decided on before taking on Ofwat.

Month after month, they were asked if they believed the water industry regulator was fit for purpose despite the obvious disintegration on their watch. Every time the answer was ‘yes’.

As in so many areas of government, Labour, instead of acting, needed someone else to make the decision for them, meaning that it has taken over a year to come to the simple conclusion that the regulator is in fact, not fit for purpose.

As they enter their second year in office, maybe this can provide a lesson they desperately need to learn if they want to turn around their fortunes.

That bold decisions do not require months of review, endless consultations, or outside experts to endlessly analyse the problem.

They just need to get on with it. Voters will thank them.

Sir Jon has said the water industry requires long-term strategic planning and stability in order to make it attractive to “low-risk, low-return investors”.

The water industry has long complained that the current model, in which companies are benchmarked against a notional model operator, and penalised for failing to hit financial and environmental standards, risks a “doom loop”.

Thames Water, currently battling to complete an equity process to avoid falling into special administration, has said the imposition of huge fines for failing to meet pollution standards is one of the reasons it is in financial distress.

Publication of the Independent Commission report comes after the Environment Agency published figures showing that serious pollution incidents increased by 60% in 2024, and as Thames Water imposes a hosepipe ban on 15m customers.

Ofwat, Water UK and the Department for the Environment all declined to comment.

Continue Reading

Business

Post Office Capture IT system conviction referred to Court of Appeal for first time

Published

on

By

Post Office Capture IT system conviction referred to Court of Appeal for first time

The first Post Office Capture conviction is to be sent to the Court of Appeal, Sky News understands, in a “breakthrough” moment in the IT scandal.

The Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) has decided to refer the case of sub-postmistress Patricia Owen, who was convicted in 1998 of theft.

Mrs Owen was found guilty by a jury based on evidence from the faulty IT software Capture, which was used in 2,500 branches between 1992 and 1999, before the Horizon Post Office scandal.

Pat Owen and husband David
Screengrabs from Adele Robinson i/vs with case study. Family of Pat Owen from Kent who was convicted of 1998 from stealing from her post office branch. Now the Capture IT system is suspected of adding errors to the accounts. 
Source P 175500FR POST OFFICE CAPTURE CASES ROBINSON 0600 VT V2 JJ1
Image:
Pat Owen, pictured here with her husband David, always maintained her innocence but died in 2003 with a criminal record

Pat Owen always maintained her innocence but died in 2003 with a criminal record before the wider Post Office scandal came to light.

It comes after Sky News revealed that a damning report into Capture, which could help overturn criminal convictions, had been unearthed after nearly 30 years.

The decision to refer the first-ever Capture case to the Court of Appeal has been made on the grounds that Mrs Owen’s prosecution was an “abuse of process”.

The development has been described by victims’ lawyer Neil Hudgell as “hugely pivotal”.

“The Court of Appeal don’t receive that many referrals that start at the CCRC, and most get turned away, so it’s a very high bar to even get cases from the CCRC to the Court of Appeal…”

“I think it will be a real shot in the arm to all the other Capture victims who are waiting for their cases to be determined by the CCRC.”

Mr Hudgell described the report found earlier this year – written by computer experts in 1998 and highly critical of Capture – as “significantly tipping the balance”.

Screengrabs from Adele Robinson i/v with lawyer for victims of the Capture IT system, Neil Hudgell from Hudgell Solicitors
Source P 175500FR POST OFFICE CAPTURE CASES ROBINSON 0600 VT V2 JJ1
Image:
Lawyer Neil Hudgell says development is ‘hugely pivotal’

Sky News found that the Post Office knew about the report at the time and continued to prosecute sub-postmasters based on Capture evidence.

Pat Owen always maintained her innocence but died in 2003 with a criminal record before the wider Post Office scandal came to light.

Her daughter Juliet Shardlow said she cried when she heard the news that her mother’s case would be referred to the Court of Appeal.

“I feel angry that she is not here because she died before her time… we will be there – we will be sitting there in that front row.

“I can’t put it into words because it’s still all a shock that we are where we are and that later this year, or next year, we might have what we set out to get… justice for her.”

Juliet Shardlow whose mother sub-postmistress Patricia Owen who was convicted in 1998 of theft
Image:
Juliet Shardlow is seeking justice for her mother

Read more from Sky News:
Child dies after coach crashes on way back from school trip
Woman handed criminal conviction despite ‘unlawful’ strip search by police

The CCRC is currently investigating 30 cases potentially related to the Capture software system.

Twenty-seven of those cases are now assigned to case review managers and under “active review”, with a further three cases in the preparatory stages.

The CCRC has described a “challenge” over determining “whether cases involved the use of Capture at the time of the alleged offences”.

In a letter written to Liam Byrne, chair of the Business and Trade Committee, and seen by Sky News, it said that information the Post Office has provided “does not, in most cases, show whether it was installed and in operation at the time of the alleged offending”.

It also mentioned that the Post Office is reviewing “a significant amount of data which may contain further information”.

A Post Office spokesperson said: “While it is not appropriate for us to comment on specific cases, we have been very concerned about the reported problems relating to the use of the Capture software, and we are sincerely sorry for past failings that have caused suffering to postmasters.

“We are determined that past wrongs are put right and continue to support the government’s work in this area as well as fully co-operate with the Criminal Cases Review Commission.”

Continue Reading

Trending