When Rupert Murdoch, the 93-year-old media mogul, quietly decided last year to upend the irrevocable family trust that governs who will control his sprawling global media empire after his death, the move ignited an intense feud among his children.
But the secret family affair now playing out inside an obscure Reno, Nevada, courtroom like a page ripped from the scripted fireworks of the HBO show “Succession,” won’t be seen on television, or even in the written press.
At the center of the battle is the billionaire patriarch’s stunning decision to petition a court late last year to amend the family trust that would have given equal voting shares upon his death to Murdoch’s eldest four children — Lachlan, James, Elisabeth, and Prudence. Instead, Murdoch is seeking to grant exclusive control to Lachlan, his eldest son and chosen successor.
Lachlan, who is more aligned with his father’s conservative political views than his siblings, took over as chairman of Fox Corporation and News Corporation last September when his father stepped down. Citing court documents, which CNN has not independently seen, the New York Times reported that Murdoch felt that handing Lachlan control of the media businesses he founded would better protect their value after his death by maintaining a right-wing editorial bent.
Now, the courtroom struggle will determine who ultimately commands Murdoch’s sprawling right-wing media empire, including its highly profitable crown jewel Fox News, opening the possibility that the mogul’s powerful and influential outlets could see their political slant moderated should Lachlan’s siblings gain control. Last week, the younger James Murdoch, who resigned from News Corp. in 2020, signed a public letter endorsing Kamala Harris for president, calling her election “the best way to support the continued strength, security, and reliability of our democracy and economy.”
Spokespersons representing Rupert, Lachlan, James and Elisabeth Murdoch either declined to comment or did not respond to CNN requests for comment for this story. Prudence, Murdoch’s oldest child, could not be reached.
While Murdoch and his children feud amongst themselves over a global media empire that also includes The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, and television and print outlets in Australia and the UK, the family is united on one thing: keeping the family fight as secret as possible.
The very existence of the case was only revealed in a New York Times report published in July, citing sealed court documents.
While the Murdochs have little, if any, connection to the state of Nevada, the family battle is taking place behind closed doors in a Washoe County courtroom. The Silver State offers one of the most private court settings for issues like family trust decisions, allowing parties and judges to lock the cases behind closed doors to such an extreme degree that their very existence is not even publicized on court dockets.
“Nevada made itself competitive in the trust market by allowing this extensive level of secrecy,” said Alex Falconi, founder of Our Nevada Judges, a nonprofit watchdog site that tracks judges’ decisions and publishes videos of court proceedings.
Falconi has been at the forefront of legal cases aiming to open up sealed court proceedings in the state, alongside the American Civil Liberties Union. Falconi told CNN that Nevada’s extreme measures to seal cases can make for strange due process issues.
“If we don’t know what your basis to seal is, how do we know where to file if the entire docket number is sealed? How do we know who to serve if we don’t know the attorney’s names?” he said.
In recent days, the Second Judicial District Court in Nevada recognized the immense media and public interest in the Murdoch case and eventually posted a general docket information page for what it described as “The Matter of the Doe 1 Trust, PR23-00813.”Falconi said he was shocked by the move to provide a public schedule, but nearly everything else related to the case remains sealed.
A media coalition representing seven national news organizations, including CNN, The New York Times, National Public Radio and others, filed a petition last week to unseal the proceedings, arguing that the intense secrecy is unconstitutional and a decision in the case could reverberate across the political landscape.
“Nevada’s courts are accountable to the public, and the public is entitled to know whether the trust at issue is being administered in accordance with the law,” the media coalition said in a filing. “Certainly, an entire matter cannot be sealed such that its very existence is not a public record, even if all parties to the litigation agree. Rather, the court must apply the presumption of access and make specific findings to underpin any sealing.”
Falconi had also petitioned the court to allow cameras in the courtroom, following victories in other cases, but his request was denied. He is now appealing the decision.
Last year, Falconi successfully petitioned the Nevada Supreme Court, which ruled that the public has a constitutional right to access Family Court cases. But attorneys for the Murdochs contend that doesn’t apply to their trust case, which they say “are deeply rooted in equity and were historically treated as private matters.”
Falconi said it’s possible that that the judge will reject the petitions for transparency, a decision which itself may be sealed.
Attorneys for at least one Murdoch family member, identified in court filings only as “Doe,” argued in response to the media petition that unsealing the court proceedings would give the news outlets “confidential information into the innerworkings of their competitors.” They argued that the public must not be given access to the hearings over safety concerns, noting that Rupert Murdoch “requires around-the-clock security.”
“It is ironic that the establishment media—including the Proposed Intervenors—who have painted Fox and News, and those perceived to control them, as dangers to American democracy and enemies to be stopped now question why sealing is justified based on threats to the Murdoch Family’s safety,” attorneys for one of the family members wrote in a court filing.
While the court is scheduled to hold evidentiary hearings next week, a decision from the court on media access could come at any time.
If a judge does agree to unseal the case, it could have major ripple effects for Nevada family courts. But not everyone wants these cases to be unsealed. Some have argued that sealing family court cases helps protect the privacy of vulnerable people. Falconi and others who support open courts have argued that cases can be closed on an individual basis, or specific aspects of a case can be sealed or redacted.
Falconi is not working with the media coalition, but said he hopes the national media attention on the Murdoch case will tangentially help his mission.
“When all of you guys with your mainstream media articles come out, it is helping a lot, because (the courts are) starting to realize that this is not normal,” Falconi said. “They’re starting to realize that we’re weird, and it’ll make them want to fix it.”
Read the full article here
