Our regular correspondent, Marcus May, is keeping a watchful eye on the Murdoch family, the empire, and its media outlets. There is plenty going on.

On top of the previously reported troubles facing the Murdoch media empire - financial losses, defamation judgements, mis/disinformation exposed, shrinking audiences - we now see the public fracturing of Murdoch family solidarity, with Rupert, 93, and four of his children — Lachlan, James, Elizabeth and Prudence — travelling to Reno, Nevada, where a closed courtroom is left with the task of deciding the future of the media juggernaut and a multi-billion dollar family trust.

What’s this all about?

Well, in simple terms, it is Rupert and Lachlan against the rest of the Murdoch kids, in an effort to change the terms of a family trust to ensure that the eldest son, Lachlan, remains in charge of the company’s stack of newspapers and television networks, including the Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Murdoch’s other adult children – James, Elisabeth and Prudence – oppose the move to change the terms of an irrevocable family trust to give Lachlan full control.

The BBC reports:

While the three would still receive equal shares of profits, the changes would prevent them from exerting influence over how the companies are run in a move designed to retain the company’s conservative voice.

So why does Rupert want to ensure that only Lachlan controls the empire?

After decades of pitching his children against each other in various parts of the business, to see which one would be ruthless enough to succeed him (watch the 3-part Australian Story series on Lachlan currently running on ABC), Rupert has finally settled on Lachlan as the one most like himself. The other kids apparently aren’t enough of the “right stuff” for Rupert; my goodness James even believes in Climate Change!

The BBC reported that:

Mr Murdoch wanted to amend a family trust created in 1999 so that son Lachlan could take control without "interference" from his siblings Prudence, Elisabeth and James. The trust gives the family eight votes, which it can use to have a say on the board of News Corp and Fox News.
Mr Murdoch currently controls four of those votes, with his eldest children being in charge of one each.

The trust agreement said that once Mr Murdoch died, his votes would be passed on to his four eldest children equally.

However, differences in opinions and political views were said to lead to a family rift.

So, what is likely to happen?

Probably, after prolonged “argy-bargy”, there will be some negotiated settlement between the family members (read $$$), however it is possible that the empire will be broken up, with various pieces going to the different children. Interestingly there is also a sustained action by shareholders to challenge News Corp’s share structure and remove the Murdoch family control over the company.

Jonathon Barret of the Guardian reports:

[The Murdoch case] “proceedings prompted the US hedge fund Starboard Value to propose a resolution to eliminate News Corp’s dual class share structure, arguing that the political disagreement in the family ‘could be paralyzing to the strategic direction’ of News Corp, according to The New York Times.

Dual structures are commonly used by company founders to retain control of a business even when they have a minority shareholding, with Murdoch holding 40% of voting rights via a 14% shareholding.

Debby Blakey, the chief executive of the A$86bn Hesta superannuation fund, told Guardian Australia that ‘one share, one vote’ was fundamental to good corporate governance. The Australian Council of Superannuation Investors said it also supported a ‘one share, one vote’ capital structure.

‘Voting is a fundamental shareholder right and one of the key ways for shareholders to ensure accountability at listed companies,’ ACSI said.

Starboard’s bid to eliminate the dual structure, and with it the Murdochs’ control, would require the overwhelming support of the remaining shareholders to reach a majority.

In 2016, agitators including Hesta fell just short after delivering a 49.5% vote to eliminate the dual class system.”

Rodney Tiffen wrote in The Conversation:

Here are four predictions for how this may play out.

1. Rupert will lose the court case. His move is likely to be counterproductive in many ways. It has escalated conflicts in the family, and united the other three siblings against Lachlan. It will be used by shareholder groups as evidence of family dysfunction, and strengthen their case to abolish dual voting rights.
2. Either before Rupert dies or within a year or two afterwards, a majority of shareholders will abolish the dual voting structure. The family will then be reduced to about one-seventh of the total vote, and its power correspondingly reduced.
3. After Rupert’s demise, the Murdoch assets will be further fragmented and reduced. The real estate businesses will be floated, and several loss-makers, such as the New York Post, will be closed.
4. Within five years of Rupert’s death – depending what parts of the companies are invested in, sold off or closed - neither News Corp nor 21st Century Fox will have a chief executive named Murdoch.

Irrespective of the result of the trial, can The Australian survive for very long after Rupert dies? Rupert himself has given it a limited future in public interviews.
As Quentin Dempster posted on X:

Dynastic pretensions: Rupert Murdoch built his wealth by abusing Western civilisation’s foundational tenet: freedom of the press. Partisanship, intimidation, invasion of privacy for exploitable tittle tattle, climate denialism. Wake up to yourself Rupert... you silly old bugger.

How exciting!