Behind the closed doors of a courthouse in Reno, Nevada, today, a family battle like no other will commence. At stake is one of the world's most influential media businesses, a $34 billion (£26 million) empire with the power to influence elections around the world.
Rupert Murdoch, 93, and his eldest son Lachlan, 53, will line up against three of his other children: Prudence, 66, Elisabeth, 56, and James, 51, for control over the family business. Forget firebrand writers, provocative broadcasters or meddling editors. The most important figure in western media over the coming weeks will be the probate judge charged with adjudicating on this dispute.
While Succession, the award-winning HBO television drama inspired in part by the Murdoch family's prolonged wranglings over what happens when Rupert dies, finished last May, the real-life version rumbles on, more fraught than ever.
The issue being contested is the trust that sets out who will control the family business when Rupert dies. The "irrevocable family trust" was created as part of Rupert's 1999 settlement from his second wife, Anna, the mother of Elisabeth, Lachlan and James. (Prudence's mother was Rupert's first wife, Patricia Booker.)
Rather than claim half her ex's assets, Anna asked for a mere $200 million, plus this trust, which stated that the four older children would have equal control of the business when he died.
Although the family only owns around a 14 per cent economic stake, they own around 40 per cent of the voting shares in News Corp and Fox Corp, Murdoch's two main businesses. When Rupert had two more daughters, Chloe and Grace, with his third wife, Wendi Deng, the trustees voted to make them beneficiaries without voting rights.
The trust was designed to be "unbreakable", established in such a way that nobody, particularly Rupert, could have second thoughts and tinker with it further down the line.
Yet that is exactly what he is trying to do. Murdoch is said to want to change the agreement to favour Lachlan over the other three. Lachlan is Chairman of News Corp and Chairman and CEO of Fox, having apparently won the battle for his father's endorsement in September 2023. Lachlan had been the heir apparent when he was younger, but left Fox News in 2005 after falling out with the founder, Roger Ailes. For a while it looked as though James or Elisabeth might be the more likely heir, but in recent years they have left or been marginalised, while Lachlan has returned to the centre of things.
"What is sought by the father's reps is to deactivate the voting rights of three in favour of Lachlan to preserve the empire the father built," says Alice Enders, co-founder of Enders Analysis, a media consultancy. "Whether the change is considered consistent with the interests of the three is the crucial question."
The political positions of the four children have evolved since the late 1990s, and so has the political and media landscape in which they must operate. Since the rise of Donald Trump, for whom Fox News was an enthusiastic cheerleader, the other children, who are more Left-wing than Lachlan, have increasingly been at odds with the editorial line of the businesses.
James had once been tipped for the top job, but was forced to resign from his role at BSkyB over the phone hacking scandal in 2012. James left the board of News Corp in 2020 over "disagreements in editorial content". After the Capitol riots of 2021, he criticised news outlets "that propagate lies," widely perceived as a dig at Fox News. Earlier this month, James endorsed Kamala Harris for president. James and Lachlan have reportedly not spoken for years.
Meanwhile Elisabeth, a successful TV executive in her own right, had also been widely mentioned as a possible successor, but also did not share the politics of Fox News, although she has reportedly tried to maintain a position as the "Switzerland" of the family, helping to maintain relations. Prudence, the eldest child, has never expressed the same ambition as her siblings, but is thought to side with Elisabeth and James in a pinch.
Rupert will argue that, given the political considerations, it is in his children's best interests that his companies remain profitable, which means keeping the most politically aligned child, Lachlan, at the helm. Were the four children to maintain equal voting rights, it is possible that James, Elisabeth and Prudence might outvote Lachlan after Rupert's death.
A change in the Fox News' political stance would hurt its share price, he might argue, which would not be in the best interests of the beneficiaries of the trust. Not that any of the children need to worry about their next meal. When he sold 21st Century Fox to Disney in 2019, for a reported $71bn, each child received a reported $2 billion.
"This is a pie in the sky claim from Lachlan, who is trying to do anything possible, almost in a Trumpian sense, to avoid the inevitable," says Michael Wolff, the journalist and author of The Fall: The End of the Murdoch Empire. "He will lose his job when his father dies. He has got his father to go along with it, but this is more Lachlan's idea than Rupert."
One "wrinkle", Wolff concedes, is what Chloe and Grace think. Although they do not have voting rights, the trust has a fiduciary duty to them.
"This is clearly Lachlan's last chance," he adds. "It is not ineffective to pile so much litigation on something that everybody gives up. I don't think James will give up, but it is possible that Elizabeth and Prudence say 'f*** this, this is not what our lives are going to be about'."
Rupert and Lachlan reportedly sprung his plan - said to be named Project Harmony - on the other siblings by surprise, to their fury. "It is ironic that Rupert has managed to get James, Elisabeth and Prudence together, as before the case they didn't share much common ground," says one long-time News Corp executive. "The case might not have made it into Succession because it may have been too unbelievable, but this family rewrites the rules with every rift and twist. Rupert keeps the family together, but once he has gone the siblings are likely to devolve into all out war."
Alice Enders agrees that the case is about more than just numbers. "I think the fact that the other two siblings are involved on the other two siblings are involved on the side of James tells you it's not just about numbers, but about a principle," she says. "It's not just James versus Lachlan, it's the lack of respect Rupert has extended to all three of his children. I believe this is the first time the siblings have gone to court in relation to each other, so it is quite a precedent from that perspective."
Whatever happens, investors and analysts will be watching the proceedings closely. Last week, The New York Times reported that Starboard Value, an activist hedge fund, was pushing to end the Murdochs' control of the businesses.
Wrangling over trusts is nothing new for the Murdochs, according to Walter Marsh, author of Young Rupert, a biography of Rupert's early life. Nor are court cases. As Marsh says, third parties have been worrying about what might happen in the event of Rupert's death for as long as he has been in business.
"From News Limited's 1960 'poison pen' seditious libel trial in Adelaide, South Australia, to this latest legal drama, every few years the Murdoch family is dragged through court proceedings that shed a crack of light into the inner workings of the family and the company," he says. "And the question of succession has been a recurring theme even before most of Rupert's children were born; in May 1958, while a 27-year-old Rupert was lobbying for his first commercial television licence, rival lawyers tried to sow doubt about the future of the family's holdings 'in the event of his death'. ('There might be half a dozen children by then, too," Murdoch's lawyer replied, in what was then a far-off hypothetical).
"These episodes are also some of the rare occasions where Rupert himself can be forced to explain his actions in his own words, which as we've seen from the Leveson Inquiry to the Dominion trial can offer flashes of insight - or masterclasses in obfuscation."
Whatever the strategy this time, the details may remain hidden from public view. Despite appeals to make the hearing public, at the time of writing the case remains top-secret, or "super-sealed", with the parties identified only as "Does", as in John and Jane Doe. ONJ, a non-profit organisation that records court cases, argued that the case had a unique public interest and should be made public.
"The trust matter in question directly involves Rupert Murdoch, who is undeniably a prominent public figure, and concerns the future leadership and control of News Corp, a major global media conglomerate," they wrote in a filing. "These circumstances elevate the case to one of substantial public interest and importance."
Rupert Murdoch was approached for comment. Many neutrals will be hoping the court accedes to a request to film the hearing. If Succession proved anything, it is that the inner workings of the Murdoch empire make for cracking television.