ADVERTISEMENT

Real Life Succession

twenty02

Hall of Famer
Jan 28, 2011
22,450
27,735
113
For those of that watched Succession on HBO.... Amazing how closely the show is tied to real life in the Murdoch family.

From Matt Levine's blog today:

Rupert Murdoch’s family trust owns about 14% of the stock of News Corp., but News Corp. has dual-class stock, and Murdoch owns about 41% of the voting stock. There is a similar dual-class structure at Fox Corp., where Murdoch controls about 43% of the vote. This is controversial — we talked the other day about an activist News Corp. shareholder trying to get rid of the dual-class stock — but not uncommon. Particularly in the media business, there’s a sense that the founding family ought to have control over the company, insulated from the pressures of the market. The “dual-class capital structure promotes stability and has facilitated the successful implementation of News Corp’s transformational strategy,” says News Corp.

When Murdoch dies, his six children will each inherit a portion of the economic ownership of that stock. Right now four of those children stand to inherit equal voting rights over the trust, and they seem to be at odds with each other about the company’s business strategy and journalistic standards. This arguably undermines the purpose of the super-voting stock: You might want one person to have control of the company, insulated from conflicting pressures, to “promote stability.” Murdoch might want the economic ownership (of his 14% ownership stake) to be divided among his children, but he might want the voting control (of his 41% voting stake) to be concentrated in one of them.


And so the solution is dual-class stock on top of dual-class stock: Give one Murdoch child (Lachlan) super-voting control over the trust that has super-voting control over News Corp. and Fox Corp.:
Rupert Murdoch, 93 years old, is seeking to amend his trust—which holds big stakes in Fox News owner Fox Corp. and Wall Street Journal parent News Corp—to ensure that when he dies Lachlan will control the family holdings spanning cable news, sports media, streaming, newspapers, book publishing and real estate. James Murdoch is resisting the change, and these days he has Elisabeth and Prudence on his side.​
A trial to settle the dispute is set to begin Monday in a probate court in Nevada, where the trust is based. It will be closed to the public unless pending legal challenges to open up the proceedings are successful.​
The Murdoch trust exercises considerable influence over Fox and News Corp, with roughly 40% voting stakes in each company. Rupert now controls it, but when he dies, each of his four oldest children will have an equal voting share, people familiar with the matter said.​
For Rupert Murdoch, putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years, associates of the mogul said. If he prevails, Lachlan would have the same sweeping authority his father has enjoyed for years, and other shareholders would largely have to accept whatever his plans are for the companies. …​
Under the proposed changes, Lachlan would eventually gain control when Rupert’s votes go away. James, Elisabeth and Prudence would still remain financial beneficiaries, alongside two younger siblings from Rupert Murdoch’s marriage to Wendi Deng, Grace and Chloe.​
 
Last edited:
For those of that watched Succession on HBO.... Amazing how much the closely the show is tied to real life in the Murdoch family.

From Matt Levine's blog today:

Rupert Murdoch’s family trust owns about 14% of the stock of News Corp., but News Corp. has dual-class stock, and Murdoch owns about 41% of the voting stock. There is a similar dual-class structure at Fox Corp., where Murdoch controls about 43% of the vote. This is controversial — we talked the other day about an activist News Corp. shareholder trying to get rid of the dual-class stock — but not uncommon. Particularly in the media business, there’s a sense that the founding family ought to have control over the company, insulated from the pressures of the market. The “dual-class capital structure promotes stability and has facilitated the successful implementation of News Corp’s transformational strategy,” says News Corp.

When Murdoch dies, his six children will each inherit a portion of the economic ownership of that stock. Right now four of those children stand to inherit equal voting rights over the trust, and they seem to be at odds with each other about the company’s business strategy and journalistic standards. This arguably undermines the purpose of the super-voting stock: You might want one person to have control of the company, insulated from conflicting pressures, to “promote stability.” Murdoch might want the economic ownership (of his 14% ownership stake) to be divided among his children, but he might want the voting control (of his 41% voting stake) to be concentrated in one of them.


And so the solution is dual-class stock on top of dual-class stock: Give one Murdoch child (Lachlan) super-voting control over the trust that has super-voting control over News Corp. and Fox Corp.:
Rupert Murdoch, 93 years old, is seeking to amend his trust—which holds big stakes in Fox News owner Fox Corp. and Wall Street Journal parent News Corp—to ensure that when he dies Lachlan will control the family holdings spanning cable news, sports media, streaming, newspapers, book publishing and real estate. James Murdoch is resisting the change, and these days he has Elisabeth and Prudence on his side.​
A trial to settle the dispute is set to begin Monday in a probate court in Nevada, where the trust is based. It will be closed to the public unless pending legal challenges to open up the proceedings are successful.​
The Murdoch trust exercises considerable influence over Fox and News Corp, with roughly 40% voting stakes in each company. Rupert now controls it, but when he dies, each of his four oldest children will have an equal voting share, people familiar with the matter said.​
For Rupert Murdoch, putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years, associates of the mogul said. If he prevails, Lachlan would have the same sweeping authority his father has enjoyed for years, and other shareholders would largely have to accept whatever his plans are for the companies. …​
Under the proposed changes, Lachlan would eventually gain control when Rupert’s votes go away. James, Elisabeth and Prudence would still remain financial beneficiaries, alongside two younger siblings from Rupert Murdoch’s marriage to Wendi Deng, Grace and Chloe.​
Amending an irrevocable trust only has one guaranteed outcome: lots of lawyers make a ton of money.
 
Amending an irrevocable trust only has one guaranteed outcome: lots of lawyers make a ton of money.

Just as if was written in Succession... The irrevocable trust for the kids was the result of his divorce proceedings with their mom 25 years ago where she wanted to ensure they each got an equal share of the company. Lawyers gonna have a field day.
 
Just as if was written in Succession... The irrevocable trust for the kids was the result of his divorce proceedings with their mom 25 years ago where she wanted to ensure they each got an equal share of the company. Lawyers gonna have a field day.
It's not even fair to make people think they can do these things. It's make-work for attorneys. It's like hiring a lawyer for your DUI when a computer could do it. Just ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rockport Zebra
For those of that watched Succession on HBO.... Amazing how closely the show is tied to real life in the Murdoch family.

From Matt Levine's blog today:

Rupert Murdoch’s family trust owns about 14% of the stock of News Corp., but News Corp. has dual-class stock, and Murdoch owns about 41% of the voting stock. There is a similar dual-class structure at Fox Corp., where Murdoch controls about 43% of the vote. This is controversial — we talked the other day about an activist News Corp. shareholder trying to get rid of the dual-class stock — but not uncommon. Particularly in the media business, there’s a sense that the founding family ought to have control over the company, insulated from the pressures of the market. The “dual-class capital structure promotes stability and has facilitated the successful implementation of News Corp’s transformational strategy,” says News Corp.

When Murdoch dies, his six children will each inherit a portion of the economic ownership of that stock. Right now four of those children stand to inherit equal voting rights over the trust, and they seem to be at odds with each other about the company’s business strategy and journalistic standards. This arguably undermines the purpose of the super-voting stock: You might want one person to have control of the company, insulated from conflicting pressures, to “promote stability.” Murdoch might want the economic ownership (of his 14% ownership stake) to be divided among his children, but he might want the voting control (of his 41% voting stake) to be concentrated in one of them.


And so the solution is dual-class stock on top of dual-class stock: Give one Murdoch child (Lachlan) super-voting control over the trust that has super-voting control over News Corp. and Fox Corp.:
Rupert Murdoch, 93 years old, is seeking to amend his trust—which holds big stakes in Fox News owner Fox Corp. and Wall Street Journal parent News Corp—to ensure that when he dies Lachlan will control the family holdings spanning cable news, sports media, streaming, newspapers, book publishing and real estate. James Murdoch is resisting the change, and these days he has Elisabeth and Prudence on his side.​
A trial to settle the dispute is set to begin Monday in a probate court in Nevada, where the trust is based. It will be closed to the public unless pending legal challenges to open up the proceedings are successful.​
The Murdoch trust exercises considerable influence over Fox and News Corp, with roughly 40% voting stakes in each company. Rupert now controls it, but when he dies, each of his four oldest children will have an equal voting share, people familiar with the matter said.​
For Rupert Murdoch, putting more power in Lachlan’s hands is meant to ensure stability at the businesses and avoid a confusing ownership structure in coming years, associates of the mogul said. If he prevails, Lachlan would have the same sweeping authority his father has enjoyed for years, and other shareholders would largely have to accept whatever his plans are for the companies. …​
Under the proposed changes, Lachlan would eventually gain control when Rupert’s votes go away. James, Elisabeth and Prudence would still remain financial beneficiaries, alongside two younger siblings from Rupert Murdoch’s marriage to Wendi Deng, Grace and Chloe.​

So a big part of the siblings’ contention is over the political nature and leaning of the programming? The short version of my perception is that Lachlan favors keeping the conservative bent that Rupert has crafted…and the other siblings want to abandon that. And Rupert is siding with Lachlan.

If that’s the case, then I have to wonder how well they all grasp the emerging media landscape. This would’ve been far more interesting and meaningful 25 or 30 years ago.

But the distribution of information has already changed radically and is continuing to do so. The business models upon which News Corp/Fox have long resided are fast becoming obsolete.

This has nothing to do with ideological slant, though. Fox News and the WSJ are just as vulnerable on this shift as CNN and the NYT are.

They are in the process of being displaced. And this is probably one of the reasons that Disney and Skydance are rumored to be eyeing ways to exit or at least reduce their interest in their TV news businesses.

People are getting more and more of their info on social media. That’s the reason Musk’s purchase of Twitter was such a nuclear bomb in the news/info world -- especially considering that he was quite open than it wasn’t about making money but was instead about affecting the flow and exchange of information.
 
I’ve seen a few clients regret ever signing an irrevocable trust.
Did you mean to say it’s rare that people regret establishing irrevocable trusts…or that it’s not all that uncommon?

The inclusion of the word “a” in front of “few” has confused me.

Anyway, I was mostly joking.
 
Did you mean to say it’s rare that people regret establishing irrevocable trusts…or that it’s not all that uncommon?

The inclusion of the word “a” in front of “few” has confused me.

Anyway, I was mostly joking.
I’ve seen older folks be talked into irrevocable trusts by their kids and attorneys out of fear of the nursing home getting their money instead of the kids.

I’ve seen wealthy clients do them and then regret it. People don’t believe irrevocable means just that. Lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: twenty02
I’ve seen older folks be talked into irrevocable trusts by their kids and attorneys out of fear of the nursing home getting their money instead of the kids.

I’ve seen wealthy clients do them and then regret it. People don’t believe irrevocable means just that. Lol.

I mean the name should be a pretty dead giveaway.
 
So a big part of the siblings’ contention is over the political nature and leaning of the programming? The short version of my perception is that Lachlan favors keeping the conservative bent that Rupert has crafted…and the other siblings want to abandon that. And Rupert is siding with Lachlan.

If that’s the case, then I have to wonder how well they all grasp the emerging media landscape. This would’ve been far more interesting and meaningful 25 or 30 years ago.

But the distribution of information has already changed radically and is continuing to do so. The business models upon which News Corp/Fox have long resided are fast becoming obsolete.

This has nothing to do with ideological slant, though. Fox News and the WSJ are just as vulnerable on this shift as CNN and the NYT are.

They are in the process of being displaced. And this is probably one of the reasons that Disney and Skydance are rumored to be eyeing ways to exit or at least reduce their interest in their TV news businesses.

People are getting more and more of their info on social media. That’s the reason Musk’s purchase of Twitter was such a nuclear bomb in the news/info world -- especially considering that he was quite open than it wasn’t about making money but was instead about affecting the flow and exchange of information.

Maybe some of that. But also I'm sure it's more about not redoing a deal that now gives one of the siblings so much more power/control than the rest of them.

News Corp is obviously a lot bigger than just Fox News.
 
Maybe some of that. But also I'm sure it's more about not redoing a deal that now gives one of the siblings so much more power/control than the rest of them.

News Corp is obviously a lot bigger than just Fox News.
I realize that. But the ideological aspect of the contretemps has been reported, or at least speculated about in reports.


IMG-1738.jpg

That said, I can totally believe that it’s being inflated by others reporting on it. It’s also been reported that James wants to sell off news assets - which is interesting, considering what I was talking about above.

Ideological bents aside, I just don’t think there’s going to be a lot of money made in traditional news outlets in coming decades. They’re being steamrolled by social media as people’s primary sources of news and information.
 
Amending an irrevocable trust only has one guaranteed outcome: lots of lawyers make a ton of money.

I don't know much about estate law, but am a little confused by this:

The Murdoch trust exercises considerable influence over Fox and News Corp, with roughly 40% voting stakes in each company. Rupert now controls it, but when he dies, each of his four oldest children will have an equal voting share, people familiar with the matter said.

How does Rupert control this when it's in an irrevocable trust? Does this just mean he basically controls the trustee and hence the trustee's decision making? My naive thought is that you lose all control of decisions regarding assets that have been put into an irrevocable trust.
 
I realize that. But the ideological aspect of the contretemps has been reported, or at least speculated about in reports.


IMG-1738.jpg

That said, I can totally believe that it’s being inflated by others reporting on it. It’s also been reported that James wants to sell off news assets - which is interesting, considering what I was talking about above.

Ideological bents aside, I just don’t think there’s going to be a lot of money made in traditional news outlets in coming decades. They’re being steamrolled by social media as people’s primary sources of news and information.

Oh yeah, I definitely think that's a significant part of it...a divergence of political views within the family.

There's also a big difference between what may be the best long term financial decisions for News Corp shareholders vs what may be a desire for relevancy and influence in global politics by certain individuals.
 
I realize that. But the ideological aspect of the contretemps has been reported, or at least speculated about in reports.


IMG-1738.jpg

That said, I can totally believe that it’s being inflated by others reporting on it. It’s also been reported that James wants to sell off news assets - which is interesting, considering what I was talking about above.

Ideological bents aside, I just don’t think there’s going to be a lot of money made in traditional news outlets in coming decades. They’re being steamrolled by social media as people’s primary sources of news and information.


Also News Corp and Fox are two entirely separate companies now... Both public. But both still controlled by Murdoch.

Fox (aka New Fox) itself has been kind of a shitty company since it's establishment. It's stock price is lower now than when it went public 5 years ago. News Corp has done a bit better but still not great.

I would think shareholders would be pushing for something different than the status quo. Not that they have any influence on this trust battle.
 
There's also a big difference between what may be the best long term financial decisions for News Corp shareholders vs what may be a desire for relevancy and influence in global politics by certain individuals.
And if that’s Lachlan’s intent, or Rupert’s intent for the company under Lachlan’s control, they may end up costing shareholders a lot for what ultimately will be a diminished amount of influence in global politics.

Social media has an equalizing effect when it comes to reach and influence. Influence has long relied on having something like a prominent op-ed column or a prime time television spot — or control over who has them or edits them. But we’re increasingly measuring it by followers and subscribers to independent operators who utilize X, Substack, Patreon, or major podcasting platforms.

Joe Rogan, for example, has far more reach these days than any personality on any legacy media platform.
 
Also News Corp and Fox are two entirely separate companies now... Both public. But both still controlled by Murdoch.

Fox (aka New Fox) itself has been kind of a shitty company since it's establishment. It's stock price is lower now than when it went public 5 years ago. News Corp has done a bit better but still not great.

I would think shareholders would be pushing for something different than the status quo. Not that they have any influence on this trust battle.
QED
 
I don't know much about estate law, but am a little confused by this:

The Murdoch trust exercises considerable influence over Fox and News Corp, with roughly 40% voting stakes in each company. Rupert now controls it, but when he dies, each of his four oldest children will have an equal voting share, people familiar with the matter said.

How does Rupert control this when it's in an irrevocable trust? Does this just mean he basically controls the trustee and hence the trustee's decision making? My naive thought is that you lose all control of decisions regarding assets that have been put into an irrevocable trust.
Irrevocable means you can't modify it, for the most part. So Rupert can't take the assets back out, he can't change the beneficiaries, things like that. But when you set it up, you can maintain control of management of those assets for the time being, such as by making yourself trustee.
 
Just as if was written in Succession... The irrevocable trust for the kids was the result of his divorce proceedings with their mom 25 years ago where she wanted to ensure they each got an equal share of the company. Lawyers gonna have a field day.

I'm not an attorney, but there is a difference between equal economics and equal legal rights. It will be interesting to see how it unfolds and if the prior intentions specifically covered or addressed the latter.
 
And if that’s Lachlan’s intent, or Rupert’s intent for the company under Lachlan’s control, they may end up costing shareholders a lot for what ultimately will be a diminished amount of influence in global politics.

Social media has an equalizing effect when it comes to reach and influence. Influence has long relied on having something like a prominent op-ed column or a prime time television spot — or control over who has them or edits them. But we’re increasingly measuring it by followers and subscribers to independent operators who utilize X, Substack, Patreon, or major podcasting platforms.

Joe Rogan, for example, has far more reach these days than any personality on any legacy media platform.

It is interesting to think about - the power really concentrated among media conglomerates and distribution channels as they consolidated, to the detriment of content creators. Thinks like X, Substack, Youtube, Spotify, etc. have effectively reversed that power struggle and provided more for content creators. Great examples would be Rogan, Bari Weiss, etc. who would not have been able to generate an effective outlet prior to technology and media innovation driven by the internet.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT