A hearing before Nevada’s high court on Wednesday could provide the first public window into a secretive legal dispute over who will control Rupert Murdoch’s powerful media empire after he dies.
The case over the Murdoch family trust has been unfolding behind closed doors in state court in Reno, Nevada. But the proceedings have remained under seal, with the Nevada courts barely acknowledging the legal action even exists.
Media outlets including CNN, the New York Times and the Washington Post are now asking the Nevada supreme court to unseal the case and make future hearings public. The court is scheduled to hear arguments in the afternoon in Carson City, the capital.
In September, the news organizations petitioned a district court for access, arguing that the secrecy violated a constitutional right to access.
“The public has immense interest in which of Murdoch’s children will succeed him,” the news outlets said in their petition. “The succession will affect thousands of jobs, millions of worldwide media consumers, and the American political landscape.”
The outlets argued that “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. 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.”
But the district court denied that request and the proceedings remained private.
Now, Rupert Murdoch’s challenge to change the trust to keep just one of his sons, Lachlan, in charge and ensure that Fox News maintains its conservative-leaning editorial slant, looks set to continue alongside challenges by media organizations to have open access to the proceedings.
In December, it was revealed that the Nevada’s probate court had rejected the media mogul’s challenge, ruling that Murdoch’s four adult children would still have equal, shared control over their father’s media empire upon his death.
The Nevada commissioner Edmund Gorman concluded that Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch had acted in “bad faith” in their attempts to change the terms of the trust.
In the opinion, according to the Times, Gorman accused the elder Murdoch of organizing a “carefully crafted charade” to “permanently cement Lachlan Murdoch’s executive roles” inside the empire “regardless of the impacts such control would have over the companies or the beneficiaries” of the family trust, according to the Times.
In a statement, James, Elisabeth and Prudence told the Times: “We welcome Commissioner Gorman’s decision and hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members.”
Adam Streisand, a lawyer for Rupert Murdoch, told the newspaper at the time that they were disappointed with the ruling and intended to appeal. Another evidentiary hearing is scheduled for this month.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
