Hey there! I hope the weekend treated you all well. This week’s company is one rooted in dynasty, vision, and the hard business of transition: the Murdoch family trust’s succession battle. When you run a legacy business, succession isn’t just about who takes over, it’s about preserving the values and making hard trade-offs in views for what the company truly stands for. With that said, lets hop into the real life show Succession staring the Murdoch family.

Rupert Murdoch began building his media empire in the early 1950s, a time when newspapers were king and television was in its infancy. Over decades, through a series of acquisitions, international expansion, and a knack for steering to where attention was shifting, News Corp (and later Fox) grew into a global media powerhouse. Newspapers like The Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Sun, broadcasting and satellite companies, book publishing with HarperCollins all of it under the Murdoch umbrella.

From early struggles in Australia and skeptical regulatory gates, Murdoch navigated his way through shifting political climates, changing media technologies, and crises of reputation. The family business structure became central to his long-term control. In 1999, following his divorce, an irrevocable trust was established to hold a large portion of the family's shareholding in News Corp. That trust was set up so that upon Rupert’s death, voting rights would pass equally to four of his children: Prudence, Elisabeth, Lachlan, and James. But while economic interest was split, voting power and strategic control became touchpoints of tension as the business evolved and political polarization intensified.

Lachlan Murdoch, born in 1971, was groomed as heir during much of this time, working in the family business in multiple roles. His siblings, especially James and Elisabeth, also assumed leadership roles at various points, but often with different editorial or strategic views. Some saw digital transformation differently; others were more moderate in political slant. The trust structure, dual share/voting classes, and long-standing governance arrangements created a framework that could preserve control even when ownership was diluted. Yet those arrangements also sowed disagreement, especially as Rupert aged and with media dynamics changing, the declining print revenue, rising subscription models and polarized news audiences became more existentially pressing.

In 2023, Rupert applied to amend the terms of that trust, something many of his children opposed. The proposal, sometimes referred to internally as “Project Harmony,” was intended to ensure Lachlan had full control after Rupert’s passing, especially of voting rights. But court scrutiny pushed back, especially from Prudence, Elisabeth, and James, who challenged the modifications in Reno, Nevada, arguing the trust was irrevocable and protected their voting rights. A judge found that Rupert and Lachlan had acted in “bad faith” in trying to shift trust control without broader agreement. That ruling triggered higher stakes negotiation, sharper scrutiny from media observers, and concern from shareholders and regulators about stability and direction.

By September 2025, after months of tension, a settlement was reached. Under that deal, three of the siblings: Prudence, Elisabeth, and James agreed to receive $1.1 billion each for their shares in the businesses. They relinquished their ownership interests and voting power in Fox Corp and News Corp. In exchange, Lachlan Murdoch secured control over the family media empire via a new trust structure. Younger siblings Grace and Chloe Murdoch, from Rupert’s later marriage, become beneficiaries without voting rights. The deal brings clarity to an internal conflict that had dragged for years and puts Lachlan at the helm with undisputed authority, at least until 2050 under some interpretations and ensures the business retains its conservative slant.

With the succession issue resolved, markets and media watchers are looking at what changes and what stays the same inside News Corp and Fox.

The $3.3 billion settlement brought immediate clarity. It was financed largely via a partial sale of shares from the family trust, with Prudence, Elisabeth, and James each receiving roughly $1.1 billion. The siblings agreed to give up voting rights in both News Corp and Fox Corp, effectively consolidating control of the trust and thus of the companies’ strategic decision‐making in Lachlan’s hands. As part of the deal, Grace and Chloe Murdoch were added as beneficiaries of a new trust, though without voting power. The trust now holds around 36% of Fox’s Class B common stock and approximately 33% of News Corp’s Class B shares.

Editorial direction and political leanings are central stakes. Under this settlement, many expect continued conservative influence, rather than more moderate or progressive editorial reforms that some siblings had been advocating for, especially around climate coverage, political polarization, or social issues. James Murdoch, for example, had publicly expressed disagreement with Fox News’s tilt and some editorial content. His exit from decision-making signals fewer internal checks on that front. Observers suggest Lachlan is now in a position to double down on what has made Fox and News Corp successful among their core audiences.

Financially, the move brings governance certainty, something shareholders, advertisers, and institutional investors often price in and desire. With the trust now under Lachlan’s control, strategy can be more streamlined: fewer internal conflicts over voting, fewer legal distractions, and clearer forecasting. The risk of future disputes is reduced, which helps planning around content strategy, digital transformation, subscription models, and cost structures. Post-settlement, reports show News Corp’s stock performing strongly, helped by recent successes in subscription growth in newspapers and book publishing; Fox News remains a ratings powerhouse in cable. Nevertheless, declining print ad revenues, rising costs of news production, and competition from digital platforms remain powerful headwinds. As with all legacy media, adapting while preserving credibility is a difficult balance.

Will the new structure hold if future commercial pressures mount? Will decisions made now around political content, editorial stances, or investment reflect the broader stakeholder interest or solely the core audience Loyalties? How will continued challenges like subscription declines, digital ad shifts, and global regulatory pressure affect the trajectory? The next few years will test whether the clarity gained under Lachlan’s control translates into sustainable performance not just steady income, but enduring influence and relevance.

Power without clarity is fragile; legacy without structure is unstable. The Murdoch succession teaches that what endures is not just assets or audience, it’s legacy and trust.

When you build a business on influence, vision, or brand, the question isn’t just who owns what, it’s who holds decision-making power, under what conditions, and with what constraints. The Murdoch deal stripped away ambiguity: siblings who might disagree have been bought out or moved into non-voting positions; Lachlan now has decisive control. But he didn’t get there by ignoring dissent. He first risked legal challenge, public scrutiny, and reputation cost.

Entrepreneurs building legacy should take note: succession planning isn’t something you flip on at the end, it should be apart of the initial design. Decide early on who controls what, how voting and leadership transition will work, and what happens in disagreement. Trust structures, share classes, bylaws, compensation, minority protections, these are the plumbing that underlies what the outside sees as “power.” If Rupert Murdoch had passed (He is currently 94 years old) with the initial succession plan in place, the News Corp conglomerate could have been pieced apart or brought to shambles compared to it’s current “glory”.

As many of our readers have their own businesses or ventures with dreams of passing it down to their kids, start structuring succession early. Once the business has enough momentum to be a long term and meaningful business, there should always be a worst case scenario made just in case. Legacy businesses don’t just pass down assets they pass down values, reputation, and decades of trust. Without clear frameworks, families often inherit conflict jeopardizing everything that was built. The earlier you establish structure, whether through trusts, governance, or defined leadership paths, the easier it is to keep everyone aligned and on the same page. In the end, enduring companies aren’t preserved by visionaries, but by the systems that ensure the next generation can carry that vision forward.

Built to Last is for founders and operators who aim to build more than just a product. We’re read by founders who want a cultural presence, legacy, and enduring company. If you know anyone who feels this way, please consider forwarding this to them, it would mean the world to us as we grow this community. As always let us know what you think of this weeks post as well, we are always aiming to be the best newsletter out there for you all.

Thanks for being part of the journey,

— The Built to Last Team