A court has ruled that the succession battle over Rupert Murdoch's right-wing media empire will remain private.
 |
| Rupert Murdoch and Lachlan Murdoch Getty Images |
Nevada probate commissioner Edmund J. Gorman Jr. on Thursday dismissed a request from media outlets, including The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Associated Press, to open court proceedings and records. He determined that the hearings will remain confidential to avoid revealing sensitive information.
“A family trust like the one at issue in this case, even when it is a stockholder in publicly traded companies, is essentially a private legal arrangement,” the order explained. This legal dispute involves Murdoch’s petition to modify the irrevocable family trust, ensuring that his eldest son, Lachlan, retains control of his vast array of publications and TV networks after his passing. As the trust currently stands, the four eldest children have equal voting rights. Proceedings are slated to begin on September 16.
In Nevada probate court, documents related to trust instruments, petitions, and financial reports by fiduciaries may be sealed. This was a significant reason why Murdoch filed his petition in Nevada.
Forcing the unsealing of such records, which media organizations argued for, would “strip the parties’ right to seal confidential information,” the court noted. It highlighted a previous ruling that financial and business information falls under personal life matters.
Gorman reiterated that “A family trust like the one at issue in this case, even when it is a stockholder in publicly traded companies, is essentially a private legal arrangement, as the applicable sealing statutes recognize.” He referenced Nevada laws aimed at maintaining privacy in matters involving wealth management and succession planning.
Disclosing such details, the court warned, could lead to identity theft, fraud, or public embarrassment. Additionally, there were security concerns.
“The protection of privacy interests that outweigh the public’s right to access these proceedings is acknowledged, as well as the fact that several individuals involved—whom even the movants admit—are public figures and under intense media scrutiny,” the court noted.
“These parties require enhanced security to ensure their safety in court and to prevent malicious actors from using court appearances as opportunities for harm.”
While much of the case remains secret, some information, including the case name, filing date, and a list of submitted documents, has been released.
“Although the information made available by the court clerk is limited, the case itself is not concealed,” the order explained.
The only other documents that will be made public pertain to an appeal of the court’s sealing decision. The judge also stated that the public has the right to know the attorneys involved and any third party seeking to intervene in the case.
0 Comments