According to the court's decision, Mr. Murdoch was concerned that the “lack of consensus” between his sons would “affect the strategic direction of both companies, including a possible reorientation of editorial policy and content”. He claims that his intention was to “consolidate decision-making power in Lachlan's hands and give him permanent and exclusive control” over the company.
The document makes it clear that the actions of Mr. Murdoch has pushed Elisabeth, Prudence and James into a joint stand against him. The brothers share legal advice and fight to retain their say in the future of the company, arguing that their father is trying to disenfranchise them. They say that the measure of Mr. Murdoch violates the spirit of the initial trust, enshrined in his “equal government provision”, and which was not made in good faith.
This will be one of the main topics of the trial. As Nevada Probate Commissioner Edmund Gorman Jr. wrote in his decision, “A rational trier of fact could find that the determination that the amendment was in the best interests of the beneficiaries was made with”[d]honesty of belief, purpose or motive, i.e. bad faith.
The action takes place in a probate court in Reno, which deals with trusts and family estates. Nevada is a popular state for dynastic family trusts because of its favorable probate laws and privacy protections. The decision obtained by The Times contains a review of the facts by a probate commissioner whose role is to adjudicate cases.
The trust holds the family's shares in Mr. Murdoch, which is now primarily split between two companies: Fox, which includes Fox News and the Fox Broadcasting Network, and News Corp, which owns its major newspapers.
English 
Español de Venezuela