• Yup, it was right out of "Succession": Rupert Murdoch and his son Lachlan, fighting three other Murdoch children in court.
• Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch have lost that case — for now.
• That means Lachlan Murdoch will need to share control of his father's empire with three siblings when Rupert dies. But we don't know what that will actually mean.

Rupert Murdoch lost a legal case about the future of his media empire. What does that mean?

Real talk: It's too early to tell. At least one appeal is coming, so this could all shake out differently down the line.

But for now: It means that Murdoch's attempt to anoint his son Lachlan as the leader of his businesses once the elder Murdoch dies has been foiled.

And if that holds up, it means the future of Murdoch's empire — which includes Fox News and other Fox TV networks; The Wall Street Journal and the New York Post; and TV and print assets in the UK and Australia — will be that much messier when Murdoch, 93, is gone.

That's because — if the ruling holds up — Lachlan Murdoch will have to share control of the family business after his father's death with three of his siblings: James, Elisabeth, and Prudence. That was the heart of the dispute fought in a closed-door Nevada courtroom this fall. The New York Times got its hands on the sealed ruling, filed by a probate commissioner this weekend.

But beyond that, it's very hard to say what the news means. Rupert Murdoch has argued that it was important to make sure Lachlan Murdoch ran the family business the way Rupert Murdoch ran it. But that doesn't mean that Lachlan Murdoch would keep things untouched once his father died.

Maybe Lachlan would sell some assets that his father didn't want to sell for whatever reason. Maybe he wouldn't run Fox News — a core asset for the family business, in terms of both financial and political power — exactly the way his father did.

Similarly, the winners in the case — Lachlan's siblings James, Elisabeth, and Prudence — now have the ability to out-vote Lachlan. Which means, in theory, that they could force sales of things neither Lachlan nor Rupert wanted to part with. They could also, in theory, change the way Fox News operates.

But just because three members of the Murdoch clan fought their father's plans to make Lachlan more powerful than them doesn't mean they would always work together. The ruling just means they have a chance to weigh in.

Through a rep, James, Prudence, and Elisabeth applauded the decision and offered "hope that we can move beyond this litigation to focus on strengthening and rebuilding relationships among all family members." I also contacted Rupert and Lachlan Murdoch's rep for comment.

I realize that this is shrug-emoji of an explainer may be disappointing to some of you who would like a more definitive answer. Particularly those of you whose interest in the Murdoch family, and its twists and turns, relates primarily to the way it was partially fictionalized in "Succession."

But here's a little bit of a reward for dedicated watchers of HBO prestige dramas: It turns out that the court case, referred to by almost everyone as "straight out of Succession" was literally straight out of "Succession."

The Times reports that the Murdoch family fight kicked off in April 2023 as the HBO series was headed toward its conclusion.

Setting off these discussions was the episode of the HBO drama 'Succession,' the commissioner wrote, "where the patriarch of the family dies, leaving his family and business in chaos." The episode prompted Elisabeth's representative to the trust, Mark Devereux, to write a "'Succession' memo" intended to help avoid a real-life repeat.

Instead, that discussion eventually prompted Rupert Murdoch to amend the family trust later that year to give Lachlan full control.

Which led to this fall's court fight — but not the end of the story. Stay tuned.

• Chipotle is considering raising prices due to the rising cost of avocados, queso, and sour cream.
• New CFO Adam Rymer aims to keep menu items affordable despite cost pressures, the Wall Street Journal reported.
• Chipotle's sales rose 6% last quarter, showing resilience amid fast food price hikes.

Chipotle's new chief finance officer is eager to keep menu items affordable for cash-strapped customers, but has warned that prices could rise as the cost of raw materials keeps going up.

Executives at the Mexican grill chain are contemplating raising prices further as costs have risen for avocados, queso, and sour cream, according to a Wall Street Journal report.

Chipotle has not yet decided when any price increase might kick in, or how significant the rise would be, the Journal reported.

Adam Rymer started as finance chief at Chipotle in October. In his 15 years at the company, he has held various roles, including vice president of finance and compensation analyst.

Rymer was initially due to become CFO in January but instead took the position three months early after previous Chipotle boss Brian Niccol exited in August to become CEO of Starbucks. Niccol was replaced in the interim by Scott Boatwright, who served as chief operating officer beforehand.

Despite the potential for higher menu prices, Chipotle remains a better value option for customers than similar alternatives, Rymer said, per the Journal.

Inflation has not been kind to fast food prices.

Starbucks, McDonald's, KFC, In-N-Out, and Olive Garden are among the chains that have increased prices due to the soaring cost of labor and commodities.

Unlike some fast food firms, whose sales have taken a tumble as customers have cut back, Chipotle has shown resilience.

In its most recent quarter, the company's same-store sales rose 6% compared to the same period last year. Revenue grew 13% to $2.8 billion year over year.

Chipotle did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside regular working hours.