interest

Iran’s missiles and drones have downed dozens of US aircraft, damaged or destroyed hundreds of the United States’ buildings at its bases in the Middle East, and drained its inventories of military equipment worth billions of dollars, the Pentagon conceded earlier this week.

On Wednesday, Tehran unleashed another unlikely weapon in its war against the US: a maths equation.

Iranian Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who has also been a lead negotiator during talks between Tehran and Washington at different stages during the past six months, typed out a version of the Taylor equation, a formula used by central banks to determine interest rates, in a post on X loaded with a wartime message.

“Let’s see if a hike could open SOH or produce a single barrel,” he wrote, referring to interest rate hikes and the Strait of Hormuz, a crucial waterway Iran has effectively blocked for global shipping.

“You can’t 25bp [basis points] a chokepoint,” he added, seemingly again referring to the strait. “It’s SOH risk premium, and We set it.”

Hours after Ghalibaf’s post, the US Federal Reserve did raise the benchmark interest rate by 25 basis points.

Early in the war, which was launched by the US and Israel against Iran on February 28, Ghalibaf frequently used financial arguments to mock how the conflict was being conducted by the administration of US President Donald Trump, to point to Iran’s ability to hurt Washington economically unless it changed its approach.

Now he’s turned to maths.

“This is a spectacular bit of agitprop from Iran, a country which, if nothing else in 2026, has demonstrated an impressive ability to needle its US opponent,” Chris Beauchamp, chief market analyst at IG Group, told Al Jazeera.

But what exactly is Ghalibaf trying to say? What is the Taylor equation, has the Iran war influenced the US interest rate, and does Tehran “set it”, as the parliament speaker has suggested?

What is the Taylor equation that Ghalibaf cited?

The rule is a formula economists use to estimate where a central bank should set interest rates based on inflation and the strength of the economy.

Developed by economist John Taylor in the early 1990s, the rule links the US federal funds rate to inflation and the “output gap” – the difference between actual economic output and its potential.

In its simplest form, the formula is:

Interest rate = inflation + 0.5(output gap) + 0.5(inflation − 2%) + 2%.

This means the recommended interest rate rises when inflation moves above the 2 percent target or when economic output exceeds its potential. It falls when inflation weakens or the economy operates below potential.

However, the equation is a benchmark, not a set rule that is strictly followed. Policymakers at the US Federal Reserve weigh other economic factors when setting interest rates.

Is the Iran war a factor in the US interest rate hike?

Trump’s tariffs, the energy shock following the US-Israeli war with Iran, and heavy investment associated with the artificial intelligence boom, taken together, have kept inflationary pressures strong, experts say.

On Wednesday, when the US Federal Reserve raised interest rates by 25bp, it was the first increase in three years.

Fed Chairman Kevin Warsh, in his speech following the rate hike, said renewed fighting between the US and Iran, which has pushed up petrol prices, helped convince Fed officials to support higher rates.

“There’s no hiding from hot spots around the world,” Warsh said.

IG Group’s Beauchamp said, “The Iran war, indirectly, is a huge driver of last night’s hike, though no one wants to admit it.”

“The energy spike has combined with the rise in yields to drive the Fed into a corner with no way out,” he said.

Susannah Streeter, chief investment strategist at the Wealth Club, said there is “no denying” that Iran’s retaliatory action against the US and its allies across the Gulf region has “intensified concerns about energy supplies and led to hotter inflation forecasts”.

“The ongoing geopolitical turmoil and elevated crude prices certainly were key issues behind the Fed’s decision to hike rates,” she said.

Is Iran ‘setting’ the US interest rate?

In short, no.

Wealth Club’s Streeter cautioned that while the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices were certainly an element in the Fed’s decision, they weren’t the “only factors at play”.

“The spending might of AI hyperscalers has also pulsed through the veins of the economy, with strong capital investment and resilient domestic demand adding to inflationary pressures, so policymakers will have been looking at the whole picture,” she noted.

“So, while Tehran has arguably had an influence on some of the forces feeding into US monetary policy, particularly through the impact of the conflict on oil supplies and prices, it is not ‘setting’ US interest rates.”

Streeter said the US Federal Reserve was responding to a much broader set of economic conditions.

“Iran’s actions have affected the inflation outlook, but the decision on where to set interest rates ultimately rests with the Federal Reserve, and there are plenty of other data points policymakers use,” she noted.

What’s behind Ghalibaf’s maths mocking?

In March, Iran’s parliamentary speaker had repeatedly used social media to comment on markets and energy prices, including mocking efforts by the Trump administration to influence oil futures and arguing that financial manoeuvring could not create “actual fuel” at petrol stations.

Last month, Ghalibaf posted a graphic bearing the phrase “Make America Hungry Again” – a play on Trump’s slogan “Make America Great Again” – together with statistics on food insecurity and hunger in the US.

“You can’t cover up defeats with false claims,” he said.

DEVELOPING STORYDEVELOPING STORY,

The 25 basis-point hike is the first raise in three years and comes ahead of critical midterm elections in the United States.

The United States Federal Reserve has said it will raise interest rates by a quarter of a percentage point as inflation, driven by soaring fuel prices amid the US-Iran war, continues to weigh on the economy.

The Fed, which is the central bank of the US, said on Wednesday that it will hike interest rates by 25 basis points to 3.75 percent to 4 percent.

It is the first hike in more than three years and comes just weeks before the US midterm elections, despite repeated demands from US President Donald Trump to lower rates.

“Economic activity is expanding at a solid pace. While uncertainty remains elevated owing, in part, to geopolitical developments, domestic spending has been resilient,” the Fed said in a statement on Wednesday.

“Inflation remains elevated. Today’s policy action will support a timelier return to the Committee’s 2 percent goal. The Committee will deliver price stability.”

After Wednesday’s hike, Fed officials expect one more rate increase this year, according to their quarterly projections.

CME FedWatch, which tracks the likelihood of monetary policy decisions, forecast a 92.3 percent chance of the Fed increasing rates to 3.75 to 4 percent. A week ago, that forecast was a 40 percent chance of a quarter-percent rate increase.

But in the days since, a slew of data shifted those expectations.

For one, consumer prices jumped in August by 0.4 percent, the highest increase in four months. On an annual basis, prices rose 3.4 percent, matching the increase recorded in July, while the job market remains healthy.

Since then, benchmark crude oil prices have continued to soar as strikes in the US-Israel war on Iran have intensified. Brent crude hovered near $109 per barrel on Tuesday.

The average price for a gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol is $4.36, up 14 cents in the past week, and up from $4.06 in the last month, according to the American Automobile Association (AAA), which tracks daily petrol prices.

Diesel, on the other hand, was at $6.31, the highest recorded average and roughly double from a year ago. That, in turn, is expected to further stoke prices as diesel is used in trucks to haul everything from fruits and vegetables to steel and cement.

At the same time, the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield broke above the psychologically important 5 percent threshold on Tuesday, hitting 5.02 percent, its highest level in 19 years. The yield serves as a benchmark for borrowing costs, including car loans and home mortgages, and is a bellwether for inflation.

“The economy is in an unusual place,” Michael Klein, professor of international economic affairs at Tufts University’s Fletcher School and executive editor of EconoFact, a nonpartisan economic and social policy publication, as unemployment remains at a comfortable level while higher prices continue to stick, sending inflation beyond the Fed’s target of 2 percent.

“There [has been] a lot of pressure on Chairman Warsh to raise interest rates because of inflation coming in high, and that has been compounded by concerns about Trump’s pressure” as the president has continued to demand that interest rates be lowered, Klein said.

“Higher interest rates tend to weaken the economy… but if the market believes that there’s going to be a rate increase, it’s priced in already as prices move on news, so this won’t be news,” Klein said, adding that should help steady yields.

Prices spiked as attacks on oil tankers escalated in the Middle East.

Oil prices have increased by four percent, with benchmark Brent crude hitting $105 a barrel after the biggest rise in attacks on shipping since the Iran war began spurred trader concerns about further supply disruptions.

Brent crude futures were up $4.05, or four percent, at $105.26 a barrel by 1215 GMT on Thursday. United States oil topped $100 a barrel for the first time since May, as West Texas Intermediate crude futures CLc1 rose $3.99, or 4.15 percent, to $100.04.

Brent prices have surged by more than 30 percent from lows touched in early August, as a permanent agreement between the US and Iran to cease attacks never materialised and fighting resumed.

Iran-aligned Houthis seized control of Yemen’s port of Mocha on Thursday, further threatening Red Sea traffic, while Gulf traffic remains restricted through the Strait of Hormuz as tanker attacks in the region have intensified in recent days.

“The recent run-up in prices lays bare the market’s approach: this conflict will last longer than anticipated even a month ago, let alone at the beginning of the summer. If oil supply and exports are diminished, the oil balance remains tight and prices remain elevated,” PVM analyst John Evans said.

Iran said it had attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz on Wednesday, after the US hit five Iranian oil tankers. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said it would escalate its response to any further attacks.

While fears of prolonged and more severe supply disruptions in the Gulf have lifted Brent above $100, analysts say the durability of the rally will hinge on China.

Chinese demand

China, the world’s largest crude importer, has stepped up purchases in recent weeks after months of subdued demand, boosting physical crude markets, ING analysts said in a note.

If Chinese buying continues to recover, it could amplify the impact of any supply disruptions and drive prices higher, while a pullback in imports could temper market gains, ING said.

“For months, the bearish case rested on soft Chinese demand,” said David Jorbenaze, global oil market lead at commodities information provider, ICIS.

Rising oil prices have worsened worries about inflation and cranked up pressure within the bond market, helping to lower stocks again on Wall Street.

The S&P 500 fell 0.6 percent and is on track for a fourth straight loss.

The increase in oil prices has pushed the price for a gallon of regular petrol to an average of nearly $4.28 across the US, according to the American Automobile Association. That is not only costing more at the pump but also through higher prices for all kinds of products that move by truck to store shelves.

Following Thursday’s reports, traders are betting on a close to 70 percent chance the Fed will raise the federal funds rate at its meeting next week. That’s up from the 61 percent probability seen the day before, according to data from CME Group. That’s also despite President Donald Trump’s consistent lobbying for interest rates to go lower rather than higher.

Harriet Dart and Francesca Jones both fell to seeded players as British interest in the US Open singles ended in the second round.

Dart said she felt “under the weather” during her 6-2 6-2 defeat by Czech 25th seed Marie Bouzkova as temperatures reached around 30C in New York.

Her loss meant Jones was the last Briton standing in either singles draw, and she acquitted herself well before falling 6-4 6-4 to 14th seed and rising American star Iva Jovic.

Nine British players competed in the US Open main draws – the most since 1981 – with four coming through qualifying.

Five of them reached the second round, but Jacob Fearnley was the only player to win a set as they all fell to seeded players.

Lucky loser Fearnley fell in four sets to 27th seed Tomas Martin Etcheverry, while qualifier Toby Samuel was beaten by 18th seed Jiri Lehecka.

Katie Boulter lost to Wimbledon runner-up Karolina Muchova in only 58 minutes on Wednesday.

In the men’s draw, Cameron Norrie, Arthur Fery, Harry Wendelken and Jan Choinski exited in the first round.

Jones, ranked 90 places lower than Jovic, made the American work for one hour and 54 minutes to reach the third round.

Humid conditions meant both players frequently dashed to the back of the court between points to dry their hands and face.

It was Jovic who started on the front foot, opening up a double break and a 3-0 lead as the 18-year-old controlled the rallies with some deep hitting from the baseline.

Jones snatched a break back and kept in touch with Jovic – but she could not make the most of a break point as Jovic served for the set.

After wrapping up the opener, Jovic raced into a 4-1 lead in the second, only to once again be dragged back by Jones.

The Briton saved three match points on her own serve but Jovic produced one of her best service games to seal victory and set up a meeting with good friend Alexandra Eala.

Pro Football Hall of Fame running back Emmitt Smith has been accused of taking part in a scheme that allegedly scammed $2.5 million from a Native American investment firm.

In a lawsuit filed Monday in Delaware’s Court of Chancery, a tribal owned and operated economic developmental agency for the North Carolina-based Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians claimed the former Dallas Cowboys superstar, his longtime business partner David Mosley and their real estate development and renewable energy company 4 13 Solutions Inc. borrowed the money, did not use it for its intended purpose and have not paid it back.

According to the lawsuit, Smith and Mosley convinced the tribal agency, Kituwah LLC, to help their company acquire a proposed solar energy farm in Texas.

“By using false projections and data, misrepresenting the level of interest and potential investments from other investors, making promises that they had no intention of fulfilling, and relying on the participation of other coconspirators, Smith and Mosley induced Kituwah to form a joint venture with their company, 4 13 Solutions, and to loan $2.5 million to the joint venture,” the complaint states.

“Smith and Mosley promised to use the funds to acquire an interest in a renewable energy project in Texas (‘Project Exodus’), transfer that interest back to the joint venture, and ultimately repay Kituwah’s money. But instead, they took the money and used it to improperly pay Wilson Holdings, with whom they had partnered on other ventures.”

Smith, Mosley, 4 13 Solutions, Wilson Holdings and its principal owner, Darrel Wilson, and the group’s joint venture firm, Jabez 4 10 LLC, were named as co-defendants. Representatives for Smith, Mosley and 4 13 Solutions did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The loan came due on Feb. 1, 2024, according to the complaint, and remains unpaid despite numerous efforts to collect. Smith is accused of fraudulent inducement and breach of fiduciary duty. Seeking the return of its investment as well as interest and other costs and expenses, Kituwah says it is owed more than $3 million.

“Moreover, despite 4 13 Solutions’ representation that Project Exodus would be up and running by the end of 2024, Kituwah has not seen any evidence that Project Exodus has made any meaningful progress towards completion,” the lawsuit states.

“Kituwah commenced an investigation. It has determined that 4 13 Solutions’ representations were part of Smith’s and Mosley’s scheme to cheat Kituwah out of $2.5 million dollars. Instead of using the loan proceeds to acquire Project Exodus as promised, 4 13 Solutions used the $2.5 million to pay Wilson Holdings, apparently for money that Wilson Holdings had previously invested. Essentially, like a Ponzi scheme.”

Liverpool’s Dutch forward Gakpo is a transfer target for Premier League rivals Manchester City.

Virgil van Dijk is hoping Liverpool hang on to Cody Gakpo, with Manchester City reportedly closing in on the Dutch international before Tuesday’s Premier League transfer deadline.

Gakpo looks set to be pushed down the pecking order at Anfield by the arrival of Bradley Barcola from Paris Saint-Germain for a fee that could rise to $166m, making the Frenchman the second-most expensive player in Premier League history.

In three and a half years at Liverpool, Gakpo has scored 51 goals and played a major role in the club’s 20th English top-flight title in the 2024–25 campaign.

The 27-year-old has made a bright start to this season, scoring one goal and providing an assist as Liverpool have drawn their opening two games 2-2 against Newcastle and Nottingham Forest under Andoni Iraola.

But Liverpool appear open to cashing in on Gakpo, with City reportedly set to pay 75 million pounds ($101.6m).

“He’s a quality player, and I think we should keep quality players, but let’s see what the next three days bring,” said Van Dijk.

“Obviously, it’s pretty clear that I want him to stay, not only because he is the quality player that he is, but also [because] he’s a friend of mine, and I think he will be very important for us.”

Barcola has been tempted to England by the European champions despite a difficult time for the Reds, who finished fifth in the Premier League last season.

But Van Dijk is confident Liverpool will always remain a popular destination for the world’s top players.

“I think Liverpool are still one of the biggest clubs in the world. Obviously, we all know that we’re going through a transition, and you either want to be part of it, or you don’t. I’m part of it now,” he added.

“He’s [Barcola] a very good player. If he comes, he’ll be welcomed with open arms, but until it’s there, there’s no point speaking about it now.”

Iraola has had an early awakening as to why he was given the chance to replace the sacked Arne Slot, as Liverpool’s defensive issues have been exposed by Newcastle and Forest.

But in both games, Liverpool have twice come back from behind to salvage a point.

“It takes some time, but obviously we all want it to work as soon as possible and for 90 minutes,” said Van Dijk.

“That’s now two games in a row we’ve had to fight back. Obviously, it’s a good sign that we fight back, but I think we can still do much better than what we have been showing.

“We have to score more; we have to concede less. Nottingham Forest came here three times in the last three seasons and came away unbeaten, and that shouldn’t happen.”

The Trump administration is considering trading a parcel of Yosemite National Park to a private commercial developer, according to administration officials, members of Congress and documents reviewed by The Times.

The proposed deal would allow the developer to build a road connecting adjacent property it already owns in the Stanislaus National Forest to a service road within Yosemite, providing any future development on that property with unique access to the famed public wilderness, documents show.

According to a Friday report by the news outlet NOTUS, Trump administration officials have been quietly pressuring the National Park Service to approve the deal for the land despite such pressure being highly unusual and previous proposals for the land being repeatedly denied under the Bush and Obama administrations and in court.

The Department of the Interior, which includes the National Park Service, acknowledged in a statement to The Times on Friday that a land deal is under consideration, but denied any inappropriate influence from the White House.

It said negotiations for the land will comply with all federal rules for federal lands, and that “no final decisions have been made.”

An attorney for the private developer said the deal has nothing to do with politics and is in fact an “environmentally friendly” solution, in that it would dramatically cut down on the amount of driving the future upscale development’s residents would have to do to access the park.

President Trump speaks to astronauts aboard the International Space Station as he visits NASA’s Mission Control Center on Aug. in Houston, Texas.

(Win McNamee / Getty Images)

Congressional Democrats — including Sens. Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff of California — are trying to block the deal, after being informed of it earlier this year by the Land and Water Conservation Fund. The fund was created by Congress in 1964 to safeguard natural areas and public lands, and often works to acquire lands to add to national parks.

A fact sheet on the project reviewed by The Times identified the parcel by a former name, the “Hazel Green Ranch,” and said the landowner is seeking to acquire an “interest” in land within the park in order to build a new road connecting “a planned commercial development” to Big Oak Flat Road, an existing federally owned road that “provides access to the park and is a major route to Yosemite Valley.”

The fact sheet said the National Park Service does not have the authority to grant that interest, but has been working with the landowner to facilitate an “exchange” of the land for some other, unidentified parcel of land that is beneficial to the U.S., as allowed under law for federal land swaps.

The project has been identified to lawmakers, without explanation, as a “priority.” Both Padilla and Schiff have objected to it, and Padilla’s office said it is working with Senate Appropriations Committee staff to block the deal.

“The Land and Water Conservation Fund exists to acquire land and interests in land in order to safeguard natural areas, water resources, and cultural heritage — and to provide recreation opportunities for all Americans,” Padilla said in a statement to The Times. “Projects should be chosen on merit, not on an applicant’s connections to high-ranking Trump administration officials.”

Schiff, in his own statement, said Yosemite is “one of California’s natural wonders, and must be protected from further development.”

He said the Trump administration “appears hellbent on moving forward in the face of opposition from the public, Congress and the courts,” and that “the only thing the administration cares about is whether there is money involved.”

The company behind the private development is Nevada-based real estate developer and investment firm Kingsbarn Realty Capital. According to Federal Election Commission records, Kingsbarn CEO Jeff Pori is a donor to Trump, the Republican National Committee and other Republican groups.

Lanny Davis, a former special counsel to President Clinton, represents Kingsbarn, and said the notion the project is moving forward due to Trump administration pressure and Pori’s political contributions despite being environmentally detrimental is false.

He said Kingsbarn wants to build “upscale, single-family houses” on its property, but hasn’t so far because residents would have to drive 28 miles using current roads to reach the park.

To cut that distance down and make the development more feasible, it asked the National Park Service to purchase an 11-mile strip of land within Yosemite to build a shorter, more direct access road, Davis said.

The Park Service responded by saying the company could not purchase park land directly, but could purchase other nearby land of equal or greater value, and then swap it for the park land, Davis said.

It is now working with the Interior Department to identify such land, and is “very close” to doing so, Davis said — calling it a “pro environmental solution” that follows federal law and has “nothing to do” with Pori’s politics.

The White House referred questions about the proposed deal to the Interior Department.

In its statement to The Times, the Interior Department said the NOTUS story “relies on anonymous allegations to manufacture a political narrative that simply is not true. There has been no political pressure to reach a predetermined outcome, and claims suggesting the Department is secretly working to hand over National Park Service land to a private developer are false.”

If a proposal does advance, the statement said, the department will follow established procedures with “transparency and public involvement consistent with federal law. Anonymous speculation does not change those facts.”

The department did not respond to a request for more details as to the proposal.

The land in question represents a tiny portion of the sprawling Yosemite National Park, which is nearly 750,000 acres in total — or roughly the size of Rhode Island. Still, slicing off any piece of the California wilderness — considered a crown jewel in the national park system — runs counter to promises from Trump and Interior Secretary Doug Burgum.

“My Administration is committed to protecting every acre of our lands and preserving the cleanest air and water in the world,” Trump said in a presidential message on Monday.

Ceding federal lands is also anathema to land preservation groups, which expressed dismay at the idea that any piece of Yosemite might be lost, no matter how small.

Aaron Weiss, executive director of the Center for Western Priorities, said that the NOTUS reporting was “consistent” with what his organization has been hearing “for several months” — and would be inconsistent with public desires for national park lands.

“The American people have consistently said that our public lands, especially our national parks, are not for sale,” he said. “If Secretary Burgum spent more time listening to Americans instead of indulging President Trump’s whims on the National Mall, he’d understand what a terrible idea this is.”

Jayson O’Neill, a spokesman for the group Save Our Parks, said the proposed deal as described by NOTUS represented the latest attempt by the Trump administration and Burgum to gut the Park Service and “then quietly cede treasured park land to private developers, thinking nobody’s watching.”

“National parks belong to the American people, not monied developers who are part of Trump’s donor class,” O’Neill said.

Mark Rose, senior Sierra Nevada program manager for the National Parks Conservation Assn., slammed the proposed land swap as a “secretive, backroom deal” and “an attack on the American people that own this national park.”

He said Yosemite is already facing overcrowding due to “run-away lodging” development outside its borders and the Trump administration’s decision to do away with the park’s reservation system, and a new development would “exacerbate the chaos.”

“The National Park Service needs to get back to prioritizing conservation, not helping bulldoze land, cut down towering trees and construct a luxury development that will harm Yosemite’s wildlife and increase wildfire risks,” Rose said.

TWG Global — the holding company of Dodgers owner Mark Walter — rejected allegations of financial impropriety in the purchase and operation of the Dodgers and reiterated the team is not for sale.

At a time insurance regulators and federal investigators are looking into allegations that insurance companies under Walter’s umbrella did not properly disclose and conduct transactions between other companies he controls, and after Walter sold his controlling interest in the Lakers at a record $12.5 billion valuation, potential bidders have monitored whether the Dodgers might be sold as well.

In a statement Tuesday, TWG Global decried “multipronged attacks against TWG … by unnamed sources with self-serving interests” and said no insurance policyholder has been hurt as a result of the company’s financial transactions.

“There is no victim here,” the statement said. “No one has been harmed, and no one has claimed they were harmed.”

In 2012, when Walter and his partners bought the Dodgers for $2 billion, The Times reported the use of $1.2 million from Guggenheim Partners insurance funds into the deal. At the time, rival bidders expressed concern over the unusual financing, but state insurance regulators cleared the deal and Major League Baseball approved it.

“The transaction was subject to a full investigation conducted by an outside law firm on behalf of insurance regulators from multiple states,” the statement said, “which identified no irregularities and resulted in no further action.”

Even with the Dodgers issuing over a billion dollars in deferred contracts and amid whatever transactions might have been conducted between TWG-related insurance companies and the Dodgers’ affiliates — including ones that hold the team’s television rights and ticket revenues — the Dodgers’ ability to fund player contracts is not at risk, according to the statement.

“The Dodgers have the highest revenue in baseball, and it significantly exceeds the team’s obligations to its players,” the statement said.

The statement reiterated that, as Dodgers president Stan Kasten has said, “the team is not being sold and no sale process has been initiated.”

The Dodgers, if sold, could likely command a price in the range of $10 million to $13 million, industry analysts have told The Times.

The Lakers sold at a record price for a North American sports franchise, although industry analysts have said a competitive bidding process likely would have resulted in an even higher sale price.

Said the statement: “Mr. Walter was approached by Josh Kushner and his team about this transaction and the agreement represents a 25% premium to the price paid by Mr. Walter less than a year ago (and an even higher premium to the $5.0 billion valuation Mr. Walter paid in 2021) — hardly a ‘fire sale.’”

The statement added: “TWG is not looking to sell its sports assets at ‘fire sale’ prices to raise capital for its insurance operations.”

TWG said it is “working cooperatively and in partnership with the Delaware Department of Insurance” to resolve the regulatory issues and “is committed to working with the U.S. Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission to resolve their inquiries.”

“TWG stands firmly behind the integrity of its business,” the statement read. “Despite what has been reported, there has been no fraud.”