walter

A few months after Mark Walter became the chairman and majority owner of the Dodgers, he was told a fan in one of Dodger Stadium’s upper decks was upset about a mix-up with his tickets.

On most days, that would be an issue for an usher to handle. Not on this day.

Walter and team president Stan Kasten decided to address the problem, climbing the narrow stairwell to the top level where they found the fan and listened to his complaint.

“Obviously the guy was floored just to see me, let alone to see Mark,” Kasten said. “Mark, he’s incredibly comfortable around people. Not just his peers, but average fans. Because he considers himself an average fan.”

The Dodgers’ billionaire owner, hardly an average fan, is under intense scrutiny these days, following the sale of his controlling interest in the Lakers and a federal investigation into his business dealings. The drama has come as a surprise to some who know Walter, who has earned respect for his financial acumen and, despite his purchases of high-profile sports teams, has tended to dodge publicity.

He put together the ownership group that bought the Dodgers in 2012. Since the purchase, the team has played in five World Series, winning three, and finished first in the National League West 12 times in 14 seasons. It’s the greatest sustained run of excellence in baseball in more than a generation.

Walter waves to the crowd during the Dodgers’ ring ceremony in March.

(Jessie Alcheh/MLB Photos via Getty Images)

If the Dodgers win a third straight World Series this fall, they will become the first team to three-peat this century. And much of the credit for that would go to Walter, who has funded a front office that consistently has outspent the rest of Major League Baseball, signing seven players to contracts worth more than $2 billion combined in the last six years alone.

Now Walter faces questions about his future owning the Dodgers. Last month, his companies became the focus of two federal inquiries and a Delaware insurance regulatory review.

He is helping pay off some of his companies’ loans and sold the Lakers at a record valuation of $12.5 billion, a deal Walter’s holding company, TWG Global, says was not forced by the inquiries. Still, the sale raised questions about whether he will sell his ownership stakes in other sports properties, including English soccer club Chelsea, the Cadillac Formula One racing team, the WNBA’s Sparks and the Professional Women’s Hockey League.

Walter declined to comment for this article.

Kasten insists Walter has no plans to divest from the Dodgers. “The sports portfolio is going to remain intact,” Kasten said. “It’s important to Mark. I can’t tell you how important the Dodgers are to him.”

Still, Kasten acknowledges the decision to sell the Lakers to former Disney chief executive Bob Iger and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner just 14 months after agreeing to buy the team “was not a planned thing,” either.

Walter hoists the World Series trophy next to MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred last November.

(Rob Tringali/MLB Photos via Getty Images)

Like most of the middle-class kids in the class of 1978 at Jefferson High in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, Walter worked in high school.

“He pumped gas and he played golf,” recalled Cathy Boland Polito, Walter’s date for the senior prom who is now a retired medical technologist living in Oro Valley, Ariz.

Walter hardly stood out in his graduating class of about 350 students. He was athletic but not a stud. He was a good student, especially in math, but not a nerd.

“He was friendly. He was nice,” Polito said. “Everybody sort of knew him.”

Walter talks with Dodgers president Stan Kasten during the playoffs last year. “I can’t tell you how important the Dodgers are to him,” Kasten says.

(Michael Reaves / Getty Images)

Walter went to Creighton University , where he studied accounting and business while playing intramural sports and participating in the philosophy society. Three years later, he earned a law degree from Northwestern.

Walter met his wife, Kimbra, in Chicago, where they raised their daughter, Samantha.

After a decade split between a Chicago law firm and First Chicago Capital Markets, a financial services and securities brokerage, Walter founded an investment firm, Liberty Hampshire Co., in 1996. While there he met J. Todd Morley, who connected him with the Guggenheim family fortune. The introduction quickly led to the formation of Guggenheim Partners, an investment and advisory financial services firm that works with insurance services, among other assets, and one that has a Wall Street reputation for being low-key but aggressive.

Before the COVID-19 pandemic closed Guggenheim’s offices, the lobby of the firm’s Chicago headquarters on the 49th floor of the AT&T Center boasted one of Monet’s “Water Lilies” paintings, which hung behind the receptionist’s desk inside a glass case with an alarm. A Picasso brightened another office upstairs.

Walter with Guggenheim Baseball Management partners Peter Guber, left, Stan Kasten and Magic Johnson at Dodger Stadium in 2012 after the group bought the Dodgers for $2 billion.

(Damian Dovarganes / Associated Press)

A company insider not authorized to speak publicly told The Times in 2012 that Walter was a disciplined, focused and careful investor.

“He is a guy with one of the great financial minds of our time,” the person said.

For Walter, 66, who grew up playing youth baseball about 50 miles from the Iowa cornfield that became Kevin Costner’s “Field of Dreams,” that financial success was all well and good. But the longtime Chicago Cubs season-ticket holder really was a die-hard baseball fan whose dream was to own a sports franchise.

Walter first explored a purchase of the Houston Astros, who eventually were sold to Houston businessman Jim Crane for $615 million ahead of the 2012 season. So Walter pivoted and formed Guggenheim Baseball Management, a group that included Kasten, Lakers Hall of Famer Magic Johnson, movie producer Peter Guber and investors Bobby Patton and Todd Boehly, to buy the Dodgers for $2.15 billion, a record at the time, in March 2012. Part of the money Walter invested in the deal came from the insurers he controlled, although that deal was vetted by state insurance regulators.

MLB engineered the sale of the Dodgers after previous owner Frank McCourt filed for bankruptcy.

“The market drove the price,” Walter told The Times after the sale closed, calling the investment “a multigenerational thing my daughter’s granddaughters will own.” Walter’s daughter, who grew up joining family trips to Los Angeles for Dodgers games, is a marketing manager at TWG Global.

1

2

1. WASHINGTON, DC – JULY 02: U.S. President Joe Biden (C) holds the jersey given to him by Los Angeles Dodgers Chairman Mark Walter during an event with the 2020 World Series champions in the East Room of the White House on July 02, 2021 in Washington, DC. The Dodgers defeated the Tampa Bay Rays to win the championship series at the end of an abbreviated season due to the coronavirus. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images) (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images) 2. WASHINGTON, DC – APRIL 07: (L-R) Los Angeles Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershaw, U.S. President Donald Trump, and Los Angeles Dodgers Owner and Chairman Mark Walter pose with a jersey presented to Trump as he hosts the 2024 World Series champions in the East Room of the White House on April 07, 2025 in Washington, DC. The Los Angeles Dodgers defeated the New York Yankees with a 7-6 victory in Game 5. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images) (Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images)

Today, the team is the most lucrative in the sport and is on pace to become just the second this century to draw more than 4 million fans in consecutive seasons. The Dodgers could be sold for a valuation of $10 billion to $13 billion — at the higher end, three times as much as the record sale price for a major league team — an industry source told The Times on the condition of anonymity.

Through it all, Walter mostly has shunned attention. The exception is participating in on-field championship celebrations and joining the team for trips to the White House during the Trump and Biden administrations.

His smooth run was interrupted during the Dodgers’ run to the 2024 World Series when Walter suffered a stroke that kept him from the victory celebration. His recovery reportedly was arduous; Walter struggled to speak clearly for months and didn’t return to public view until the Dodgers’ season-opening series in Japan the following spring.

Walter didn’t publicly step down from any roles after the stroke, holding on to control of a vast portfolio. Since buying the Dodgers, he has invested in European soccer, women’s hockey and basketball, squash and auto racing. He also bought several historic buildings in the resort town of Crested Butte, Colo., where he and his philanthropist wife own a home. In 2013, the couple purchased the Wild Oak Plantation, a 17,000-acre wildlife preserve in northeast Florida, where the Walters now spend most of their time.

Kimbra has served on the boards of Chicago’s Lincoln Park Zoo, OneGoal nonprofit and Goodman Theatre and is active in the family’s charitable organization, TWF Causes, which focuses on social impact and conservation work, including owning or supporting several major conservation and private reserve properties in Africa.

The family has a limited political footprint, with Walter donating to the Democratic National Committee and the campaigns of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama and then-Chicago mayoral candidate Rahm Emanuel. The majority of their donations, however, run through their family foundation and the Dodgers Foundation.

“For us, my wife and I, and all of my partners believe that corporations have to be corporate citizens, and individuals who benefit from them, or who have built them, need to give back,” Walter told ESPN soon after buying the Dodgers. “You can’t take it with you, and you ought to do something philanthropic with it.”

But while he’s put money into charitable projects, he’s invested his heart and soul in the Dodgers, Kasten said.

“He cares deeply about it,” the Dodgers president said. “He’s living through every play, every out, every at-bat.”

However much longer Walter remains invested in the Dodgers — financially, at least — could come down to math.

Justice Department prosecutors, the Securities and Exchange Commission and a Delaware insurance regulator are investigating whether Walter funneled as much as $21 billion from the portfolios of two insurance companies he owns into private credit for loans to other companies he also controls while reporting just a fraction of the loans’ value. The Wall Street Journal and the Athletic reported Walter used billions of dollars of those insurance premiums to buy sports teams.

Such “related party transactions” are legal, within limits, but are required to be reported to guard against conflicts of interest and to protect clients.

In Walter’s case, the related-party loans f initially were reported at between $1 billion and $1.4 billion when the true total actually was between $16 billion and $21 billion. The reclassification meant the affiliated investments jumped from 2% of one insurer’s portfolio to about 40%, according to Fitch Ratings.

No formal charges have been filed, and TWG Global, the multinational holding company led by Walter, is cooperating in the investigation. Walter has declined to be interviewed or to respond to written questions about the investigation, but his representatives have strongly denied any improper behavior, describing reports of the probe as “substantial speculation and misinformation” advanced by “unnamed sources and self-serving interests.”

“It does not inspire confidence to know that this kind of wild understatement happened,” said Andrew Granato, a law professor at the University of Texas at Austin who specializes in corporate finance and insurance. “It also doesn’t inspire very much confidence in the system of insurance regulation we have, that there could be this big of a mess that was not caught for years.”

Walter hired veteran Goldman Sachs lawyer David Markowitz to be his chief legal officer and reportedly is exploring the sale of his 12.8% stake in the Chelsea soccer club to Clearlake Capital, a Santa Monica-based private-equity firm whose Puerto Rican-born co-founder, José E. Feliciano, recently bought the San Diego Padres.

A source close to Walter not authorized to discuss it publicly told The Times he has an interest in selling Chelsea if the terms are right but insisted there is no desire to sell the Sparks, the PWHL, his investment in professional squash or, more prominently, his stake in the Dodgers.

While Kasten and TWG Global officials insist the Dodgers aren’t for sale, uncertainty likely will linger at least until all investigations are completed.

Times staff writer Mirjam Swanson contributed to this report.

For the last month, the Los Angeles Dodgers and Lakers have filled the headlines and airwaves, but not for the reasons either would like.

The Lakers were sold by Mark Walter in mid-August, just over a year after he bought the team.

The sale came about two weeks after the Wall Street Journal reported in late July that the U.S. attorney’s office and securities regulators were investigating Walter’s business and insurance empire regarding $16 billion to $21 billion in possibly fraudulent loans.

In June of last year, 66-year-old Walter and one of his holding companies, TWG Global, purchased a controlling interest in the Lakers for $10 billion, only to sell the franchise to Joshua Kushner and Bob Iger for $12.5 billion this month.

Bloomberg reported that Walter’s sale of the Lakers was done to eliminate some of the billions in outstanding loans that has drawn the ire of federal regulators.

Since then, questions have swirled about whether Walter will put other assets on the market in his fundraising bid, including the Dodgers, which he purchased as chief executive of Chicago investment firm Guggenheim Partners for $2.15 billion in 2012. Sources close to Walter say he’s not likely to sell.

To better understand this tangled story, we spoke with Times sports reporter Steve Henson about why he thinks Walter won’t put the Dodgers up for sale.

What are federal investigators examining

Business reporter Laurence Darmiento wrote Aug. 5 that the heart of the federal investigation swirls around related-party transactions.

These dealings are “between entities with business or personal ties, including loans, sales and other transactions that can have legitimate reasons but pose potential conflicts of interest and typically require extra scrutiny,” Darmiento wrote.

More than $1 billion in financing to buy the Dodgers in 2012 came from insurance companies managed by Guggenheim Partners. The purchase was later vetted by state insurance regulators.

More on the related-party transactions

Investigators are checking whether billions of dollars’ worth of similar loans made by Walter’s companies were properly disclosed and that insurance companies were not over-leveraged.

Approximately $21 billion in loans not disclosed to state insurance regulators were made by two Delaware insurers Walter owns, according to ratings agency Fitch. The loans reportedly were made to companies with ties to Walter or his TWG Global holdings company.

The issue with these loans is they raise suspicions, according to Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant who spoke with Darmiento. Dubinsky worked on the Enron and Madoff cases.

Dubinsky said that from an audit standpoint, these types of transactions “are always more suspect to fraud” and manipulation since repayments can be delayed indefinitely.

The insurance industry’s tight regulations for money collected from premiums exists so that money is available for future claims. Regulators believe related-party transaction are a threat to that guarantee.

TWG Global has rejected any allegations of wrongdoing.

Why is Walter fighting to keep the Dodgers

Henson teamed with Times colleagues to write about Walter’s chances of hanging on to the Dodgers amid this federal probe and whether new owners Bob Iger and Josh Kushner overpaid for the Lakers.

Henson reported that Walter owns a broad series of sports interests: English soccer Premier League team Chelsea, the Los Angeles Sparks WNBA team, the Cadillac Formula 1 racing team; a premier women’s tennis competition, the Billie Jean King Cup, and the entire Professional Women’s Hockey League.

He already sold the Lakers and Henson noted that there have been reports he’s putting his shares of Chelsea on the market.

So, why keep the Dodgers?

“No MLB team has ever been run as boldly as this team,” Henson said. “And the revenue from the Dodgers is relentless, from ticket sales, to international merchandise and including friendly [player] salary deferments that help keep money in-house.”

Since Walter and Co.’s takeover, the Dodgers have won three of the last six World Series and 12 division titles after he and partners rescued the franchise from bankruptcy.

Walter noted that a sale of the Lakers, a franchise he’d barely owned for more than a year, was easier than one he’s already helmed for nearly 15 years.

“His identity is totally wrapped up with the Dodgers and this success saga,” Henson said. “It’s dear to his heart and having them to sell them would just tear him up.”

Amid all of this speculation, the boys in blue are attempting to become the first National League team (and third overall) to win three consecutive World Series titles this year.

The week’s biggest stories

(Carolyn Cole/Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times)

Trump administration policies and pushback

Artist and concert news

A final tribute

Television, advertising entertainment news

More news

Editor’s pick

More picks

Things to do

(Melody Xu/Los Angeles Times)

Today’s recipe

The San Juan Islands off Washington state has a much-loved clam chowder served at La Conner Brewing Co. in the tiny picturesque town of La Conner, Wash. The dish is spicy enough and not so thick with cream or flour and is a standout in the clam chowder world, according to Times reader Mary Ann Mollenkamp.

Have a great day, from the Essential California team

Jack Dolan, investigative reporter
Hugo Martín, assistant editor, fast break desk
Kevinisha Walker, multiplatform editor
Andrew J. Campa, weekend writer
Karim Doumar, head of newsletters

How can we make this newsletter more useful? Send comments to essentialcalifornia@latimes.com. Check our top stories, topics and the latest articles on latimes.com.

Mark Walter doesn’t need to sell the Sparks. It said so in a release from his company Wednesday: “TWG is not looking to sell its sports assets at ‘fire sale’ prices to raise capital for its insurance operations.”

He should sell the Sparks anyway.

Not because of the investigations into allegations that insurance companies under Walter’s umbrella failed to properly disclose and conduct transactions between other companies he controls.

But for the sake of the storied WNBA franchise, which hasn’t won a championship in a decade and is about to miss the playoffs for the sixth consecutive season — something that would have been unthinkable six seasons ago.

Sell for the sake of the Sparks, who have long deserved an owner who wants seriously to run the team like Walter’s group runs, well, the Dodgers.

With passion and pride, foresight and smarts.

A steel beam is raised as the final structuarl piece of the Sparks’ $150-million training facility in El Segundo on Wednesday.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

And, yes, the new $150-million training facility that’s going to open in El Segundo next year is a better-late-than-never step in that direction.

It’s not too little; the 64,000-square-foot space, which will be tremendous in a prime location near the beach and shopping.

But it’s very late. Wednesday’s topping-out ceremony, when a construction crew lifted the final structural beam into place, doesn’t change that.

While so many of the Sparks’ rivals have had the upper hand in recruiting and retaining talent with state-of-the-art private practice spaces for the past few years, the Sparks have been — to use star forward Nneka Ogwumike’s word — “nomads.”

The Sparks have always offered fans a famously fun game-day experience, but their players had to continually get familiar with facilities all over Southern California, from L.A. Southwest and El Camino College to Academy USA in Glendale to Jump Beyond Sports in Torrance, from Windward School and Galen Center to JR286, the gym in Torrance where they practice now.

Starting next season, they’ll have a home.

A rendering of the Sparks’ new training facility in El Segundo.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

But it’s not because the Sparks’ ownership wanted to do what Mark Davis did with the Las Vegas Aces when he was the first owner to provide fancy new digs in 2023.

Not because they were resolute about giving the Sparks a first-class experience, like Joe Tsai did when he chartered flights for New York Liberty before the league said it was legal, getting himself fined $500,000.

But because the Sparks would fall further behind if they didn’t.

Because now “it’s the bare minimum,” said forward Dearica Hamby, whose input — dedicated spaces for family and naps — was incorporated into the building’s design.

It also will include two regulation basketball courts, a performance and training environment, hydrotherapy and recovery rooms and a player sanctuary.

“It represents a belief in our players,” said Stacy Johns, the team’s president. “It represents a belief in the future of the Sparks. And it represents a belief in where women’s basketball and women’s sports are going.”

Members of the media and guests gather with the Sparks’ front-office staff for the topping-out ceremony in El Segundo on Wednesday.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

Where’s that? Up.

Valuations are growing. In May, CNBC reported that the WNBA’s current teams were worth an average of $460 million — 84% more than the league’s most recent expansion fee of $250 million.

The Sparks — without taking the new facility, the largest investment to date in the history of women’s sports, into account — were valued at $415 million, seventh among the WNBA’s 15 teams.

The Golden State Valkyries, an expansion team in 2025, were valued at a record $1 billion, more than any women’s sports team in history.

That’s because the Valkyries — who are owned by the Golden State Warriors’ Joe Lacob and Peter Guber — have been innovative and imaginative, run more like the Dodgers than the Sparks, who are owned mostly by the same folks as the Dodgers.

The Dodgers instituted a private player-only plane and added Japanese-style toilets after then-recruit Roki Sasaki asked. The Valkyries established a 30-plus network of area bars for fans to gather to watch games and they helped a player with sleeping problems by offering everything from a different comforter to a sleep study.

Rendering of the inside the contrition of the Sparks’ new training facility, including a dining area.

(Ronaldo Bolanos / Los Angeles Times)

The Dodgers gave the keys to Andrew Friedman and Dave Roberts. The Valkyries’ GM is Ohemaa Nyanin, formerly an assistant GM with the WNBA champion New York Liberty, and their coach is former UCLA Bruin Natalie Nakase, before an assistant on Aces championship teams and an NBA assistant for years with the Clippers.

The Sparks have for the past several seasons cycled through unproven coaches and GMs, or fired experienced ones. Unable to pick a lane and drive it, they keep ricocheting between preaching patience and acting impatiently. And at the moment, they don’t even have a GM after firing Raegan Pebley in July.

Johns, who was brought on to oversee the team’s business in April, said things are changing. And change takes time.

The Sparks are 13-25, behind the expansion Portland Fire in the standings and having lost twice to the expansion Toronto Tempo. But they’ve tripled their sports staff this year, adding performance and mental health therapists and additional basketball data people — who apparently aided in the construction of an old, uncompetitive roster.

“I couldn’t tell you what happened or who woke up one day and decided,” said Johns, who worked for the MLS champion LAFC and Super Bowl champion Indianapolis Colts. “But when I was recruited … I was explicitly told like, ‘This is changing,’ and like, ‘We’re hiring you because we want to signal change.’”

The biggest change that could help the Sparks? At the top, with someone who wants to push the envelope instead of compensate and play catchup.

Rendering of the inside the contrition of the Sparks’ new training facility, including a basketball court.

(Ronaldo Bolanos/Los Angeles Times)

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.”

When LeBron James signed up to lead the Los Angeles Lakers to NBA glory with a $154 million contract in 2018, it wasn’t the biggest deal he did that year.

Just months before he joined, a limited liability company he controls borrowed almost $300 million from a pair of Midwestern life insurers advised by an arm of Guggenheim Partners, according to insurance industry records reviewed by Bloomberg.

The previously unreported bonds, which are due in 2049, were structured to provide immediate cash to James and backed by a stream of future revenue tied to his earnings outside basketball such as a lifetime Nike Inc. sponsorship, people with knowledge of the matter said.

The burst of lending began before Guggenheim leader Mark Walter started acquiring the storied basketball team. In an abrupt turn this month, the billionaire mogul agreed to sell the Lakers amid a federal probe into parts of his business empire. There’s no indication that the loans to James have anything to do with those inquiries.

Athletes and artists are increasingly using future earnings like royalties and licensing deals to structure deals that help them unlock immediate capital. David Bowie was famously the first recording artist to go to Wall Street to tap the future earnings of his music, paving the way for a thriving market for esoteric securities.

But James’ deal offers another look at how Walter and fellow Wall Street money managers have tectonically shifted the once-boring business of life insurance, steering policyholder premiums into more unusual investments. Guggenheim has moved insurers’ money deeper into private credit, sports franchises and — with James — financing for a star player. That’s far outside the industry’s traditional focus on plain-vanilla assets to reliably pay out future claims.

The two insurers — North American Company for Life and Health Insurance and Midland National Life Insurance Co. — are both owned by Sammons Financial Group. During a call with investors this week, Sammons said Guggenheim was the sole manager in charge of picking assets for the firm’s portfolios until 2021, according to people who heard the remarks and, like others in this story, asked not to be identified describing confidential dealings.

Sammons has been distancing itself from Guggenheim recently. Walter’s firm had long counted Sammons’ parent company among its biggest investors. During the call, though, Sammons’ representatives said it has been selling down that stake, the people said.

The “transactions were a securitization done by Mr. James with his personal, non-NBA salary, assets and income which is a very common financial structure for an individual with this level of earnings and assets,” a spokesperson for James said.

Spokespeople for Sammons and Guggenheim declined to comment.

The scrutiny of Walter’s empire by the Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission has turned up the spotlight on the intermingling of asset managers and insurers.

Wall Street power players have used insurance balance sheets to pursue their quest for higher returns, steering the savings of everyday Americans into more opaque and complex investments. The approach lets asset managers originate and structure deals, and then find uncomplaining buyers by parking such investments on the balance sheets of insurers they influence.

King James Funding

James’ borrowing from the two Midwestern insurers — structured as sales of asset-backed bonds — began when he was at the Cleveland Cavaliers and his career was poised for new heights.

The two companies bought almost $300 million bonds issued by an LLC he controlled called King James Funding, the records show. Within a few years, the LLC paid down some of that debt, then sold more bonds to the insurers, leaving them with about $245 million on their books by the end of last year, the records show.

The initial bonds from 2018 had a 4.8% interest rate and aren’t due until late 2049, the industry filings show. Terms are otherwise scant in the records reviewed by Bloomberg.

A few months after the deal, James started looking for another team as a free agent, ultimately picking the Lakers. In an oft-retold moment, he received a visit at home from Walter’s longtime business partner Magic Johnson, then a top executive for the Lakers. James ultimately signed a four-year contract.

Then in mid-August 2022, James signed a $97 million contract extension with the Lakers. Around that same time, the same Midwestern insurers provided his LLC with more cash, buying almost $60 million of 34-year bonds with a 5.75% interest rate, the insurers’ records show.

“Both transactions were independently credit rated by a third party and the 2022 transaction was fully approved by NBA,” James’ spokesperson said, noting the athlete had no affiliation with Guggenheim, Sammons, North American Co. or Midland National beyond their participation in the transactions.

Guggenheim also got involved in some of James’ other personal ventures. As the Covid pandemic took hold in 2020, he and his childhood friend and business partner, Maverick Carter, announced that they had raised $100 million for their media venture called SpringHill Co. Guggenheim was listed among investors in that company.

Leaving the Lakers

For more than a decade, Walter has mixed money from insurers with investments in sports. His 2012 acquisition of the Los Angeles Dodgers with business partners including Johnson relied heavily on the insurance industry.

Afterward, the new team’s owners ramped up spending on players to turn the franchise into a jewel of professional baseball, appearing in five of the past nine World Series. But that playbook isn’t as feasible in the NBA, which has stricter caps on team salaries.

Walter’s acquisition of the Lakers began in 2021 when he purchased a minority stake, granting him rights that paved the way for him to take a majority stake last year.

The sale of the team came as Walter has been reshaping his empire to unwind more than $20 billion of loans on his insurers’ books that should have been marked as funding affiliated businesses, but weren’t. While regulations allow insurers to lend money to such parties, they require that the dealings be disclosed.

James, meanwhile, announced that he’s leaving the Lakers and he signed a two-year deal with the Philadelphia 76ers. His new team is co-owned by Josh Harris, whose 26North Partners invests across middle-market private equity, credit and insurance.

Li, Sridhar Natarajan and Rajbhandari write for Bloomberg.

First inning, Shohei Ohtani walks, steals second, jogs to third on a single by Freddie Freeman, scores on a grounder by Mookie Betts.

That’s great, but is Mark Walter selling the Dodgers?

Second inning, Blake Snell gives up a one-out single to Spencer Horwitz, who advances to second on a passed ball, but Snell strands him with a strikeout of Billy Cook.

Lovely, but what happens if Mark Walter sells the Dodgers?

Third inning, Bryan Reynolds draws a two-out walk, but Snell strands him with a flyout to left by Brandon Lowe.

Walter, Lakers, feds, billions, sell?

On a blistering Sunday afternoon at Dodger Stadium, the Dodgers defeated the Pittsburgh Pirates 4-0 to complete a three-game sweep, but the rumblings beneath Chavez Ravine indicated there was much more at stake.

This is a solid franchise fighting for its footing. This is a powerful dynasty that could be undone by paper.

So, seriously, are the Dodgers getting sold?

Nobody knows, but a reasonable guess would be yes.

The Dodgers, of course, say no way, no how, no chance. Stan Kasten, the Dodgers’ president, even met with the media Friday specifically to say it’s not happening.

“The Dodgers are not being sold,” Kasten said. “They’re not going to be sold. They’re not for sale. There’s no process that has been started to sell [the franchise]. Period.”

Period? Kasten is a busy man, and there’s seemingly no way he holds even an impromptu meeting with reporters about a possible sale if that “period” wasn’t a “question mark.”

It is indeed a huge question mark, one that suddenly appeared less than two weeks ago when Walter stunningly sold the Lakers just 14 months after buying them.

A federal investigation into insurance companies Walter controls may have led to the Lakers sale, and there’s since been plenty of confusing talk about related-party transactions and holding companies and invested assets.

Translated for Dodgers fans?

The owner of your team also owns another business facing a big legal problem that requires billions to fix. And the only way he can raise those billions is to sell his assets. And the $2.5 billion he will receive from the Lakers flip is only a drop in the bucket.

Which means the Dodgers could be next.

There are reports that Walter is selling his shares in the Chelsea Football Club of the English Premier League, but that won’t cut it.

He could sell some of his smaller properties such as the WNBA’s Sparks, the Cadillac Formula 1 racing team, and the entire Professional Women’s Hockey League, but that might not cut it, either.

His richest, most lucrative, and perhaps most expensive property is the Dodgers. A source told The Times’ Bill Shaikin they could be worth between $10 billion and $13 billion, which would be a record price for a baseball team.

Though no charges have been filed against Walter or anyone associated with his businesses, one could imagine Walter pulling the trigger on the Dodgers sale simply to keep the feds at bay.

“I wanted you to hear it definitively: We are not selling the Dodgers,” Kasten repeated. “We are continuing with our plans going forward, like we always have had them. This comes from Mark. He’s gung ho about continuing to try to win, again, including next year, subject to whatever next year’s climate looks like.”

This full-speed-ahead attitude by Dodgers management is what makes it so hard to imagine the team being owned by someone other than Walter.

Without Walter, there is no dynasty. Without Walter, there is no richest team in baseball. Without Walter, there is no happiest fan base in baseball.

Dodgers owner Mark Walter helps Shohei Ohtani put on a jersey during a news conference on Dec. 14, 2023, after the two-way star signed a 10-year, $700-million deal with the team.

(Wally Skalij / Los Angeles Times)

Since Walter and his Guggenheim Baseball Management Group purchased the team in 2012, they have spared no expense in winning 12 of the last 13 National League West championships and three World Series titles.

Nobody in baseball spends like Walter, or will ever spend like Walter. From allowing the team to travel on two planes to adding baseball’s highest-paid player and relief pitcher last winter — Kyle Tucker and Edwin Díaz have been busts, but there’s time for redemption — nobody is willing to pay more for success than Walter.

Fans benefit from a Walter partnership on a daily basis. Witness Snell’s six shutout innings against the Pirates on Sunday. The Dodgers swept the three-game weekend series against the supposed contenders behind three starting pitchers who will lead off the playoffs yet who would not all be here if Walter didn’t own the joint.

Who else could pay to acquire superstars Yoshinobu Yamamoto and Snell while building up a farm system that could produce prospects who were used to acquire Tarik Skubal?

The three starters combined to allow the Pirates just five runs in 19 innings with 26 strikeouts and five walks, and how good is that going to look in October?

While Andrew Friedman supplies the talent and Kasten works the business, none of it is possible without the seemingly endless flood of money approved by Walter.

Well, the end might be near.

If Walter sells the team, they could possibly lose their two MVPs — Friedman and Ohtani. Unless the new owners give Friedman a piece of the team, he could set off to build another dynasty elsewhere. And Ohtani has a clause famously included in his contract that allows him to leave if either Friedman or Walter leaves. If Walter goes, Ohtani could demand a new contract with terms that a new cash-strapped owner cannot afford.

As of last week, there is so much at stake, so many reasons to worry, and even all the winning by baseball’s best-run team won’t offer much relief.

Now baseball’s best owner is suddenly its most embattled owner, and Dodgers fans should be afraid.

Very afraid.

Dodgers president Stan Kasten wants to make it clear that majority owner Mark Walter will not sell the team.

Following Walter’s decision to sell his majority stake in the Lakers, questions about his majority ownership of the Dodgers were raised amid his company’s financial difficulties, which include a federal probe of his businesses. But Kasten said it will have no effect on Walter’s majority ownership of the Dodgers.

“The Dodgers are not being sold,” Kasten said. “They’re not going to be sold. They’re not for sale. There’s no process that has been started to sell [the franchise]. Period. … I just wanted this to be clear because this question keeps coming up. I understand the questions; I do. The Lakers thing was what we call sui generis, one of those one-of-a-kind things. Really has nothing to do with what’s happening with [the Dodgers] or the other teams.

“I wanted you to hear it definitively: We are not selling the Dodgers. We are continuing with our plans going forward, like we always have had them. This comes from Mark. He’s gung-ho about continuing to try to win, again, including next year, subject to whatever next year’s climate looks like.”

Kasten added that he doesn’t expect the Dodgers’ operations to be interrupted, describing the franchise as “very stable, well-managed, and [with] very solid ownership.”

“I know nothing involving the Dodgers is part of the investigation,” Kasten said. “I’m promising you, when it’s over, you’re going to realize [things] are being mischaracterized. You don’t have to trust me, but I’m telling you.”

When Kasten was asked about reports Walter is trying to sell his stake in English Premier League team Chelsea FC and tried to cash out of lucrative TV deals with Charter Communications, he said they were mischaracterized.

“Those things don’t go together for a bunch of reasons I’m not going to get into today,” Kasten said.

Kasten took a similar tone when asked about reports of Walter having to repay insurance companies.

“I’m not in that part of the investigation,” Kasten said. “Things are going on behind the scenes, obviously, in connection with that. I’m not privy to all of them, don’t need to know, don’t want to know. But one thing we are all certain about: the sports portfolio is going to remain intact.”

Walter has additional ownership stakes in the Sparks, the Cadillac Formula One team, the Professional Women’s Hockey League and the Billie Jean King Cup tennis event.

“I can tell you from the guy running the team, knowing how the business runs and what it can support in terms of revenues and expenses — the Dodgers aren’t going anywhere,” Kasten said. “I feel that very strongly, and Mark feels even stronger than I do. I’m 74. I don’t know how long I’m going to be running it, but Mark, I think, is going to be running it a lot longer.

“I think Mark has done an extraordinary job as an owner, and all he’s ever cared about is providing the best experience in order to make us more money, to make this project successful,” Kasten added. “I think so far it has been; I expect that to continue far into the future.”

For more than four decades, the Lakers were a family-run business. The sibling rivalries still remain.

Jeanie Buss is fighting back after her siblings reportedly voted to sell the family’s remaining stake in the Lakers on Monday. The team’s governor, Buss sent a letter through her attorney to her brothers’ attorneys stating any votes to sell the family’s remaining 17.8% stake in the team to new majority owners Bob Iger and Joshua Kushner are void because the sale cannot be completed without approval of the other trustees: Jeanie and her younger siblings, Janie and Joey.

ESPN reported Monday that the six Buss family siblings, who took over team ownership after their father, Jerry Buss, died in 2013, are selling their shares of the Lakers to Iger and Kushner following a family vote. Iger, the longtime Disney chief executive, and Kushner, a venture capitalist and entrepreneur, agreed last week to buy Mark Walter’s controlling stake of the Lakers for a record valuation of $12.5 billion.

The transactions still need to be approved by the NBA board of governors. Jeanie Buss, who was to remain the Lakers governor for at least five years after Walter’s purchase of the team was approved last October, no longer would be eligible to serve on the board if the Buss family sells its shares. Governors are required to own at least a 15% stake.

“The co-trustees are bound to vote the Los Angeles Lakers, Inc. shares to ensure that the minimum 15% ownership requirement is maintained in order to ensure that Jeanie Buss may remain controlling owner,” the letter from Buss’ attorney reads, citing a 2017 court ruling outlining Jeanie Buss’ role. “Any attempt by the co-trustees to do otherwise and any attempt to aid or abet the co-trustees as such would constitute a breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duty and be in contempt of court.”

The trust was revised in 2017 after a series of legal battles between Jeanie and her older brothers, Johnny and Jim. It stipulated that co-trustees “would take all actions reasonably available to them, including voting the trust’s shares to ensure that [Jeanie Buss] is elected as the controlling owner of the Lakers on an annual basis during [her] lifetime.”

The statement to ESPN attributed to the Buss family regarding the sale read: “We have decided as a family to sell the remaining Buss Family Trust shares to the Bob Iger group as part of the ongoing transaction. We love the Lakers, Laker fans and will continue to support Los Angeles; but it is time to use this opportunity to move on and exit gracefully while we still can.” ESPN didn’t report a price for the shares.

The Buss family has owned the team since 1979, when Jerry Buss bought the franchise, the Forum and the Los Angeles Kings for $67.5 million. The family patriarch leveraged Hollywood glamour with entertainment spectacle to elevate the Lakers into an internationally recognized brand. The NBA’s biggest stars shone brightest in L.A.; Jerry West, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O’Neal and Kobe Bryant helped pile up 10 championships under Buss. The Laker Girls became a harbinger of sports dance teams to come. Celebrities flocked to the courtside seats. Books and TV shows told the team’s Hollywood story.

Each of Buss’ six children — Jeanie, Jim, Johnny, Janie, Joey and Jesse — held titles in the organization. Jeanie was her father’s hand-picked successor. She fought to maintain her position against Johnny and Jim, who tried to reorganize the board of directors to push Jeanie out in 2017. She eventually ousted them from team operations. Joey and Jessie, the two youngest, were fired by the new owners last November. Joey was the team’s alternate governor and vice president of research and development, and Jesse was the assistant general manager. Janie held an administrative role directing the team’s charitable services.

The booming sports business quickly caught up to the team that once held the attention of the city with the league’s biggest stars, iconic “Showtime” style and old Hollywood feel. The Lakers slogged through a six-year playoff drought from 2013-19. The team started falling behind in resources and revenue compared to other organizations that controlled their own arenas and could maximize alternative revenue streams. The Buss family voted to relinquish a majority ownership of the team last year, bringing in Walter, who also owns the Dodgers.

Walter then shockingly flipped the NBA’s crown jewel franchise for a profit of $2.5 billion last week. The investment mogul who is under federal investigation for unpaid loans agreed to sell his stake in the Lakers to Kushner and Iger. Kushner is a co-founder of Thrive Capital, which started a permanent holdings company, Thrive Eternal, this year to invest in sports and cultural brands. Iger is the longtime Disney CEO who already owns Southland soccer club Angel City FC and previously flirted with NFL ownership by trying to build a stadium in Carson before the project ultimately went to the Stan Kroenke-led group that built SoFi Stadium in Inglewood.

Before including the Buss shares, the deal for the Lakers’ majority stake already was the largest sum paid for any professional sports franchise, surpassed only by Walter’s $10-billion purchase of the team. It still sits below Sportico’s estimate for the most valuable franchise, with the outlet listing the Dallas Cowboys’ valuation at $15.5 billion.

Minority stakeholders Dr. Patrick Soon-Shiong, who also owns the Los Angeles Times Media Group; real estate billionaire Ed Roski; and Walter business partner Todd Boehly own about 14% of the Lakers, according to Sportico.

How Iger and Kushner will finance the Lakers deal is unclear.

When the duo agreed to buy Walter’s share last week, Kushner and Iger released a statement that in part praised the Buss family’s work with the Lakers.

“We have immense respect for the leadership and vision of Jerry and Jeanie Buss,” the statement read. “Our long-term commitment is to build on that foundation, compete at the highest level, and serve this extraordinary team, its fans, and the city of Los Angeles.”

When Mark Walter, the Lakers controlling owner, flipped the storied team last week for $12.5 billion amid a federal probe of his businesses, it stunned the sports world but seemed to make financial and legal sense.

The Dodgers majority owner, who had bought his stake in the basketball team last year at a $10-billion valuation, likely netted a big payday from the sale to former Disney Chief Executive Bob Iger and venture capitalist Joshua Kushner.

And that’s money the billionaire can apply to pay down the debts of two troubled Delaware life insurers he owns that are under federal scrutiny.

It’s not at all clear whether the sale of the Lakers will have any effect on the ongoing investigations. Neither Walter nor his companies have been charged with any crimes.

TWG Global, Walter’s holding company, did not respond to a request for comment Friday, but a spokesperson for the company has previously stated that they are cooperating with authorities and expect the matter to be resolved “favorably.”

“Mark Walter and TWG have always acted in good faith, and those who have done business with Mark know him as honest and straightforward,” the statement said.

After receiving federal grand jury subpoenas in February, Delaware Life and Clear Spring Life and Annuity conducted internal investigations. They found that $21 billion in loans they made should have been recorded as extended to “related parties.”

Related parties have business or personal ties and transactions between them can have legitimate reasons, but they also pose potential conflicts of interest and require disclosure and typically extra regulatory scrutiny.

In the case of insurers, which hold premium dollars from policyholders for future claims payouts, regulators want to ensure the money is there when it’s needed. Related-party transactions can threaten that.

Walter, 66, chief executive of Chicago investment firm Guggenheim Partners, led a group that included another Guggenheim executive and Magic Johnson in acquiring the Dodgers for $2.15 billion in 2012. The Times has reported he tapped the insurers he owned for financing, a deal that was later vetted by state insurance regulators.

However, the amount of related-party loans made by the two affiliated life insurers now under federal scrutiny is vastly more, amounting to 40% of the invested assets of Delaware Life as of Dec. 31, according to Fitch Ratings. The credit rating outfit said that is the most of any North American life insurers it reviews.

It’s unclear exactly where all the money went, but the Wall Street Journal reported billions were passed through a third party before being received by entities tied to Walter or his TWG Global holding company.

Company executives also told Fitch that they were unaware they were making related-party loans. Bloomberg reported that investigators are looking at some loans made to multiple companies affiliated with one Chicago firm to see if they were passed along to Walter’s ventures.

In June regulatory filings that disclosed the $21 billion in restatements, each insurer labeled them as “corrections of errors,” which would imply that they were inadvertent.

Jacob Frenkel, a former U.S. attorney, said it appears clear a focus of the investigation into Walter’s businesses is to determine whether the restatements were just errors.

“If there is intentional concealment of related-party transactions or the creation of intermediaries to help with that concealment, that certainly [could] invite criminal and civil enforcement scrutiny,” said Frenkel, who prosecuted financial crimes and also worked for the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Authorities have seized Walter’s cellphone and laptop, according to Bloomberg. Still, investigations by prosecutors and securities regulators can result in no action.

Frenkel said that if criminality is found in complex investigations such as this one, federal prosecutors will typically file mail or wire fraud charges that carry up to 20 years in prison.

It would not matter whether a company that was the victim of fraudulent conduct closed or is able to continue conducting business after being rescued financially.

“The entity’s failure is not a prerequisite for there to be a crime in intentionally misleading conduct,” he said.

The Securities and Exchange Commission is conducting a parallel investigation into both companies, according to their regulatory filings.

Frenkel said its interest could revolve around how Guggenheim Investments, Walter’s asset management firm, booked revenue from its dealings with the insurers and the disclosures of the transactions.

The SEC can seek civil monetary penalties and the return of illegal profits, and bar or suspend an individual from serving as a corporate officer or director, among other remedies.

Delaware Life and Clear Spring are part of TWG’s Group 1001 Life & Annuity.

Delaware Life has started a remediation plan to restructure some of the loans, review others and address its “control deficiencies,” including through TWG purchasing some of the loans, according to ratings outfit S&P Global. It hopes to complete the plan by the end of the year.

However, Fitch in its downgrade of Delaware Life said the plan may prove “insufficient to fully address governance, reporting, and investment oversight issues.”

The Delaware Department of Insurance did not respond to emails for comment.

Rex Frazier, a former deputy commissioner at the California Department of Insurance, said that in the situation that the insurers find themselves, the state regulator will be looking at a company’s capital sufficiency.

“The change from unaffiliated to affiliated transactions can affect the regulator’s view of whether the insurers have adequate capital and, if the regulator thinks not, then the regulator can impose additional capital requirements,” said Frazier, now president of the Personal Insurance Federation of California, a property and casualty industry trade group.

“If the regulator determines that there is inadequate capital to pay for their obligations … there are many serious remedies they can take to protect vulnerable people depending on those income streams,” he said, including seizing a company or forcing its sale.

There is no indication that either insurer is in such dire straits. Since the disclosures, rating agencies Fitch, AM Best and S&P Global have downgraded the companies’ outlook to negative, but they also have said the insurers maintain a high level of financial strength.

Walter is not the only owner of a life insurer to rely on related-party loans to fund its business dealings.

AM Best, in a December report, said affiliated investments among life insurers and annuity companies grew more than 17% annually in 2024 to more than $373 billion, driven by those owned by private equity and asset managers.

It said the growth of such investments — a type of related-party transactions — presents “regulatory risks” that may suggest “a company’s operations are more intertwined with its parent and affiliated investment management with possible negative consequences.”

“Should the parent/affiliate company experience financial stress, negative impacts to the insurer are heightened due to the higher exposure,” it said.

Frenkel said it’s good to keep in mind that at the end of their investigations, neither the Justice Department nor the SEC may take any action.

However, due to the complexity of the case, it may be a while before that point is even reached.

“This is clearly the type of investigation that the ‘where is this going?’ conversation could easily still be continuing in January of 2028,” he said.

In 2012, on the day after Mark Walter and his partners bought the Dodgers, I sat next to Walter in a conference room. To the sports fan, Walter was virtually anonymous: a super rich guy who had made his money running investment and insurance companies.

Walter’s purchase valued the Dodgers and its related assets at a then-record $2.15 billion. That value stunned the sports world. Mark Cuban had bowed out of the bidding, believing the Dodgers were not worth even $1 billion.

I asked Walter why he believed it made business sense to pay three times as much as any major league team had sold for.

“I think you have a few moments in life where you have the opportunity to own an asset and really be a custodian of something that should be multigenerational and iconic,” he said then. “I understand it’s a lot of money. But it’s not as if you can go buy another one tomorrow. … We hope we never, ever are going to sell it.”

That was essentially the point that someone who travels within the inner circles of pro sports made to me Wednesday morning, as news broke that Walter had sold the Lakers to Bob Iger, the former Disney chief, and Joshua Kushner.

The Steinbrenner family has owned the New York Yankees for 53 years. Jerry Jones has owned the Dallas Cowboys for 37 years. The Buss family owned the Lakers for 46 years.

These trophy assets are few and far between. Walter had agreed to sell the Lakers after less than one year of ownership — and not through a comprehensive bidding process, but to an inquiring caller during the weekend?

“This has more red flags than a May Day parade,” an industry insider said, speaking on condition of anonymity so as not to jeopardize his professional relationships.

The deal, which valued the Lakers at $12.5 billion, was motivated by the spiraling price for an NBA expansion team in Las Vegas, according to ESPN’s Ramona Shelburne. After all, if Iger and Kushner might have to pay $10 billion for a startup team, why not call and see if Walter might accept a bit more for one of the marquee franchises in American sports?

Was this a blind call or was Walter looking to sell?

“It was suggested to us that maybe Mark Walter would be interested in selling his stake in the Lakers,” Iger told the California Post.

What did Dodgers president Stan Kasten have to say about that?

“I never knew that. He never said that to me,” Kasten said. “I think he was surprised by it. That’s what he has expressed to me. Mark had no plan to do this. This just came up, and he thought about it and said yes.”

Why might Walter have been interested in selling?

Mark Walter acknowledges a fan before a game against the Cubs in Chicago this month.

(Melissa Tamez / Associated Press)

Only he can say for sure, but his companies are under federal investigation for failing to disclose and properly account for billions of dollars of loans among related entities. Bloomberg reported Wednesday that Walter’s holding company is trying to raise money that could help pay off or at least pay down those loans, and the Financial Times reported that company assets could be sold or restructured.

No charges have been filed, and investigations can conclude without charges. No allegations of wrongdoing have been made against Walter.

Is there a baseball angle to this?

Among the investment firms Walter’s holding company approached about “deals to raise cash,” according to Bloomberg: the asset management firm owned by New York Mets owner Steve Cohen.

Cohen’s firm passed, according to the Financial Times.

When Walter and his partners bought the Dodgers, the runners-up: the bid team of Cohen and Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong.

“No, that never came up. And Mark and I discussed it,” Kasten said. “So, no, we don’t have any reason to think that. I certainly have no reason to think that.”

What does Walter’s sale of the Lakers mean for the Dodgers?

“It means nothing for the Dodgers,” someone who speaks regularly with Walter said, speaking on condition of anonymity. “He owned them long before the Lakers and will own them long after.”

If Walter should later sell the Dodgers, what might have the greatest impact on the team?

Shohei Ohtani has an out clause in his contract if Mark Walter sells the team.

(Eric Thayer / Los Angeles Times)

Shohei Ohtani’s 10-year, $700-million contract with the Dodgers includes an unusual escape clause: If Walter is no longer the controlling owner, or if Andrew Friedman is no longer running the Dodgers’ baseball operations department, Ohtani can opt out of the contract.

Would he?

Way too soon to tell. If major league owners get their way in collective bargaining, the proposed salary cap would mean Ohtani at $70 million could eat up just about one-third of any team’s payroll. And, in his third year with the Dodgers, he has yet to complete a full season as a pitcher, and a left knee in which manager Dave Roberts says Ohtani suffers from “wear and tear” could make him less of a two-way player as the contract winds down.

On the other hand, playing salary might be less of an issue for him than for any other player in baseball. Ohtani is making more than his annual salary from sponsorships and endorsements — an estimated $125 million this year — and he famously deferred $68 million of each year’s salary so the Dodgers could spend more freely on players that could help him and the team win. After six losing years with the Angels and two World Series championships in two years with the Dodgers, a losing team might not entice Ohtani, no matter how much room it might have under a proposed cap.

Iger used to run Disney. How did Disney’s experience owning the Angels and Mighty Ducks go?

Disney chairman Michael Eisner, left, NHL commissioner Gary Bettman, NHL chairman Bruce McNall and Mighty Ducks chairman Jack Lindquist blow duck calls announcing the name of the team in 1993.

(Doug Pizac / Associated Press)

Disney dressed the Angels in uniforms derided by one player as “pinstripe pajamas,” put cheerleaders on the dugout roof and installed a loud “countdown to first pitch.” This all seemed awful at the time but, given the plagues of in-game hosts and teams sporting jerseys in colors far beyond home white and road gray, perhaps Disney was just ahead of its time. And, for the first few years of the franchise, Mighty Ducks gear was some of the hottest merchandise in American sports.

Ultimately, Disney wanted the Angels and Mighty Ducks to launch an “ESPN West” regional sports channel. When that channel collapsed, Disney no longer needed the teams and eventually sold them. The Angels were such a minimal part of Disney’s portfolio that then-chief executive Michael Eisner showed up in the clubhouse and the players had no idea who he was.

Who owned the Angels when they won their only World Series championship?

Angels players wave to fans during the World Series title parade in Anaheim in 2002.

(Jean-Marc Bouju / Associated Press)

Disney. The company hired an investment banker to sell the team in the final month before the Angels won the 2002 World Series and agreed to sell to Arte Moreno in the first month of the following season.

One more try: Why did Walter really sell the Lakers?

“I think it was opportunistic and he found something that made sense to him,” Kasten said. “Mark’s a very sensible guy. But that’s really the only way I can explain it.

“You’ll have to talk to Mark about a more in-depth explanation, and good luck.”

Times staff writer Maddie Lee contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — After a generation of comfortable Democratic majorities in the House, Republican congressmen seemed resigned to life in the minority–until Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and the Congressional Opportunity Society began using House rules to wage guerrilla war against the entrenched leadership.

Dismissed at first as gadflies and ideologues, the young Republicans gradually developed political muscles. Two landmark events marked their coming of age: the resignation of Speaker Jim Wright following Gingrich-backed charges of ethics violations, and the election of Gingrich as whip, the second-ranking post in the House minority leadership.

Gingrich’s rise to prominence coincided with a major change in Washington’s political climate. In the 1980s, Washington was a town with clearly marked ideological divides. Issues such as Nicaragua and abortion dominated the agenda; battle lines were clear. The 1990s look quite different. With communism in retreat, the old foreign-policy battles no longer seem so important. After 10 years of a GOP White House, conservatives seem less opposed to strong government, and liberals less committed to it.

In retrospect, Gingrich’s call for sanctions against South Africa’s minority-white government seems a turning point in the emergence of the still unsettled Washington picture. Here was a leading conservative taking a position closer to that of Jesse Jackson than Margaret Thatcher.

If Washington has changed as the result of Gingrich’s challenges, Gingrich is changing as he becomes part of the Washington Establishment he once scorned. Like many political challengers before him, Gingrich seems to be finding that Establishments aren’t so bad–once the club lets you in.

This shift may cause him trouble down the road–Hell hath no fury like a right-wing scorned–but for now Gingrich has the best of both worlds: the support of conservatives and, increasingly, the respect and even friendship of moderates and some liberals.

During a relaxed and casual meeting, Gingrich seemed eager to talk about history and ideas. At times he seemed more like a popular college history teacher–a job he once held–than a powerful member of the congressional leadership. He seems comfortable with himself and his ambitions; confident of making his mark and willing to run risks.

He also has a quality that is rarer in Washington than it should be. For all the huge egos in Washington, there are relatively few people who see themselves against the backdrop of history. Gingrich is one. Men like Theodore Roosevelt and Winston Churchill are often in his speech–perhaps this says something about the scale of his ambition. That both these men were mavericks who changed parties and allies during their careers says something else about Gingrich. He will be hard to pin down in the political battles of the future–his loyalty seems given more to a vision than to people or parties.

Question: What is your foreign-policy vision for the United States?

Answer: Well, I think first of all you have to start with the presumption that there are three huge changes under way. There’s the rise of the true world market, where competitiveness and the speed of information flow and ease of transportation means that you are beginning to be connected internationally in the sense that in the 19th Century you had a national economy.

Second, there is the spread of the technology of destruction in such ways that you’re going to have, by the end of the century, places like Iraq, Iran, Libya and Syria that are capable, at a minimum, of threatening European cities with ballistic missiles and chemical and nuclear warheads. By the year 2000 to 2010, they may be able to attack the United States directly. That is a whole level of combat and conflict that we are not used to.

Third, you are living through a fundamental change in the Soviet empire. This clearly destabilizes the whole planet in the sense that for 45 years we had a bipolar world, with a Western coalition containing the Soviets . . . .

You have to start with a fundamental reassessment of America’s role, as decisive in some ways as the late ‘30s decision to commit us to stopping Japan and Germany or as decisive as the late ‘40s decision to contain the Soviet empire.

But we’ve got to reformulate a new image of where the planet is going. What does America want in the world–and then what is America’s role in trying to get it?

Q: It’s interesting that you mentioned those two periods, the ‘30s and the ‘40s, as times of great change because in both those times the conservative movement tended to take a more isolationist stance.

A: If you go back before 1937 and 1938, conservatism, from say 1860 to 1928, was the internationalist movement. And it was the Democrats, the (William Jennings) Bryan wing of the Democratic Party that was isolationist . . . .

Then, beginning in the ‘20s, you had a role reversal. And as the conservatives became less the government and more oppositional, they also became less internationalist and more isolationist. What you had, beginning with Eisenhower, and Nixon in all fairness–Nixon was one of the people who voted for the Marshall Plan–you had the emergence of first, an internationalist anti-communist Republicanism and then under Reagan and Bush that has broadened . . . .

I think that today there is much more isolationism in the Democratic Party than in the Republican Party . . . (where) there’s much more internationalism and much more of a commitment to the world market . . . .

Q: How would you define the differences between your view and that of the Democratic Party?

A: Well, there’s a difference about the question of safety, a difference about the question of international competition and a difference about the speed of transition–if I can break them down like that.

First of all, safety. The liberal Democrats basically are myopically focused on Central Europe and on Gorbachev, and their basic theme is, since Gorbachev seems to be succeeding and Soviet power seems to receding from East Germany, the world is safer. Therefore, we can demilitarize.

I would argue that we’re caught in the tragic irony that the curve, if you will, of threat from Iraq, Iran and Syria is rising at a rate about as fast as–or faster than–the curve of Soviet threat is declining . . . .

Now the question I would pose is: Is the world still going to be dangerous–even if Gorbachev succeeds? My answer would be yes. In fact, the world’s going to be more dangerous than people think. Dictators are going to have higher-power weapons that are more sophisticated than people think. And some of these dictatorships are very big. The Syrian Army has more artillery than the American Army. So when you say, “Gee, we can shrink dramatically,” my answer is fine–if you’re willing to allow the Iraqis to threaten American cities without SDI. If you’re willing to allow the Iraqis and the Iranians to seize the oil fields, and if you’re willing to give up Israel . . . . And I think most of my Democratic friends on that are just sophomoric. I don’t think they’d even look at the data base, because it conflicts with their ideology.

And the second big question is the world market . . . . The bureaucratic welfare state and permissive attitudes are incapable of competing in the world market. The correct answer is to reform and revitalize America, not to retreat . . . .

And I think a lot of my Democratic friends, because they have to bear the burden of the public-school bureaucracy in the inner city, and they have to bear the burden of the big-city machines, and they have to bear the burden of union work rules–their reaction is to say, “Gee, we have to find ways to withdraw from the world market, and to somehow build a self-sustaining America.” I think that’s crazy and I think in the long run it means a lower standard of living and fewer jobs for Americans.

Lastly, there is the question of speed. I thought it was almost funny that George Mitchell and Dick Gephardt decided that George Bush wasn’t moving fast enough. If you look historically over the Bush Presidency and you look at the change in Panama, Nicaragua, East Germany, Hungary, Poland . . . this has been unbelievable . . . .

I say this: I’m a conservative and I’m willing to criticize George Bush, and I voted to override on the Chinese student veto, but I have to say overall that they get A-plus marks on managing a transition of unbelievable complexity. And getting freedom further in 18 months than anyone would have thought possible.

Q: Among the Soviet Republics, Lithuania is an easy call in that we never recognized the annexation, but then you start looking at other separatist movements–including Russia. Isn’t there a fear of a nuclear Lebanon in the Soviet Union?

A: You have a fear of the unknown there. You’ve also got to recognize objective realities. There’s an Indian reservation in northern Vermont that claims it’s not in the United States. Now what if Gorbachev decided next Thursday to recognize it? I mean, you’ve got to decide, all right, what are the ground rules here. The Soviet Union does exist . . . . I think it’s now an empire in transition, but it exists. And it is going to have to decide inside itself how it allows itself to dismember. If they adopt a rule that says if the Georgians vote 70% to secede, that is frankly a more open rule for withdrawal than we have in the United States . . . .

Of course, if Russia does declare itself independent or sovereign it will be the first time that the mother country declared herself free from the empire. So it would be a dramatic change. And I think our position is that all of these republics have the right of self-determination and we would certainly encourage the Soviet government to tolerate and negotiate with all of these republics.

Q: As an American Georgian, you would know that.

A: Yeah, that’s right. I mean, we Georgians, we’ve already had this argument. Now, you can make the argument in their case that it wasn’t a voluntary collection (of republics); it’s the late 19th Century empire. That’s a good argument. But you are seeing Gorbachev take what is, after all, a pretty radical position and saying, look, we’re going to figure out a legal formula for you to get out of here. Well, that’s pretty amazing . . . .

And I think it’s a little unfair to say yeah, he did all that, but boy now I have this new excuse to get mad at him. And as long as he doesn’t use military force, it seems to me that we owe him the opportunity to try to lead his own country to sort itself out . . . .

Q: How is the Administration responding?

A: Well I think that the decision by the Soviet government to open up some economic activity in Lithuania is a victory for Bush. And I think if he can continue to encourage and nudge Gorbachev in the direction of re-establishing economic patterns with Lithuania, I think it will be a very big plus for him.

Q: Earlier you remarked that, in talking to the President about Lithuania, you said we need Winston Churchill, not Stanley Baldwin. Does that still apply?

A: Well, I think the President convinced me that it wasn’t the same kind of situation; that who we may need is George Bush, and that, in fact, he is negotiating and maneuvering his way through a very complicated situation with considerable skill.

Q: OK, let’s talk now about some of the global economic issues, because I think it’s clear to all of us that they are going to be dominant. Some people think that the economic competition among the former Western allies may become very, very fierce. Do you?

A: Not necessarily fierce, but it will become intense. But . . . it’s not that we’re competing for the same pie. We’re competing to build bigger bakeries . . . . The world market is extraordinarily underdeveloped and there is an enormous amount of money to be made over the next century helping the entire planet achieve a high standard of living. So there ought to be intense competition for how we build the bigger bakery. But we don’t have to have any kind of competition over who gets bread, because everybody ought to be getting bread . . . .

Q: Do you think that the world economy is breaking up into blocs or that there is a danger of this?

A: There’s a permanent danger of breaking up into blocs, but I wouldn’t exaggerate that. I think there is much, much more to be gained in the long run by actively building global countries and global companies. We are much better off to have more IBMs and more General Motors and Fords and AT&Ts; that are able to be everywhere. And we’re much better off to have thousands of new, small businesses that compete everywhere a jet airplane goes, and anywhere a fax machine can receive their latest advertisement. And I think we want to encourage this, more than anybody else, because we are perfectly suited for the world economy.

Q: More than any other country?

A: More than any other country. I mean geographically, we can reach both Europe and Asia simultaneously and Latin America. And in terms of our own cultural background. We are the only universal country of the planet, the only country that has people from everywhere. And therefore, we ought to be the advocates of the widest global market.

Q: Does that suggest the possibility that other countries may not be as enthusiastic for this as we are–for example, Europe?

A: They may not be. I mean, the Europeans don’t even have a real concern about that. On the other hand, the Europeans need us to balance off the Germans . . . . The price of having a market of nations that really do compete with each other, is that you have got to be able to sit down for long negotiations, and you just have to go in and tough it out.

Q. This sounds a lot like what used to be called liberal internationalism in the 1940s. So is it true that the liberalism of today is the conservatism of tomorrow?

A. Could be. I think that it’s that and an ongoing sense of thesis, antithesis, synthesis to some of that . . . . But if you would have interviewed a Democrat back in 1948, he would have said, “Gee, this sounds like Theodore Roosevelt.” Theodore Roosevelt’s wing of the Republican Party has consistently been the dominant dynamic in American life for most of the last century.

Q: So would you say Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, Newt Gingrich is the line of succession?

A: No . . . . To be honest, I’d say Roosevelt, Roosevelt, Reagan. It’s important to remember that Reagan was an FDR Democrat, and that when the Democratic Party moved to the left, Reagan left.

The federal law enforcement probe into the financial affairs of the Dodgers’ controlling owner, Mark Walter, seems to focus on what looks like an obscure financial maneuver: related-party transactions.

They are deals between entities with business or personal ties, including loans, sales and other transactions, that can have legitimate reasons but pose potential conflicts of interest and typically require extra scrutiny.

Walter tapped insurers he controlled to provide most of the financing for the $2.15-billion acquisition of the Dodgers in 2012, The Times has reported — a deal later vetted by state insurance regulators.

Now, regulators reportedly are investigating whether billions of dollars’ worth of similar loans made by Walter’s companies were properly disclosed.

There are examples in which related-party transactions led to trouble, including the 2001 bankruptcy of Enron Corp., the largest at the time in Wall Street history. Bernie Madoff profited from his Ponzi scheme through related-party loans.

At issue with Walter is $21 billion in loans not disclosed to state insurance regulators that were made by two Delaware insurers he owns, according to ratings agency Fitch. The loans reportedly were made to companies with ties to Walter or his TWG Global holdings company.

The seriousness of the investigation has been highlighted by subpoenas served on the insurers and the reported seizure of Walter’s cellphone and laptop by federal authorities. Still, investigations by prosecutors and securities regulators can result in no action.

Here are more details on the risk presented by related-party transactions and why they require disclosure and extra regulatory scrutiny.

What do the investigations mean for his ownership of his sport teams?

The 66-year-old billionaire also took a majority stake in the Los Angeles Lakers last year and owns the Chelsea soccer team in the English Premier League. There is no indication yet that any of this has affected his ownership stakes, but the probe has yet to be completed.

What is the problem with related-party transactions?

Bruce Dubinsky, a forensic accountant who worked on the Enron and Madoff cases, says the issue comes down to the motivation of the parties and can be explained through an analogy.

Sell a car to a stranger and you both research its worth and come to an agreed “fair market value,” he said. Sell it to your brother, you might cut the price to “give him a deal,” and later even forgive the payments.

“That’s why, from an audit standpoint, there should be more scrutiny if you’re doing business with the left hand and the right hand, because it’s easier to manipulate things,” Dubinsky said. “Repayments can be delayed indefinitely. They are always more suspect to fraud.”

How does that play out in the insurance industry?

Insurance is one of the most regulated industries, since the companies hold premium dollars from policyholders for future claims payouts — and regulators want to ensure the money is there when it’s needed. Related-party transactions can threaten that.

“There is a conflict of interest between the policyholders’ interest in the company being profitable and the owner’s interest in getting the least expensive financing that is available,” said Jim Donelon, who served as Louisiana insurance commissioner for 18 years before stepping down in 2024.

“It potentially threatens the solvency of the company, which then threatens the welfare of the policyholders,” Donelon said.

The National Assn. of Insurance Commissioners, for whom Donelon served as president, provides guidance to regulators on how to review related-party transactions.

What are some of the most notable examples of related-party transactions turning into financial disasters?

The failure of Enron was a prime lesson in how related-party transactions can lead to a company’s downfall.

As the Houston energy trader struggled and racked up $30 billion in debt, chief financial officer Andrew Fastow thought he found a way to keep it off Enron’s books. He created off-balance sheet entities to unload the debt and took personal stakes in them, allowing him to sit on both sides of the negotiation and pocket millions.

They were “transactions with related parties that were not at arm’s length,” Dubinsky said.

The debacle was a driving force in the passage of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, which tightened regulations over governance, accounting and related-party transactions.

What about the Madoff fraud?

The Madoff scandal, in which investors lost $17.5 billion in invested principal, operated like a typical Ponzi scheme with returns to older investors paid by money from new investors.

However, related-party transactions were key too, and some literally involved family members. Madoff’s brother, Peter, pleaded guilty to receiving $15.7 million in sham loans and giving $9.9 million in sham loans to family members. What’s more, the auditor was a related party.

“In Madoff, what were called ‘related‑party loans’ were just sham transactions — there was no real economic substance. It was simply Madoff taking money out of his own firm,” said Dubinsky, an expert witness for the government.

Is there anything comparable with the Walter probe?

The three situations appear entirely different, but the investigation into the related-party loans made by Walter’s Delaware Life and its affiliate, Clear Spring Life and Annuity, involves vast sums of money.

After receiving the subpoenas, the firms conducted internal investigations. They had reported having $1 billion in related-party loans but, after the review, they reclassified $21 billion worth of loans as related, including $4.6 billion held by Clear Spring, said Fitch analyst Jamie Tucker, senior director of North American insurance ratings.

Executives said they were unaware the loans were going to an affiliated company.

Is there any indication what the money was used for?

“Unclear at this stage,” Tucker said. “This a developing situation with ongoing investigations.”

One clue may be a report that Walter tapped insurers to fund more deals than the Dodgers acquisition. The Wall Street Journal said five insurers had provided more than $10 billion in deal funding since Walter’s financial services company, Guggenheim Partners, got into the insurance business after the 2008 financial crisis.

What have been the implications for the insurers owned by Walters?

Fitch said the financial restatement increased the two insurers’ related-party loans from 2% to 40% of their portfolios, the highest exposure among life insurers it rates in North America.

Fitch, A.M. Best and S&P Global also downgraded Delaware Life’s outlook to negative, though they said the insurer maintain a high level of financial strength.

“Our capital position and liquidity remain strong, and our financial strength ratings are unchanged,” said Group 1001, the insurers’ parent company, in a statement.

What has Walter had to say about all this?

He has not publicly commented, but a TWG spokesperson stated that, “Mark Walter and TWG have always acted in good faith, and those who have done business with Mark know him as honest and straightforward. Nothing about these transactions was any different.”