walter

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.”

Killing Eve’s Harriet Walter was left ‘astounded’ after discovering her mother’s incredible secret job on Who Do You Think You Are

Dame Harriet Walter was left speechless after discovering an ‘astounding’ secret about her mother.

The legendary actress, 75, has graced our screens for years in incredible films and television shows, such as Star Wars: The Force Awakens, Rocketman, Downton Abbey, The Crown, Succession, Killing Eve, Ted Lasso and Call The Midwife.

However, Harriet put her family in the spotlight for the latest episode of Who Do You Think You Are? on Thursday night, where she discovered an incredible secret about her mother, Xandra Lee – the elder sister of renowned actor Sir Christopher Lee.

Showing old pictures of her lookalike mother, Harriet said: “This is my mother, Xandra. She was a very sweet woman, had the most amazing sense of humour, but she was sort of slightly belittled by the men in my family.”

Harriet continued: “This picture is my parents, and they were married in December 1946. I knew a bit about what she did in the war. She worked in naval intelligence in the Admiralty, but she said, you would never in a million years tell your best friend, your husband, anybody what you were doing. You just would not do it.

“She said she was one of thousands of cogs in the machine and I just want to know much more about exactly what that machine was doing and what her part in it was. So I’m going to see what I can find.”

However, Harriet got more than she bargained for upon discovering her mother played an important role in the success of the 1944 D-Day landings, which she learnt thanks to ground-breaking research on women in wartime intelligence conducted by Dr Helen Fry.

During the meeting at the Old Admiralty Building in London, Dr Fry revealed after sharing archive details and facts: “To get this into perspective, your mother was in charge of the whole intelligence picture for naval intelligence for the D-Day landings.”

Harriet was left speechless as she put her head in her hands, before adding: “Wow, wow. It’s just astounding. It’s astounding. I had this rather frivolous idea of her sort of just having a great time in the canteen and flirting with the boys and I had no idea she had this sort of responsibility.”

Dr Fry then pointed out: “The oath of secrecy, they knew when they took it, it was for life and she kept it”, adding that her mother’s work was “detailed analytical work” and “highly responsible”.

Harriet added: “That is extraordinary. I’m sorry to say this, but when I think how she was sort of put down by my dad and my stepfather and, you know, ‘your mother’s not very logical’, you know, had they only known what she’d done, they might have treated her with more respect.

“Blimey. It’s so extraordinary. I’m rethinking my mother entirely. You know, it’s extraordinary how that changes your image of somebody, to think of her in that position of responsibility. I have such a mixture of feelings.

“I mean, mainly I’m astounded that my mother had any kind of significance in the war effort, because she never exposed anything of that sort. She was the epitome of, I would say, modesty in some kind. Not coy, but just sort of, ‘Oh, I don’t matter, darling.’ You know.

“I feel certainly silly that I’ve got some kind of fame for having done absolutely nothing except, you know, pretend to be other people for a living.

“And she, who had a quite a strong role in the D-Day landings, which opened up the whole path to peace. Good for her. Good for Xandra Carandini Lee.”

Who Do You Think You Are? airs at 9pm on Thursday on BBC One and BBC iPlayer.

The business empire of Dodgers and Lakers owner Mark Walter reportedly is being probed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office and securities regulators over $16 billion in possibly fraudulent loans.

The loans by two Delaware life insurers that Walter owns were made to companies tied to him or his TWG Global holding company but were not disclosed as “related party” transactions as required, the Wall Street Journal reported Sunday. Related party transactions made by insurers are required to be reported to limit conflicts of interest and protect policyholders, who have an interest in the financial strength of their insurers.

Walter, 66, chief executive of Chicago investment firm Guggenheim Partners, led a group that included Todd Boehly — another Guggenheim executive — and Magic Johnson in acquiring the Dodgers for $2.15 billion in 2012, a record for a pro sports team at the time. Last year, Walter and TWG acquired a controlling stake in the Lakers at a $10 billion valuation, a new record. Walter also owns the Chelsea soccer team in the English Premier League.

Last week, the financial and sports mogul celebrated the Dodgers’ World Series victory at the White House. It was the second time in two years, following back-to-back World Series wins.

The majority of the money used to buy the Dodgers — more than $1 billion — came from insurance companies managed by Guggenheim Partners and controlled by Walter, the Times has reported.

A number of state insurance regulators investigated the purchase in 2014 and found no irregularities, the Wall Street Journal reported in 2020.

Guggenheim Partners got into the insurance business after America’s 2008 financial crisis, spotting investment opportunities. Walter figured he could increase the returns insurers got on their typical purchases of corporate bonds by connecting them to his deal pipeline, according to the Wall Street Journal, which found that five insurers had provided more than $10 billion in deal funding over the years.

The current probe began after an internal whistleblower filed a complaint questioning the way Walter’s asset-management firm, Guggenheim Investments, booked revenue associated with insurers, the Journal reported this week, and FBI agents seized at least one cellphone related to that probe.

The investigation then spread to examining $16 billion in loans, which were passed through a third party before being received by the companies tied to Walter or TWG, the Journal reported, adding that authorities are trying to determine whether that amounted to fraud, citing an unnamed source.

The insurers, Delaware Life Insurance and its affiliate Clear Spring Life and Annuity, disclosed the investigations in June regulatory filings. Delaware Life, which earlier had stated affiliated investments amounted to only about $1 billion, or 3% of its portfolio, increased that number to $16 billion.

Delaware Life executives told one credit rating firm they were unaware the loans were made to entities tied to Walter, the Journal reported. The companies said they received grand jury subpoenas in February related to an investigation by federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York and that the Securities and Exchange Commission also is conducting a parallel investigation.

Investigations conducted by prosecutors and securities regulators often result in no action.

The Dodgers, TWG and Guggenheim did not immediately respond to messages for comment.

A TWG spokesperson told the Journal that “Mark Walter and TWG have always acted in good faith,” are cooperating with authorities and are “confident these matters will be resolved favorably.”

After conducting an internal investigation, Delaware Life said it would restructure some related-party loans, address its internal control deficiencies and moderate its business plan, according to S&P Global. While the ratings agency is maintaining its “A-” financial strength and credit ratings of Delaware Life, it reduced its outlook to “negative” because of possible higher credit risk following changes to the insurer’s portfolio.

“In addition, such outcomes could weaken Delaware Life’s regulatory relationships and damage its reputation, which could erode its competitive position,” S&P said.

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

“We remain focused on delivering exceptional value and service to our contract and policyholders and their financial representatives,” the statement added.

Bloomberg News contributed to this report.

What’s done is done.

The Dodgers went to the White House on Thursday and met with President Trump for the second year in a row, following back-to-back World Series championships.

At the time of their visit, the Dodgers had the best record in Major League Baseball with 65 wins and 38 losses. Winning three titles in a row won’t be easy, but assuming they pull off another victory in October, here are five reasons the Dodgers should not go back to the White House next year.

What’s the point?

Ceremonial visits have been going on for years, and both Democratic and Republican presidents have embraced the tradition with athletes from various sports.

If you’d like to know why I didn’t have anything to say in 2021, when the Dodgers visited President Biden at the White House, that’s a good question.

I didn’t dwell on it at the time because I think such visits are kind of ho-hum. But now we’ve had three visits in five years, and in my head, this hammers home the point that baseball players have nothing to gain from a visit. They’re baseball players, and as such, there is no higher honor than winning the World Series.

I like baseball, but it’s not like these guys are astronauts, just back from the moon.

If the Dodgers want to mark their achievement and honor the game of baseball in the nation’s capital, fine. They should go to the Smithsonian as a team and visit the display where Jackie Robinson’s jersey is enshrined.

They’re being put in an awkward position

As Dodgers shortstop Mookie Betts put it in saying that he wouldn’t join his teammates, he couldn’t win either way.

“If I do” go, he said, “people are gonna hate me. If I don’t, people are gonna hate me.”

That’s an exaggeration, but I get his point. Dodger utility man Kiké Hernandez said he wasn’t going, either, explaining that he was busy rehabbing an injury.

The Dodgers should take the pressure off the players by politely declining an invitation to visit.

Besides, people like baseball because it’s an escape, a distraction, a diversion. You want to have a clear head as you try to remember why you willingly packed up your kids and paid $400 for lousy seats and food at Dodger Stadium to watch Kyle Tucker, at $60 million a year, foul out to the catcher.

You do not want to think about the American political cesspool as you watch the Dodgers rally from behind, win in late innings, and inch ever closer to going back to the White House again next year.

They’re being used

The players were apparently told they could make their own decision about whether to go to the White House.

What they should have been told was that they were being exploited.

When a president hosts a team at the White House, there is only one reason.

It’s a photo op.

Not for the team, but for the president.

Baseball might no longer be the national pastime, but it’s a part of American culture, with fans of every political stripe in every state. There’s kind of a folksy quality in the manufactured banter between a president and the ballplayers. He can fawn over them and joke with them and look more like a regular guy — one of the boys.

“This is really a special team,” Trump said during the Dodger visit. “It’s special winners. They’re champions, and just unbelievable.”

Yeah, we knew that when they beat the Blue Jays.

Nine months ago.

Too much ring kissing is a turnoff

If you are going to go, can you at least not embarrass yourself?

Dodgers Chairman Mark Walter handed Trump a Dodgers jersey and World Series ring at the White House. Somehow, he managed to restrain himself from bending to one knee and kissing the president’s ring.

“Thank you for welcoming us today, Mr. President,” Walter said. “We’re proud of that team and what it has achieved, and we hope to be back here again next year.”

As The Times’ Maddie Lee noted, this was just days after Bloomberg reported that “two insurance companies controlled by Walter, as well as Guggenheim Partners, where Walter is chief executive, are being investigated by federal prosecutors for potential financial improprieties.”

“No charges have been filed,” Lee wrote. “Representatives from the parent company of the insurance firms as well as from TWC Global — the Walter business empire that controls his sporting investments, including the Dodgers and Lakers — have told reporters they are cooperating with the investigation.”

So that’s another problem with the Dodgers’ visit.

How can we not wonder about ulterior motives?

It’s hard to keep track of who’s kissing whose ring.

Politics is unavoidable

The Dodger brain trust has attempted to cast White House visits as an exercise in tradition, not politics.

“Like I’ve always said, my company line, my personal line is I hope that we get this invitation every year,” Dodgers manager Dave Roberts said before the visit. “Because that’s the goal: to win a championship, to get this invitation to the White House. And I’m not a politician, and I’m doing something that teams have done for decades. And so that’s where I stand, really. I’m a baseball coach. That’s what I do.”

That couldn’t be more naive.

The Dodgers love to project a wholesome, family-friendly essence. But American discourse has not been more vulgar, polarizing or politicized in my lifetime, and I’m reminded of the line, “Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas.”

In Trump’s world, there are only two kinds of people: friends and foes. The Dodgers are now friends, and when Venezuelan World Series hero Miguel Rojas was singled out by Trump, who launched an unprovoked attack on his country, that reeked of calculated political staging.

The White House itself has been a staging ground for political assaults on the Dodgers’ home state and on immigrants who come from regions of the world that are home to some of the Dodger players. Election integrity has been politicized. The Supreme Court has been politicized. The water quality in the reflecting pool has been politicized. And at a White House cage fight, a former first lady was brazenly disparaged.

You can’t peel off your baseball uniform, put on your wedding suit, and stand there with the president, smiling and shaking hands and being voluntarily patronized, without having made a political statement.

Better to stick to what you know best.

And besides.

Trump is a Yankees fan.

steve.lopez@latimes.com

The Dodgers’ decision to deny U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents access to Dodger Stadium wasn’t the way the team intended to first address the surge of federal immigration enforcement a year ago.

Pressed by religious, labor and community leaders to take a stand, the Dodgers had prepared a response to Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol raids that triggered widespread protests — only to shelve the announcement as the team went public with their refusal to let federal agents onto stadium grounds. A day later, on June 20, the Dodgers unveiled their plan, centered on $1 million “toward direct financial assistance for families of immigrants impacted by recent events in the region.”

In total, the Dodgers donated $1.1 million, representatives for California Community Foundation and Labor Community Services — the two nonprofits that received the funds — told The Times.

“The Dodgers have been in L.A. for 68 years,” said Joseph Tomás McKellar, executive director of PICO California. “They’re beloved among immigrant communities in a way that no other sports team is. That gives the Dodgers cultural and financial power in the region. We applaud what they did, but they could do even more by exercising leadership.”

PICO California, the state’s largest faith-based organizing network, was behind a petition delivered to the Dodgers, the contents of which were largely addressed by the team’s $1-million commitment. But as the last of the money flowed to immigrant families in need in late August, another petition circulated that demanded Dodgers owner Mark Walter sell his “company’s stake in ICE jails and deportation flights.”

Walter’s massive investment firm, Guggenheim Partners, owned more than a million shares of GEO Group, valued at nearly $12 million. By the end of 2025, Guggenheim’s interest in GEO Group had fallen to around 10,000 shares. And by the end of March of this year, Guggenheim no longer owned any shares of the prison company that also assisted in the deportation of immigrants, according to SEC filings reviewed by The Times.

Walter also faced criticism over the partnership announced last year between Palantir Technologies and TWG Global — of which Walter is chairman and chief executive officer. Palantir provides AI and analytics software to ICE, tools the American Civil Liberties Union said “form the backbone for ICE’s mass deportation regime.”

There are no indicators as to why Guggenheim Partners divested from GEO Group. The Dodgers declined comment. Guggenheim Partners did not respond to The Times’ request for comment. GEO Group referred questions to Guggenheim Partners.

In January, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, or CHIRLA, filed a federal lawsuit against federal officials over the condition of the Adelanto ICE Processing Center in San Bernardino County, a facility operated by GEO Group. In the complaint, CHIRLA alleged “detained individuals face dangerous conditions and pervasive abuses — disease and illness are rampant, mold grows on the walls, and detained individuals are denied sufficient food, clean drinking water, proper medical care, and disability accommodations.”

Donald Trump’s reelection has been a major driver of profits for GEO Group. GEO Group founder, chairman and chief executive George Zoley said in a May earnings call the company was “awarded new or expanded contracts that represent up to approximately $520 million in new incremental annual revenues, which represents the largest amount of new business we have won in the single year in our company’s history.” Former GEO Group exec David Venturella is the acting director of ICE.

“It’s really good to know [of the Guggenheim divestment],” said Rabbi Susan Goldberg, a longtime immigrants rights activist and founder of Nefesh, a Jewish spiritual community in Echo Park. “We showed up so often at its [regional] headquarters in Culver City that they moved. We don’t know where they are located in the area now.”

The California Community Foundation received $1 million, which worked with Los Angeles city officials to distribute $1,000 in direct relief to 1,000 households impacted by the immigration raids. The money was distributed through cash cards, according to the foundation. The Dodgers’ gift amounts to a quarter of the $4 million the foundation has raised for its Los Angeles Neighbors Support Fund, $3.3 million of which has been “deployed to impacted communities with new investments continuing to roll out,” according to the nonprofit.

The Dodgers also donated $100,000 to Labor Community Services, a partner of the Los Angeles County Federation of Labor, that provided more than 4,000 families with food assistance with the team’s donation.

“The Dodgers’ generous donation has enabled us to reach and assist more families throughout Los Angeles County with dignity and compassion, providing critical food assistance at a time when it is needed most,” Labor Community Services Executive Director Norma López said in a statement to The Times.

A spokesperson for Labor Community Services said no other pro sports team outside the Dodgers made a similar donation to help impacted immigrant families.

“The Dodgers have a unique responsibility and they are an example of something we want to continue to see, especially as the World Cup and the Olympics come to L.A.,” said Carlos Martin Rodriguez, director of organizing for L.A. Voice, a multifaith coalition that organized several vigils and demonstrations when the raids were at their height. “I hope this wasn’t a singular moment, but the beginning of a movement.”

Here’s a bit of Dodgers trivia for the bandwagon fans in our midst: Who was the manager before Dave Roberts?

That was 11 years ago. He is Don Mattingly, who returns to Dodger Stadium on Friday as manager of the Philadelphia Phillies.

The Phillies were 9-19 when they fired Rob Thomson and replaced him with Mattingly. They are 20-8 since then, a better record than the Dodgers have posted over the same span.

In Philadelphia, Mattingly got his chance because the Phillies were losing. In Los Angeles, Mattingly departed amid a run of winning.

For Mark Walter and what was then a new Dodgers ownership group, that was not enough. As Walter enters his first offseason as the Lakers’ controlling owner, it’s worth keeping that in mind.

“They have a hunger for victory that is the greatest I’ve ever seen, without exaggeration,” former Dodgers general manager Ned Colletti told me.

In two seasons with Rob Pelinka as president of basketball operations and JJ Redick as coach, the Lakers won division titles both times, failing to get out of the first round of the playoffs one year and failing to get out of the second round of the playoffs the next.

In 2013 and 2014, with Colletti as GM and Mattingly as manager in the first full seasons of Walter’s ownership, the Dodgers won division titles both times, failing to get out of the first round one year and failing to get out of the second round the other.

The Dodgers replaced Colletti with Andrew Friedman.

In 2015, the Dodgers won the division but failed to get out of the first round of the playoffs. Friedman offered Mattingly a short-term extension, and Mattingly opted for a long-term deal to manage the Miami Marlins.

After Walter and Co. took over the Dodgers, Mattingly told me Wednesday, there was one year he thought he might be fired: 2013, when the Dodgers started 30-42 and fell 9 1/2 games out of first place in mid-June. The Dodgers then reeled off 42 wins in 50 games and won the division by 11 games.

He appreciated that Walter, team president Stan Kasten and eventually Friedman did not simply bring in a new manager at their first chance.

“You get to evaluate and see,” Mattingly said, “and you have your vision for where you want it to go, and sustain it. That’s the thing they’ve been great at: sustaining it. It’s been year after year. You can’t really doubt what they’re doing.”

Kasten’s first move was not to fire Colletti, but to ask what ownership could provide for him so that he could do a better job. The owners quickly responded by funding the addition of impact players (Adrián González and Hanley Ramirez), extending the contract of a popular home-grown player (Andre Ethier), revitalizing the Dodgers’ Latin American talent pipeline (Yasiel Puig and Julio Urías), renovating the clubhouse and, at Mattingly’s suggestion, refreshing the family room.

“We started to be able to compete with a different mindset, which was invaluable,” Colletti said.

Similarly, with Friedman and former Dodgers general manager Farhan Zaidi as consultants, the Lakers have added two positions for assistant general managers, overhauled the scouting staff, created more room at team headquarters by relocating their G League affiliate to the Coachella Valley, and borrowed from the Dodgers’ playbook in modernizing medical and biomechanical facilities.

This summer could be critical in determining the future of the Lakers, including who runs them. Walter can spend all he wants, as he does with the Dodgers, but the luxury-tax penalties in the NBA are more severe than in baseball and could restrict the roster flexibility so coveted by the likes of Friedman and Zaidi. A star-studded roster beyond Luka Doncic — say, a trade for Giannis Antetokounmpo? — could require the Lakers to sacrifice the draft picks that also would limit roster flexibility.

The Lakers will have the resources. Walter will want to see the creativity and the championships — or, at least, the path to them. Ultimately, he will decide what he did with the Dodgers: Does he have the best people he can get running the team?

“You see many organizations that win, and then they take a step back,” Colletti said. “They feel like they have some goodwill in the bank, they don’t have to chase the biggest free agents, and they don’t need to re-invest in the team or the stadium.

“From my vantage point, all the way up and down that organization and especially at the ownership level, it’s almost like they’ve never won, and they’re hungry to get there. To be there and be unsatisfied — that quest to be as great as you can be — is one of the great indicators of the excellent ownership it is.”

In the meantime, any advice for Pelinka and Redick? Colletti let out a hearty laugh.

“Do your best,” he said, “and turn it up a notch.”

Walter Parazaider, the saxophonist and co-founder of the rock group Chicago, has died. He was 81.

Parazaider died June 17 of complications from Alzheimers disease. In a statement posted to social media on Wednesday, the band said that “Chicago is heartbroken at the sad news of Walter Parazaider’s passing this morning. We extend our deepest condolences to his family, friends and countless Chicago fans who are all grieving his loss today.”

His daughter, Felicia Helen Parazaider, also posted on Facebook that “I love you poppy, my Pal…You coloured our world.”

Born in Maywood, Ill., Parazaider began his music career as a clarinetist, before founding Chicago with childhood friends in the group’s namesake city. The band’s pop hits like “25 or 6 to 4” and “Saturday in the Park” were staples of the ‘70s and remain beloved fixtures of classic rock. His diverse woodwind skills helped give the band its regal sound, adding saxophone riffs to hits like “Just You ‘n’ Me” and a poignant flute solo on “Colour My World.”

While Chicago’s lineup changed often, Parazaider remained with the group until retiring in 2018. In April of 2021, Parazaider wrote in a statement on Chicago’s website that “I was diagnosed with Alzheimers disease. Needless to say, my wife, daughters and myself were shocked and devastated. It has taken awhile to process this news and the fact is, we still are. The good news is we have a wonderful medical facility here and I have a very good doctor. I am working hard and not going to give up.”

Chicago gave credit to Parazaider for conceiving of the band’s distinct instrumentation, and the work ethic that made them stars. “A Rock & Roll band with horns was Walt’s idea,” Chicago’s statement continued. “He put the band together and they rehearsed in the basement of his mother’s home. He is also the one who did the hard work to book shows for the young, unknown band, performing top 40 covers at local bars in and around Chicago.

“We are forever grateful for his contribution,” they continued. “Perhaps his greatest gift was bringing people together. This amazing music may have never been heard had it not been for Walt’s vision.”

Parazaider is survived by wife JacLynn and daughters Laura and Felicia.

WASHINGTON — President Trump had another medical exam Tuesday, putting his health under renewed public scrutiny as he has worked to dismiss concerns over his age and stamina.

The 79-year-old president spent more than three hours at Walter Reed National Military Medical Center for what the White House described as preventive medical and dental checkups. It was Trump’s fourth publicly disclosed medical exam since he returned to office for a second term, and it comes as he tries to project strength ahead of midterm elections that will test his sway with voters.

In a social media post after the visit, Trump said he just finished his “6 month physical” and “Everything checked out PERFECTLY.”

For decades, administrations have released selected results from presidential physicals, offering the public a glimpse at the commander in chief’s health. But the results are filtered through the White House and must be approved by the president, raising questions about what the public does and doesn’t get to see.

Trump turns 80 next month and was the oldest person elected president. His immediate predecessor, President Biden, was 82 when he left office, dropping out of the 2024 race because of widespread concerns he was too old for the job.

A Washington Post/ABC News/Ipsos poll conducted in April found that less than half of U.S. adults think Trump has the mental sharpness or physical health to serve effectively as president.

“I think concern for the president’s physical health is probably at an all-time high, and I think advanced physical age is the No. 1 concern,” said Dr. Jeffrey Kuhlman, who served as a White House physician for more than a decade under Presidents Obama, George W. Bush and Clinton.

For a president of Trump’s age, a complete physical would be expected to include advanced heart testing, screening for common cancers and a cognitive assessment, along with basics like height, weight and blood pressure, Kuhlman said.

The White House has not disclosed what the visit entailed but expressed confidence in what it will show.

“President Trump is the sharpest and most accessible President in American history who is working nonstop to solve problems and deliver on his promises, and he remains in excellent health,” White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said in a statement.

No law requiring presidents to disclose medical records

In the weeks leading up to his visit, Trump has been saying he feels as good as he did five decades ago — even as he jokes about his fondness for fast food and his minimal exercise regimen. Yet he’s also sensitive to perceptions about his age, noting that he takes extra caution descending the steps from Air Force One to avoid headlines about a stumble.

There is no law requiring presidents to publicize their health records, and the degree of transparency has varied by administration. Trump’s past reports have been criticized for offering scant detail and providing statistics that some medical experts eyed with skepticism.

At public appearances, Trump often is seen wearing makeup to conceal bruising on his hands, which the White House attributes to handshaking and regular aspirin use. He sometimes has appeared drowsy during meetings and closed his eyes for long stretches, though he denies having fallen asleep.

Trump often boasts of having “aced” cognitive tests while frequently deriding Biden, who faced questions about his mental acuity. Biden and his aides pushed back aggressively against doubts raised about his fitness for office.

Some of Trump’s previous physicals have included the Montreal Cognitive Assessment, used to screen for dementia and cognitive impairment. His physicians reported a score of 30 out of 30 for him at 2018 and 2025 checkups.

Yet critics have pointed to Trump’s meandering speeches and sometimes bellicose rhetoric as evidence of cognitive decline.

Last month, a statement from more than 30 neurologists, psychiatrists and other medical experts — who acknowledged they’ve never examined him — said Trump was mentally unfit to serve and warned of an “increasingly dangerous decline” in his behavior based on what they called “objectively observable signs of serious medical concern.″

“Any so-called medical professionals engaging in armchair diagnosis or false speculation for political purposes are clearly breaking the Hippocratic Oath they’ve sworn to,” Ingle said.

Just like any other patient, presidents get to choose what’s disclosed about their health, said Sara Rosenthal, a bioethicist at the University of Kentucky who studies presidential health. Questions about transparency have become more acute as America elects aging presidents like Trump and Biden, she said.

“We can expect very little disclosure about the true health status of any president unless they’re in perfect health,” said Rosenthal, who has suggested an independent medical organization to review and report on the health of the president and those in the line of succession.

‘Nothing should be hidden’

Trump’s first medical report in his second term was released in April 2025. In July, he was diagnosed with chronic venous insufficiency, a common condition in older adults that causes blood to pool in his veins. Photographs have shown the president with swollen feet, ankles and calves, described by the White House as a symptom of chronic venous insufficiency leading to “mild swelling” in his lower legs.

Following his last publicly disclosed exam, described as a routine follow-up in October, Trump’s physician issued a one-page summary saying the president was in “exceptional health” without divulging many specific results.

The frequency of Trump’s medical checkups is not uncommon for someone his age, according to S. Jay Olshansky of the University of Illinois-Chicago, who has studied the health of past presidents. It’s part of a strategy to catch problems while they’re still treatable, Olshansky said.

Olshansky says the public deserves to see more than White House medical summaries that “may be subject to editorial discretion.” Full, unredacted medical records should be made public, he said. “Nothing should be hidden.”

Binkley writes for the Associated Press.