LIV Golf Series, Part 2 of 4
Theodore H. Brown, CPA, CFF, CFE, MAFF, CVA | Mark Clews, MCFE, EnCE, CCFP
Part 1 of this series made the case that the forensic timeline in the LIV Golf matter is already forming, built from publicly available evidence: a deleted interview, an internal email, a strategy document, and a Louisiana government paper trail. That was the specific.
This installment moves from the specific to the systematic.
When a forensic examiner is engaged in a matter of this complexity, the first task is not to find the smoking gun. It is to map the evidentiary landscape, to identify every category of electronically stored information (ESI) that is likely to contain relevant data, prioritize the most consequential sources, and develop a collection and analysis strategy before evidence degrades, is overwritten, or is destroyed.
Based on the publicly reported facts, a forensic examiner in LIV Golf-related litigation would target the following six categories of ESI.
Category 1: Executive Communications
This is typically the highest-priority category in commercial litigation involving organizational decision-making. Executive communications means email, text messages, and messaging platform data across Slack, Teams, WhatsApp, and Signal, covering LIV Golf executives, PIF representatives, and board members.
In this matter, the highest-value targets are specific: any communications between CEO Scott O’Neil and PIF Chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan during April 2026; board meeting minutes, pre-read materials, and board-level presentations from Q1 and Q2 2026; communications with external counsel regarding force majeure analysis; and any internal communications referencing financial sustainability, alternative funding scenarios, or exit planning.
The forensic challenge here is platform diversity. Modern executives communicate across email, encrypted messaging apps, personal devices, and corporate platforms, often deliberately. When a litigation hold is imposed, the examiner has to identify every channel in use, not just corporate email. Personal devices that contain business communications are subject to production if those communications relate to the dispute. The use of ephemeral messaging platforms, those that auto-delete, raises spoliation concerns if a hold was in effect or reasonably foreseeable.
The questions that follow from this category are not complicated. When did PIF first communicate its intent to withdraw funding to LIV leadership, and in what form? What did the board know, and when? Were any communications deliberately routed through personal devices or off-platform channels to avoid preservation?
Category 2: Broadcast and Media Records
The TNT Sports interview episode from Part 1 puts broadcast and media records squarely in scope. The original and re-edited interview files are potential exhibits. But the more forensically significant evidence is the metadata and communications surrounding the edit.
A forensic examiner would target upload and deletion timestamps from TNT Sports’ content management system and social media accounts; access logs showing which accounts initiated the deletion and re-upload; any communications between LIV Golf and TNT Sports regarding content management during the Mexico City event; and internal LIV communications about the interview’s content before and after it aired.
Social media platforms maintain detailed activity logs that are not visible to users but are preserved in backend systems and discoverable through legal process. Content management systems log every action taken on a piece of content: who published it, who modified it, who deleted it, and when. That metadata can establish whether the deletion was initiated by TNT Sports acting independently or in response to a direct request from LIV Golf.
Broadcast agreements and production records are also in scope. Rights fees paid, production infrastructure built for scheduled events, and communications about schedule changes all create the factual record for broadcast partner damages claims.
Category 3: Financial Records and Payment Systems
Reports of unpaid player and vendor obligations during mid-April 2026 create the factual predicate for examining cash flow disruptions that preceded the public announcement. Financial records in scope include accounts payable data showing the timing and status of payments to players, vendors, and host jurisdictions; cash flow statements and treasury records from the relevant period; bank account records showing disbursements and the cessation of payments; and any internal financial reports or dashboards that would have shown the approaching cash constraint.
The forensic accounting question is temporal: when did the financial data show that obligations could not be met, and who had access to that data? Financial systems typically generate real-time dashboards accessible to the CFO and senior finance team. If those dashboards showed payment failures or projected shortfalls before the public announcement, the argument that leadership did not know the funding situation was precarious becomes very difficult to sustain.
The questions are equally specific: which payments were delayed or cancelled, and when? Does the timing precede the public announcement? Who received financial reports showing cash constraints, and when were those reports generated? Were any inter-company transfers made between LIV Golf entities and PIF affiliates in the weeks before the announcement?
Category 4: Contract Negotiation Records
This is potentially the most consequential category for individual player claims, and the public record now offers a concrete illustration of exactly what is at stake.
At LIV Golf Virginia in early May, Bryson DeChambeau told GOLF.com’s Alan Bastable that he was completely blindsided by the PIF funding news. “There’s no way. That’s frickin’ impossible, considering what I’d heard a couple months earlier. I thought there was a plan through 2032. It was a flip of the switch.”
His contract expires at the end of 2026. His representatives had been in active extension negotiations before the news broke. He believed the league was funded through 2032. The internal record, if it shows that leadership knew otherwise while those negotiations were ongoing, is direct evidence of the information asymmetry at the center of the fraud and misrepresentation theories this category is built around.
DeChambeau is the highest-profile example, but any player in active contract discussions during this period may have a claim if LIV was negotiating without disclosing material information about its financial outlook. Communications in scope include all correspondence between LIV’s legal and business affairs teams and player representatives during the negotiation period; term sheets, draft agreements, and counterproposals; internal LIV communications about negotiation strategy for specific players; and any representations made to players or their agents about the league’s financial condition or long-term plans.
The forensic examiner works to establish a precise timeline: when each negotiation began, what representations were made at each stage, and how those dates map against internal communications showing leadership’s awareness of the funding situation. DeChambeau said he believed there was a plan through 2032. The internal record will show when leadership stopped believing that, and whether it kept negotiating anyway.
Category 5: Strategic Planning Documents
The PIF 2026-2030 strategy document is the anchor of this category, but the forensic scope extends well beyond the published version. Drafts, revision histories, internal review comments, and approval chains all provide evidence of when the funding withdrawal decision was made and how it evolved.
A more recent document has entered the record. Axios reported on May 18 that LIV Golf would seek up to $250 million from new investors, and CNBC confirmed on May 21 that the league had engaged boutique investment bank Ducera Partners to lead the capital raise, with the target range expanded to $250 to $350 million. The pitch deck Ducera began circulating to prospective investors is itself a strategic planning document in the forensic sense. It carries its own metadata, authorship trail, and distribution history. When was it created? Who drafted it? What financial projections does it contain, and how do those projections compare to what leadership was representing publicly and to players at the same time?
Modern document management systems preserve version histories automatically. In a well-configured enterprise environment, every save, every edit, and every reviewer comment is timestamped and attributed to a specific user. The metadata on a strategy document can show, with precision, when a particular provision was added, modified, or deleted, and by whom.
Internal LIV Golf business plans and board presentations are equally significant. Were alternative funding scenarios modeled? Were exit strategies discussed? Were there internal documents acknowledging that the league’s financial model was contingent on continued PIF support? These are the documents that, if they exist, will be the most valuable and the most contested in any resulting litigation.
Category 6: Web and Digital Platform Changes
The removal of LIV Golf from PIF’s website and marketing materials is a forensically significant act that left a recoverable trace. Web archive services like the Wayback Machine capture periodic snapshots of public websites. Content management system logs record who made changes and when. If the removal occurred before the formal announcement, or was coordinated with it, that sequence is recoverable.
Beyond PIF’s website, LIV Golf’s own digital properties are in scope. Event listings, ticket sales data, and sponsor-facing materials all create a record of what the league was representing to the market about its future. Any changes to those materials in the weeks before the announcement, removal of future events, changes to sponsorship pages, updates to player rosters, are potentially significant.
Preservation: The Immediate Priority
For counsel representing any party in LIV Golf-related disputes, the immediate priority is preservation. Litigation holds must be issued before evidence is overwritten, devices are recycled, or platform data ages out of retention policies. The six categories above are the starting point for a defensible hold notice.
The entities that need to be on the receiving end of a hold, or that should be issuing one to their own custodians, include LIV Golf LLC and its subsidiaries, PIF and its relevant affiliates, TNT Sports UK, the State of Louisiana and its relevant agencies, player representatives and agents who were in active contract negotiations, and any third-party vendors or broadcast partners who received communications about schedule changes or operational status during April and May 2026.
The window for voluntary preservation is narrowing. Social media metadata, ephemeral messaging, and cloud platform logs have finite retention periods that run regardless of litigation. The parties who move early will have access to evidence the parties who wait may never recover. Understanding what that evidence shows, what it does not show, and what it means for your strategy is where iDS begins.
Part 3 of this series turns from the evidence to the legal question it is designed to answer: whether PIF’s force majeure defense holds up under forensic scrutiny, and what the timeline means for the breach of contract analysis if it does not.
Theodore H. Brown, CPA, CFF, CFE, MAFF, CVA is Managing Director of the Forensic Accounting & Damages practice at iDiscovery Solutions. Mark Clews, MCFE, EnCE, CCFP is Managing Director, Data and Technology at iDiscovery Solutions. This article is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult with their own counsel regarding specific legal questions.
iDS provides consultative data solutions to corporations and law firms around the world, giving them a decisive advantage – both in and out of the courtroom. iDS’s subject matter experts and data strategists specialize in finding solutions to complex evidence challenges, ensuring data can be leveraged as an asset, not a liability. To learn more, visit idsinc.com.
Having trouble with a technical term used in this post? Check out our Data Investigators Glossary to crack the code.
