Chapter 14 · Analysis

Recurring features across the record

Six features appear in more than one matter. This chapter lists them, the records behind each, and the cases that do not fit.

The Ryan Burke Public Record · Updated November 11, 2026 · How this record was compiled

The earlier chapters treat each matter separately, which is how courts treat them. Read together, the files show several features that appear more than once. This chapter sets them out. It is a description of what recurs in the documents, not a finding that any dispute was decided against Burke where no court decided it. A feature that recurs in allegations is still an allegation each time. Where a matter cuts the other way, it is listed as well.

At a glance

1. Advance payments and disputes over who keeps them

Most of the larger disputes in this record turn on an advance: money paid before a performance to secure an artist, a venue or a share in an event. The direction of the payment differs from case to case, and that difference matters.

In the Lady Gaga matter, money flowed to Burke’s company. The federal court’s account is that NWE Talent Agency received $1,500,000 of the Russian broadcaster’s funds toward a performance that the artist had not accepted, and that ZAO demanded its return. The court rejected the Burke entities’ counterclaim to keep the money; no merits verdict on ZAO’s own fraud and conversion claims was found in the reviewed sources (Chapter 04). The 2012 Rihanna report describes a claim that $75,000 was paid to VEW and Burke on the basis of a booking ability that the claimants said did not exist; no decision on it was found (Chapter 05). In 2025, two Illinois investors alleged four payments totaling $298,145.95 toward the BZR Carnival Edition, made to VEW Live, Universal Creative Agency and Burke personally, and alleged that the money was not repaid (Chapter 11).

In the Mary J. Blige and Cardi B matters, money flowed from Burke’s side to the artist, and Burke’s position is that the artist should give it back or should have performed. In the Blige case a federal court decided that dispute against VEW, rejecting VEW’s claim for return of the $145,000 advance and entering a further $105,000 judgment for the artist’s company.

In the Cardi B matter the two sides’ accounts of the US$2.5 million conflict and no court has ruled (Chapter 13). The common feature is the structure of the dispute, not its outcome: in each matter the documents show a large sum paid in advance under terms that were later contested.

2. Whether the artist had agreed

The 2013 Lady Gaga order is the only judicial finding on this point, and it is specific.

The Rihanna claim, as reported, raised the same question and was not adjudicated. The Cardi B dispute is different in kind: the artist’s booking was publicly confirmed by both sides, and the disagreement is over payment terms and deadlines, not over whether she had agreed to perform, so it is not counted under this feature.

3. Related companies and how the courts described them

Burke has done business through a number of companies with similar names: Vision Entertainment Worldwide LLC, VEW Live, LLC, NWE Talent Agency and Management, Inc. (and an LLC of the same name), property companies managed through Burke Development Group, LLC, and, in 2026, V12 Group. Universal Creative Agency appears as a partner in the BZR WKND years (Chapter 03). Using several companies is common and lawful. The record matters here because the 2013 ZAO order describes how the companies were presented; later pleadings and debtor filings describe additional company roles.

The licensing finding describes the law and the companies as they stood in 2013. It is not a statement about any company’s current status. In 2025, the Echols plaintiffs alleged four payments for the same event, made variously to VEW Live, Universal Creative Agency and Burke himself, and the property company’s bankruptcy filings identified Burke as acting through Burke Development Group as manager (Chapter 10).

4. Defaults, service and jurisdiction

Several cases were decided, or nearly decided, on procedure rather than merits. According to recorded-instrument citations that were not independently retrieved, the Joe Clark judgment followed a breach of a settlement agreement, and the Bayfront Park Management Trust judgment against VEW Live was entered by default (Chapter 06). In the Illinois case, counsel appeared for “Ryan Matthew Burke, erroneously sued as ‘Ryan Burke’” and moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (Chapter 11). Challenging service and jurisdiction is a defendant’s right, and such motions are often granted.

The Kameka case is where this feature produced the record’s most serious finding. Burke’s challenge to service rested on sworn statements that he was in Las Vegas on the day he was served. The judge first granted the challenge, then, after airline records were subpoenaed, found the statements false.

That is one finding, in one case. No other court in this record has found that Burke gave false testimony.

5. Bankruptcy petitions while foreclosure was pending

The Davie property company filed for Chapter 11 twice in eleven months. The first petition, filed May 21, 2024, was dismissed in July 2024 without a discharge. Ahead of a foreclosure sale scheduled for February 20, 2025, the defense asked the state court to cancel the sale; the second petition followed on April 21, 2025. In its own case summary the company stated its purpose plainly.

Filing under Chapter 11 to stop a foreclosure sale is lawful, and the automatic stay exists for that purpose. The record shows what followed: the second case was converted to Chapter 7 on the U.S. Trustee’s motion in September 2025, and in July 2026 the state court entered a $2,089,122.81 foreclosure judgment and set a new sale date. The records do not show a sale date immediately before the first petition, and this publication does not describe either filing as timed to the day (Chapter 10).

6. Postponements, cancellations and refunds

Five events promoted by Burke’s companies did not go ahead as advertised. The Mary J. Blige concert in Dallas, set for December 9, 2012, did not take place; VEW said she pulled out, her side said VEW had not met the travel terms, and the New York court later ruled for her company. VEWtopia moved from Marlins Park to Miami Gardens in January 2020 and its first night was disrupted (Chapter 07). The July 2024 BZR WKND edition was postponed, citing Hurricane Beryl. The April 2025 Carnival Edition at Sabina Park was later reported cancelled for weather. The October 2026 edition lost Cardi B ten days before the show and was moved to December 20 (Chapter 12).

Weather and an artist’s withdrawal are not the promoter’s doing by default, and the stated reasons should be taken into account. What recurs in the reporting is the question that follows each change: whether ticket buyers were repaid, and when. In November 2026 the Jamaica Observer reported buyers still waiting weeks after refunds were promised; the organisers said on November 4 that outstanding refunds had been “processed and issued.”⁵

What does not fit the pattern

The record also contains counter-examples.

• The first BZR WKND edition took place: Chris Brown performed at the National Stadium after midnight at the concert scheduled for August 27, 2023. Cardi B performed on VEWtopia’s second night in 2020.
• An index citation, not independently verified, reports that a stadium operator’s 2020 suit against VEW Live was dismissed for lack of prosecution; no money award was verified.
• No merits decision on ZAO’s fraud claims in the Lady Gaga case was found; the January 2013 order left them for trial, and the terminating document was not available. The Rihanna claim has no recorded outcome.
• The Illinois case may have been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds; until the January 2026 judgment is read, its result is unknown.
• In 2023 a judge accepted Burke’s service challenge after a full evidentiary hearing. The later contempt finding rested on records that were not before the court at that hearing.
• No prosecutor has charged this Ryan Burke with a crime in any record found, and the money disputes in this chapter are civil.

Burke’s own explanations for each matter are collected in Chapter 15. The questions that the records leave open are listed in Chapter 16.