The Ryan Burke Public Record

Chapter 15 · Right of reply

Burke's side: his positions, denials and explanations

Burke’s sworn accounts, his lawyers’ arguments and his companies’ public explanations, collected with the responses and rulings that qualify them.

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

This chapter exists so readers can see Burke’s account in one place, rather than reconstruct it from separate cases. It collects the positions recorded elsewhere in this publication, including sworn statements, company claims and lawyers’ arguments. Burke, his companies and his lawyers may submit a written reply under the right-of-reply policy; this is an invitation to reply, not a claim that anyone was contacted. A response label identifies whose position is being reported. It does not establish that the position is correct, and the absence of an available response is not an admission.

Business descriptions and the early booking record

See identification and companies for the distinction between personal descriptions, company registrations and authority to represent an artist.

Burke's positionBurke’s public profiles, reviewed Nov. 11, 2026

Instagram describes him as a record executive, producer, talent manager and promoter. LinkedIn identifies him as founder and chief executive of VEW businesses, dating the broader operation to 2003 and VEW Live! to 2005.1 2

These are self-descriptions, not incorporation dates or independently verified career histories. The company register gives separate filing dates, and the 2013 ZAO order found the defendants then before it were not licensed talent agencies.3

Lady Gaga and TV Service ZAO, 2011–2013

Chapter 04 separates the binders, unsigned artist proposals and ZAO’s claims from the defendants’ counterclaim.

Burke's positionRepresentations recorded in DE 104, pp. 7–8

In mid-August 2011, Burke told intermediary George Sergeev he could use his relationship with Lady Gaga’s manager Troy Carter to obtain the awards performance. He said a binder deposit was needed before negotiations began.4

The court’s account nevertheless says the Burke entities had never been authorized representatives of Lady Gaga. The binder was an agreement to pursue a booking, not the artist’s acceptance.5

Burke's positionBurke email, Dec. 23, 2011

Burke required funds in escrow by December 27 and said they were going directly to NWE, which would forward a deposit to the artist’s management or agent so they knew they were dealing with real people.6

The order records NWE’s receipt of $1,350,000 around December 27. It does not verify the proposed onward transfer to the artist’s representatives.6

Burke's positionBurke deposition recited in the January 2013 order

Burke estimated he would have made a profit of “on or around $300,000.00” if the December proposal had been fulfilled.7

That was an expected profit, not a finding that he earned or retained that amount. The order does not fully trace the difference between NWE’s receipts and its January 31 balance.

Burke's positionCounterclaim and summary-judgment arguments

The defendants said the June date conflicted with artist availability, the engagement date could change, and they had secured an October 9 performance. They alleged ZAO breached exclusivity and no-contact obligations by approaching the artist’s representatives directly, and sought $1,350,000 in liquidated damages.8 9

Court findingSummary-judgment order, Jan. 9, 2013

The court held that the defendants failed to show ZAO breached a valid contract enforceable by them. It rejected the counterclaim and liquidated-damages claim, but required ZAO to prove its own claims before obtaining release of the frozen funds.10 9 11

Burke's positionDefense characterization of the January proposal

The defendants described the January 10 proposal as “merely a document from NWE” reporting a management meeting and conditional performance, submitted to put the dealings in context.12

Court findingDE 104, p. 14

The judge found the January proposal was not a valid contract because its only signer lacked authority to act for Lady Gaga.12

Burke's positionDefense licensing argument

The defendants argued that the talent-agency statute protected artists, not third parties such as ZAO, and did not void the claimed contract.13

The judge expressly declined to decide that alternative theory. The case’s termination terms and ultimate disposition of the funds remain unverified.14

Rihanna and Mary J. Blige, 2012–2014

Chapter 05 treats the Rihanna allegation and VEW’s Blige lawsuit as separate matters.

Burke's positionLimits of the accessible Rihanna account

The short Courthouse News report contains no response from Burke or Vision. No answer, motion or sworn defense statement in the identified Rihanna dispute was obtained.15

That is a limitation of the documentary account, not proof that no defense existed. The possible case match and reported dismissal are unverified.16

Burke's positionVEW’s Blige claim, reported June 20, 2013

VEW said Blige canceled the December 9 Dallas engagement, retained its $145,000 deposit and instead took an opportunity to perform with the Rolling Stones.17

Blige’s representative denied breach. The later court order treated the first cancellation email as anticipatory repudiation but found it was timely retracted.18 19 20

Burke's positionVEW’s arguments described in DE 42

VEW argued it reasonably relied on the assistant’s apparent authority to cancel, that Burke tried to persuade MJP to perform, and that it mitigated losses and materially changed position before the lawyer’s December 7 email.19 20

Court findingMemorandum, Order and Judgment, Oct. 17, 2014

The judge found the lawyer’s 1:50 p.m. email retracted the cancellation before VEW terminated or materially changed position. VEW remained obligated to fund travel and could not maintain its contract claim after failing to do so.20 21

Burke's positionVEW’s position on remaining claims and damages

VEW dropped unjust enrichment and punitive damages, did not oppose Blige’s no-contract defense individually, and challenged the fee-remedy provision as overbearing, one-sided and unconscionable because of unequal bargaining power.22 23

Court findingDE 42, pp. 21–24

The court rejected the unconscionability challenge and entered $105,000 for Mary Jane Productions against Vision, not Burke individually. Later fees, appeal and payment are not verified.23 24

Clark and VEWtopia, 2019–2020

The judgments chapter records a limited procedural response in Clark; Chapter 07 contains the festival’s public explanations.

Burke's positionReported Clark motion, March 30, 2020

The cited docket lists a request to vacate the February 19 judgment. The motion’s text, grounds and result were not independently verified.25

A motion is not a vacatur. No fuller substantive defense can be attributed from the available lead.

Burke's positionVEW Live festival announcements, Dec. 2019–Jan. 2020

The announcements promised two-day admission without single-day tickets, a Marlins Park lineup and a later limited-time $99 pass; the January release also announced charitable use of festival proceeds.26 27

Those were advertised terms and plans. Later reporting observed single-day door sales, and no donation accounting was verified.

Burke's positionVenue move and refunds, Miami Herald

Organizers attributed the relocation to a “production issue.” Burke said, “Amazing things don’t just belong on South Beach,” and welcomed Miami Gardens; a spokeswoman said original ticket holders had been refunded.28

The same article gave instructions for purchasers still awaiting refunds. It did not identify the technical cause of the move or reconcile every payment.

Burke's positionOrganizer Instagram statement reproduced in the review

Organizers attributed the interrupted first night to circumstances outside their control and a Dade County lightning advisory, then promoted Saturday’s lineup.29

The review separately reported delayed admission and missing acts before the weather shutdown, including Chris Brown’s manager’s account of an agreement dispute. It also documented Cardi B’s completed second-night set; the weather statement did not resolve every earlier problem.

Kameka and Dzotsi: service and travel, 2022–2024

Chapter 08 gives the full sequence, including the initially favorable service ruling and later contempt adjudication.

Burke's positionAffidavit executed Oct. 17; motion filed Nov. 22, 2022

Burke said he was in Las Vegas on business from April 1 until April 14, was not at his home on April 11, never received a summons that day and had not been notified of the default motion. His lawyer separately argued that leaving papers at the door was legally insufficient for him and the companies.30 31

The process server described a face-to-face encounter and consent to leaving the papers. The travel denial and legal objection were different grounds for challenging service.32

Burke's positionSupplemental authorities and Jan. 30, 2023 argument

Counsel challenged facial defects and identification, emphasized plaintiffs’ burden to prove service, and maintained Burke was in Las Vegas. He also raised default-notice objections.33 34

The judge canceled the noticed February sale, allowed a deposition and offered an evidentiary hearing. That hearing did not resolve document authenticity.

Burke's positionBurke deposition, Feb. 23, 2023

Burke said he had lived in Sunrise since 2010 and worked from home. He acknowledged the property-company agent roles with qualifications, but was unsure of VEW Live’s agent designation while knowing he was a member.35 36

The affidavit had stated all three registered-agent roles more definitely. The difference does not itself prove a registry change or intentional falsehood.

Burke's positionDeposition account of the Las Vegas business trip

Burke identified the Grammys as the purpose, described himself as talent manager, booking agent, promoter, consultant and producer, and said he performed all those functions. He corrected his description of the event flyer, said later events were invitations, and said he was unpaid for the April 1 event, without a client contract or venue reservation.37 38

This was testimony about the asserted trip, not an adjudication of separate artist engagements. The deposition did not establish the underlying loan’s formation or use of proceeds.

Burke's positionDeposition explanations for limited travel records

Burke identified the flight confirmation, believed the $817.20 cost was accurate and said he boarded outbound. He explained missing boarding passes by digital expiry, the hotel gap by staying with a cousin, and missing transportation or meal records by multiple accounts, rides or meals supplied by others and imperfect recollection.39 40 41 42

Missing records alone did not prove the trip false. Later carrier records listed a successfully flown April 4 return, conflicting with the continuous stay he asserted.43

Burke's positionBank entries and access to the house

Burke distinguished posting dates from transaction dates, saying the questioned Florida entries reflected March 31 purchases. He could not identify another person who might have answered to “Ryan”; counsel instructed him not to answer the settlement-proposal question as outside scope.42 44 45

A posting date does not itself establish location, and the instructed nonanswer was not an admission. No judicial resolution of the certified question is supplied.

Burke's positionSpecial appearance, June 2023

Counsel said a March agreement contemplated accepting service in exchange for vacatur, but chose not to seek enforcement because of delay and authority disputes. He insisted service be resolved first, called the magistrate objection timely and self-executing, and sought sanctions and fees for alleged misrepresentations about consent.46 47

The exhibits do not independently establish the full agreement. No sanctions award is supplied.

Burke's positionAugust 21 hearing testimony and defense argument

Burke repeated the Las Vegas account, said he deleted expired digital passes, used cash and multiple accounts, and denied the certified-mail signature. Counsel challenged Lowe’s identification and documentation, called her argumentative and not candid, and afterward declined to accept service while invoking the alleged earlier agreement.48 49 50 51

Court orderAugust 21, 2023 hearing transcript

The transcript records Haury granting the motion to quash service.52

Court findingOrder adjudging criminal contempt, May 13, 2024

Haury found beyond any reasonable doubt that Burke lied about being in Las Vegas on April 11, knowingly obstructed justice and supplied a fake travel document or locator; he adjudged indirect and direct criminal contempt.53 54

Burke's positionUntimely-service motion, Aug. 24, 2023

Defendants argued service was not obtained within 120 days and plaintiffs had not shown good cause or requested an extension. They later withdrew the motion without stating a reason.55

Withdrawal did not establish valid service or concede contempt. The packet contains no full defense account from the April 2024 contempt hearing or verified appellate disposition.

BZR’s debut and 2024 postponement

See Chapter 12 for the event record and differing partner lists.

Burke's positionBurke’s July 2023 launch interview

Burke said Chris Brown was selected after conversations with promoters and consumers, was excited to perform, and that both production teams were working closely. He gave ticket tiers starting at US$45 and promised “there is no bad seat in the house.”56

Contemporary reporting confirms Brown performed after midnight into August 28. It does not verify exact attendance, every advertised price or vendor-loss totals.57

Burke's position2024 promotion and postponement release

Promotion identified Burke as president and producer and advertised a July return. Organizers later cited Hurricane Beryl, promised relief assistance and an autumn rescheduling, and said tickets would remain valid or be fully refundable through vendors.58 59 60

No complete refund or relief-spending accounting was verified. Billboard’s later reference to a 2024 staging conflicts with Kaboom’s statement that the last staging before 2025 was in 2023.61 62

Company bankruptcy and foreclosure positions, 2024–2025

These positions concern the company debtor, not personal bankruptcy. See Chapter 10 and Chapter 09.

Burke's positionFirst-company-case hearing, July 11, 2024

The debtor did not object to dismissal.63

Court findingDismissal entered July 16, 2024

The court dismissed the case without discharging debts and terminated any automatic stay.63

That order did not decide service of Burke’s contempt sentence.

Burke's positionForeclosure defense notice, filed Feb. 6, 2025

Burke and the property company sought emergency cancellation or vacatur of the February 20 sale through counsel Barry Mittelberg.64

The motion’s grounds and ruling are absent. The notice proves a request, not success.

Burke's positionDebtor summary, May 2, 2025

The company said it filed to stop foreclosure, described Burke as manager and sole shareholder, and qualified its financial figures as background approximations. It reported $2.9 million assets, $21,000 income for 2024, $28,000 for 2025, secured debts of $962,000 and $107,212, a $93,965.58 tax-certificate obligation, no unsecured claims, employees or wages owed, and no anticipated emergency relief within 14 days.65

Creditors later claimed additional interest, fees and costs. The summary was not a valuation or allowance order, and conversion to Chapter 7 did not make it one.

Echols and Mosley, 2025–2026

Chapter 11 distinguishes docket descriptions from unavailable declarations and deciding orders.

Burke's positionDefense appearance and jurisdiction motion

Counsel appeared October 23, 2025 for “Putative Defendant Ryan Matthew Burke, erroneously sued as ‘Ryan Burke’,” filed an attempted-service report and moved November 13 to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The docket lists declarations by the putative defendant and counsel.66

Party allegationProject statements alleged by the Illinois plaintiffs

The complaint alleges the defendants claimed a Sabina Park wire, asserted project control and alleged fraud in a cease-and-desist email; it also alleges Burke promised full repayment on April 8, 2025.67

Those communications were not independently reproduced or authenticated in the main complaint. Their characterization remains the plaintiffs’ account.

The declarations’ substantive contents were unavailable, so no further jurisdiction or identity explanation is supplied. The later judgment and orders are docketed, but their operative terms remain unverified.68

Cardi B, BZR and V12 Group, 2026

Chapter 13 sets out the competing payment accounts and ticketing chronology.

Burke's positionAugust announcement and October notices

Burke and Gramps Morgan promised a larger return; after withdrawal, organizers asked for patience, suspended sales citing circumstances beyond their control, then announced December 20, continued ticket validity, refunds and complimentary tickets for qualifying travel-booked patrons. They declared a show would happen and maintained they fulfilled financial and contractual obligations.69 70 71 72 73

The postponement did not confirm Cardi B for December. The live site, signed by V12 Group and the team, advertised December 19–20 with lineup forthcoming.74

Burke's positionRefund statement, Nov. 4, 2026

Organizers apologized, attributed the backlog to high platform request volumes and said all outstanding refunds were processed and issued, subject to additional bank time. Later Burke reporting said refunds had started and everyone would be reimbursed.75 76

These formulations do not establish one reconciled completion date. Patrons had reported both receipts and continuing delays.77

Burke's positionCVM interview, broadcast reported Nov. 9; article Nov. 10

Burke said US$2.5 million had been sent directly to Cardi B, he had receipts and she was paid in full. He hoped to recover it through legal action, said he learned withdrawal “straight from a billboard,” and said her team wanted December 20 but that did not proceed.78 79

Cardi B disputed full payment and notice, alleged missed production obligations and said a late US$750,000 was returned. Her agent also denied full payment; no independently verified filed action decides those points.79 80

Burke's positionBurke’s continuation plans and BZR funding statement

Burke apologized to fans, sponsors, government and local artists, suggested her management change as a possible factor, said Keyshia Cole remained willing, and described replacement talks and incentives. BZR said funding was independent, no government money was received or promised, and asked for the legal process to proceed without further statements.78 76

The Ministry separately denied a financial undertaking. Those statements do not verify replacement contracts, settle production responsibilities or authenticate the disputed transfers.81

What remains unresolved

Missing defense papers are not replaced with arguments from other cases. The full contempt-hearing defense, Clark vacatur grounds, Illinois declarations and 2026 agreement remain unavailable. Future replies submitted under the published policy will be linked here and alongside the affected chapter.

  1. Ryan Burke, @vewryan, displayed name and bio, retrieved Nov. 11, 2026 — source. ↩

  2. Ryan Burke, LinkedIn profile, summary and VEW Live!, VEW Music Group and Vision experience entries, retrieved Nov. 11, 2026 — source. ↩

  3. TV Service ZAO v. NWE, S.D. Fla. 1:12-cv-20317, DE 104 (Jan. 9, 2013), pp. 5–6 and footnote 6 (control, offices, licensing); pp. 7–12 and footnotes 7–8 (deposits and bank balance); pp. 10–11 (cousin’s role); pp. 13–21 (contract positions, ruling and limits), particularly p. 20 (licensing defense) — record. ↩

  4. Order, DE 104, pp. 7–8, August 23 WMA/NWE binder and representations preceding it — official PDF. ↩

  5. Order, DE 104, pp. 5–7, NWE presidency, control, licensing, virtual offices and authorized artist representatives; private family member’s name omitted — official PDF. ↩

  6. Order, DE 104, p. 10, quoting December 23 email, DE 84-9, and citing acknowledgment DE 84-10 — official PDF. ↩↩

  7. Order, DE 104, pp. 11–12, account balance and Burke deposition estimate, DE 98-2 at 26 — official PDF. ↩

  8. Order, DE 104, pp. 12–14, counterclaim DE 36, paragraphs 9–15, and date-change clause in ZAO/WMA binder — official PDF. ↩

  9. Order, DE 104, pp. 18–19, liquidated damages and superseding-agreement provision — official PDF. ↩↩

  10. Order, DE 104, pp. 17–18 and footnote 10, December proposal analysis and counterclaim holding — official PDF. ↩

  11. Order, DE 104, pp. 20–21, conclusion denying release of escrow and reserving ZAO’s claims for trial — official PDF. ↩

  12. Order, DE 104, p. 14, defense characterization and court’s determination on January proposal — official PDF. ↩↩

  13. Order, DE 104, pp. 19–20, licensing argument and response, citing DE 101 at 17 — official PDF. ↩

  14. PacerMonitor case page, case-information fields, filed January 26, 2012; terminated January 23, 2013; free page inspected November 11, 2026. For amended claims and freeze: DE 104, p. 2 and p. 12, footnote 8 — official PDF. ↩

  15. Courthouse News Service, “Bogus!”, identified in the supplied research as December 2012; complete accessible one-sentence report, fetched November 11, 2026. The retrieved page does not display an exact publication day or identify the claimants by name. Its wording expressly attributes the accusation to the woman and bankruptcy trustee and identifies Rihanna as a nonparty. ↩

  16. Possible-match research lead supplied for checking: Youngman et al. v. Vision Entertainment Worldwide and Burke, No. 2012-046329-CA-01; identity and reported lack-of-prosecution dismissal not independently verified. The Miami-Dade Clerk civil portal was accessed November 11, 2026, but no case-specific result was obtained. The portal is a search resource, not corroboration of the lead or the dismissal. ↩

  17. Pollstar Staff, “Blige Sued Over Canceled Concert” (June 20, 2013), VEW allegations concerning Dallas, deposit and Rolling Stones appearance; concluding artist-side denial. ↩

  18. TMZ Staff, “Mary J. Blige Sued Over Canceled Concert – Mick Jagger Stole Her!!!” (June 18, 2013), VEW’s allegations and concluding quotation from publicist Karynne Tencer. ↩

  19. DE 42, pp. 4–9, anticipatory repudiation, apparent authority and legal options following repudiation — public court-order copy. ↩↩

  20. DE 42, pp. 7, 10–17, VEW’s positions, timely retraction and venue emails — public court-order copy. ↩↩↩

  21. DE 42, pp. 12–18, reasonable-time analysis, travel-funding failure and dismissal of VEW’s contract claim against MJP — public court-order copy. ↩

  22. DE 42, pp. 4, 18, 23–24, abandoned unjust-enrichment/punitive claims, lack of privity with Blige, and disposition — public court-order copy. ↩

  23. DE 42, pp. 21–23, fee installments, default remedy and VEW’s unconscionability argument — public court-order copy. ↩↩

  24. DE 42, pp. 23–24, attorney-fee application and signed $105,000 judgment for MJP — public court-order copy. ↩

  25. Joe Clark v. Burke and VEW Live, Miami-Dade No. 2019-037826-CA-01, reported motion to vacate March 30, 2020, DIN 26. Civil docket search. Motion text, grounds and ruling not independently verified. ↩

  26. Dr. Jerry Doby, “Cardi B Announced as 1st Headliner for VEWTOPIA Music Festival 2020 in Miami,” The Hype Magazine, Dec. 7, 2019, announcement, opening, early-bird and ticket paragraphs. Promotional material establishes what VEW Live announced, not all delivered performances or company-history claims. ↩

  27. “Vewtopia Music Festival announces full lineup and special $99 two-day pass,” MLB.com, Jan. 7, 2020, release, opening, ticket and charitable-proceeds paragraphs. Announcement, not an audit of performances or donations. ↩

  28. Madeleine Marr, “What is the deal with Vewtopia? The music fest changed venues and folks are confused,” Miami Herald, originally Jan. 29, updated Feb. 1, 2020, article, venue-change, repurchase, Burke quotation, refund-contact and gate/ticket paragraphs. Refund-completion statement attributed to spokeswoman, not independently reconciled transactions. ↩

  29. Aaliyah Pasols, “With the Help of Cardi B, Vewtopia Music Festival Found Its Footing After a Shaky Start,” Miami New Times, Feb. 3, 2020, review, first-night entry/cancellations/weather paragraphs, reproduced organizer statement, and second-night performance descriptions through Cardi B’s closing set. Eyewitness account; reported deleted manager/promoter posts not independently retrieved. ↩

  30. Defendants’ motion to quash, Nov. 22, 2022, PDF pp. 1–3 — redacted copy. ↩

  31. Burke affidavit and travel-confirmation attachment, executed Oct. 17, 2022, in motion to quash, PDF pp. 8–10, affidavit ¶¶ 1–6 — redacted copy; later itinerary attachment, plaintiffs’ contempt motion, PDF pp. 77–78 — redacted copy. ↩

  32. Motion to Quash Service of Process, Nov. 22, 2022, attached return and affidavit, PDF pp. 4, 8 — redacted copy. ↩

  33. Defendants’ Notice of Filing Supplemental Authority, Jan. 26, 2023, PDF pp. 1–2 — redacted copy. ↩

  34. Jan. 30, 2023 hearing transcript in defense exhibit compilation, PDF pp. 5–16 (Tr. 4–15), especially PDF pp. 12–15, Tr. 11:9–11, 12:13–19, 14:4–5 — redacted copy. ↩

  35. Burke deposition, PDF p. 3, Tr. 7:13–8:9 — redacted copy. ↩

  36. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 3–4, Tr. 8:11–19, 10:6–10, 11:1–4 — redacted copy; affidavit ¶ 1, motion to quash, PDF p. 8 — redacted copy. ↩

  37. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 5–6, Tr. 17:21–24, 18:3–20 — redacted copy. ↩

  38. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 6, 8–9, Tr. 20:3–17, 29:20–30:3 — redacted copy. ↩

  39. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 6–7, Tr. 21:3–24, 22:1–18 — redacted copy. ↩

  40. Burke deposition, PDF p. 9, Tr. 30:4–22 — redacted copy. ↩

  41. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 7–8, Tr. 25:3–26:21, 29:7–19 — redacted copy. ↩

  42. Burke deposition, PDF pp. 7–8, Tr. 23:5–24:18, 27:1–29:4, quotation Tr. 27:19–22 — redacted copy. ↩↩

  43. American Airlines exhibits F and H, attached to plaintiffs’ Nov. 21 contempt motion, PDF pp. 82–88, 92–98; October letters pp. 82, 92; outbound manifest p. 88; April 4 manifest p. 93; booking histories pp. 86, 97 — redacted copy. ↩

  44. Burke deposition, PDF p. 10, Tr. 35:2–16, 36:2–8 — redacted copy. Household details not necessary to the service dispute are omitted. ↩

  45. Burke deposition, PDF p. 9, Tr. 31:9–33:18 — redacted copy. ↩

  46. Defendants’ Special Appearance in Response to Request for a CMC, filed June 6, 2023, PDF pp. 1–2, 5 — redacted copy; duplicate service-dated copy, June 2, PDF pp. 1–5 — redacted copy. ↩

  47. Defendants’ special appearance, PDF pp. 3–5, ¶¶ 7–11 and objection/conclusion — redacted copy; reproduced April 26 objection and counsel correspondence, exhibit compilation, PDF pp. 32–35 — redacted copy. ↩

  48. Aug. 21 hearing, PDF pp. 11, 15–22, Tr. 11:1–11, 18:18–20, 21:3–4, 22:9 — redacted copy. ↩

  49. Lowe cross-examination, Aug. 21 hearing, PDF pp. 32–33, 38–49, especially Tr. 32:11–33:2, 42:19–20, 43:5–12 — redacted copy. ↩

  50. Counsel arguments, Aug. 21 hearing, PDF pp. 65–70, especially Tr. 65:18, 66:21, 67:22–70:22 — redacted copy. ↩

  51. Aug. 21 hearing, PDF pp. 71–72, Tr. 71:6–72:16 — redacted copy; plaintiffs’ description of Aug. 23 order, contempt motion, PDF pp. 1–2 — redacted copy. ↩

  52. Aug. 21 hearing, PDF pp. 70–71, Tr. 70:24–71:5 — redacted copy; plaintiffs’ later reproduction with bracketed insertion, contempt motion, PDF p. 5 — redacted copy. ↩

  53. May 13 contempt order, PDF p. 1, finding A — redacted copy. ↩

  54. May 13 contempt order, PDF p. 2, adjudication paragraph — redacted copy. No separate prosecutor-filed charge or other criminal disposition is established in the reviewed record. ↩

  55. Defendants’ Rule 1.070(j) dismissal motion, Aug. 24, 2023, PDF pp. 1–2 — redacted copy; withdrawal, e-filed Nov. 2, 2023, PDF pp. 1–2 — redacted copy. ↩

  56. Yasmine Peru, “Chris Brown ‘super excited’ to perform in Jamaica at Bizarre Weekend,” The Gleaner (July 16, 2023), Burke interview, event program, ticket tiers, partners and projection — article. ↩

  57. Kediesha Perry, “Chris Brown delivers on his influence,” Jamaica Observer (Aug. 29, 2023), entrance time, set duration, conclusion and organizer list — review. ↩

  58. “BZR WKND is back!,” Jamaica Observer (Apr. 27, 2024), July dates, National Stadium, party/finale program and VEW Live/TGE statement — article. ↩

  59. Buzzz Caribbean Lifestyle and BZR WKND, joint Instagram post (Apr. 24, 2024), caption naming 2024 organizers and partners and describing Ryan Burke as president and producer — post. Retrieved caption; promotional statement, not a contract. ↩

  60. “BZR WKND postponed,” Jamaica Star (July 19, 2024), organizer release, original dates, autumn promise and refund instructions — article. ↩

  61. Kyle Denis, “Cardi B Will Headline a Caribbean Stadium for the First Time at BZR WKND Jamaica 2026,” Billboard (Aug. 14, 2026), announcement, organizer statement and retrospective paragraph on 2023–2025 — article. ↩

  62. Akeeile Harris, “Rap Sensation Sexyy Red Set to Headline BZR Weekend at Sabina Park,” Kaboom Magazine (Mar. 30, 2025), April 26 venue and lineup; final paragraph says last staging was in 2023 — article. ↩

  63. Order Dismissing Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case Resolving the Motion to Convert Case to Chapter 7 or Appoint a Trustee as Filed by United States Trustee, Bankr. S.D. Fla., 24-14947-PDR, Doc. 39, signed July 15 and entered July 16, 2024; reproduced with certificate of notice, Doc. 40, filed July 18. PDF pp. 1–2 (recipients and attorney roles), p. 3 (signature, caption, July 11 hearing and debtor position), p. 4 (dismissal, no discharge, stay termination, reports and fees), p. 5 (professional applications and eventual closure) — redacted copy. ↩↩

  64. Notice of Hearing on Defendant’s Emergency Motion to Cancel/Vacate Sale Date Scheduled for February 20, 2025, Broward Circuit Court, CACE-22-016620, e-filed February 6, 2025, PDF p. 1 (filing stamp, matter, judge and February 18 hearing), p. 2 (Mittelberg’s representation of Burke and the LLC) — redacted copy. ↩

  65. Debtor’s Chapter 11 Case Management Summary, Bankr. S.D. Fla., 25-14362-SMG, Doc. 18, May 2, 2025, PDF p. 1 (qualifications, filing date, business, property, purpose, Burke’s role, income and tax certificate), p. 2 (secured debt, no unsecured claims, assets, employees and signature), pp. 3–5 (insurance attachment and temporary-binder terms) — redacted copy. ↩

  66. Justia docket reproduction, entries 11–12 (Oct. 23, 2025) and 13 (Nov. 13, 2025), appearance language, attempted-service report and motion attachments — docket. ↩

  67. Verified complaint, docket entry 1, PDF p. 2, paragraphs 13–16 — original RECAP PDF. ↩

  68. CourtListener, Echols v. Burke, entries 13, 15, 18–19, 24 and 29–30; last updated Sept. 16, 2026; checked Nov. 11, 2026 — docket. Docket labels verified; underlying orders and judgment not available as free RECAP downloads on the reviewed page. ↩

  69. Kyle Denis, “Cardi B Will Headline a Caribbean Stadium for the First Time at BZR WKND Jamaica 2026,” Billboard, August 14, 2026, announcement, early-bird sales and organisers’ statement — article. ↩

  70. “BZR WKND organisers urge patience among patrons amid Cardi B cancellation,” Jamaica Observer, October 9, 2026, organiser social-media statement and Cardi B apology video — article. ↩

  71. “BZR WKND Jamaica Suspends Ticket Sales After Cardi B Withdrawal,” DancehallMag, October 10, 2026, website suspension notice and reported ticket-sales/video remarks — article. ↩

  72. Claude Mills, “BZR WKND moves to December after Cardi B withdrawal,” DancehallMag, October 13, 2026, postponement, condolences and refund instructions — article. ↩

  73. Joanne Clark, “BZR WKND postponed to December as organizers offer refunds, free tickets,” Caribbean National Weekly, October 14, 2026, Tuesday announcement and documentary requirements for refunds/complimentary tickets — article. ↩

  74. BZR WKND event website, visible postponement, lineup and refund statement, checked Nov. 11, 2026 — promoter site. December dates and lineup TBA are visible; older title/metadata still use Cardi B and a July date and are not treated as current confirmation. ↩

  75. “All BZR WKND refunds now issued, organisers say,” Jamaica Observer, November 4, 2026, social-media statement about backlog, processing and bank credit time — article. ↩

  76. “BZR confirms no Gov’t funding Mum on other Cardi B claims,” Jamaica Star, November 11, 2026, organiser release, payment assertions, refunds and December planning — article. ↩↩

  77. “BZR WKND ticket buyers still waiting on refund weeks after organisers pledged money back,” Jamaica Observer, November 3, 2026, patron statements, attorney’s intended complaints, October 19 promise and failed request for comment — article. Private patrons are not named here. ↩

  78. “BZR Weekend Sues Cardi B; Patrons Being Reimbursed,” CVM Television, November 10, 2026, interview account, five-transfer description and Lewis–Burke exchange — article. ↩↩

  79. Alex Ocho, “Cardi B Dares Jamaican Concert Promoter To Sue Her, Accuses Him Of Lying About $2.5 Million Payment,” Complex, November 11, 2026, November 9 broadcast/livestream dates, deposit, production and threatened countersuit — article. ↩↩

  80. “Cardi B’s agent says she wasn’t paid in full,” Jamaica Gleaner, displayed November 11, 2026, Guirguis Tuesday-night X statement and Cardi B’s second livestream/deposit position — article. URL contains November 12; displayed date and access on November 11 are retained. ↩

  81. “Gov’t Says It Made No Commitment to Pay Fees for Proposed Cardi B Concert in Jamaica,” CVM Television, November 10, 2026, Ministry statement — article. ↩