Crowd at concert. Melinda Nagy/Shutterstock.com

Pop singer Mariah Carey was handed legal victories Wednesday in a back-and-forth breach of contract litigation spurred by the cancellation of two concerts in South America in 2016.

U.S. District Judge William Pauley III of the Southern District of New York dismissed, in part, a set of claims against Carey and her front company, Mirage Entertainment Inc., including defamation claims against the famed singer over a tweet that appeared to lay the blame for the cancellations at the feet of promoters.

The suit, brought by the Argentinian and Peruvian divisions of concert producer FEG Entretenimientos, was a counterclaim after Mirage sued for breach of contract. The counterclaims argued Carey and her company were actually the ones who breached contracts for the singer to perform in each country in 2016.

Additionally, FEG brought defamation claims against the singer and her company after Carey tweeted on Oct. 25, 2016—just days before her scheduled performances in South America—a news article reporting she was canceling her shows, citing promoter negligence.

“Devastated my shows in Chile, Argentina & Brazil had to be cancelled,” Carey said on social media. “My fans deserve better than how some of these promoters treated them.”

According to FEG, the tweet represented a defamatory statement on Carey's part, as well as her company Mirage, as the promoters claimed Mirage was essentially her alter ego, and that her public statements were posted with her authority as an officer.

Pauley quickly dispatched with the suggestion Carey was operating in her capacity as an officer of Mirage, noting that neither the agreements underlying the litigation or Mirage itself were mentioned in her tweet. Similarly, as FEG had failed to allege that Carey had used Mirage in an improper way, Pauley agreed to dismiss the defamation claims against Mirage.

As to Carey herself, Pauley noted that, per a state law test meant to test the factual quality of a potentially liable statement, the singer's tweet was clearly opinion.

“What Carey's fans 'deserve' and whether they 'deserve better' than how some promoters 'treated them' is conjectural and vague,” the judge wrote. “A jury could not determine whether Carey's fans 'deserve better' because there is no objective standard to which that statement can be compared.”

FEG's contention that the tweet was mixed-opinion because it implied facts that Carey did not disclose—presumably, that she was the source for the very article she then tweeted out—still faltered, Pauley found in dismissing the defamation charges.

“Viewed in context, Carey was not implying facts about counterclaimants, but expressing her wish that her fans had been able to attend her South American concerts,” he wrote. “Such an abstract desire is incapable of being termed defamatory.”

While Carey was also dismissed from the breach of contract claims, FEG did see its breach of contract claims against Mirage sustained.

Carey and Mirage are represented by Reed Smith partner Jordan Siev, who did not respond to a request for comment.

FEG's legal team is led by McKool Smith principal Robert Allen. He also did not respond to a request for comment.