## Facts

- Jacques Agnant, known as “Haitian Jack,” worked in the music industry and at the time of suit was Director of A&R at Undeas Entertainment.
- In 1993, Tupac Shakur, Agnant, and another man were charged in connection with a hotel sexual assault; Shakur’s case was severed, Shakur was convicted in 1994, and Agnant later pleaded guilty to reduced charges and received probation and a fine.
- After Shakur’s death, his album *The Don Killuminati: The 7 Day Theory* was released in December 1996 and included the song “Against All Odds.”
- The lyrics referred to “Haitian Jack” and suggested he was “working for the feds,” which Agnant claimed falsely portrayed him as an undercover informant who “set up” Shakur.
- Agnant alleged reputational and economic harm in the music community and sought substantial compensatory and punitive damages.
- The record reflected Agnant remained employed at the same position, without shown salary reduction, demotion, or specific lost contracts attributable to the song.

## Issues

1. Whether the lyrics implying Agnant was “working for the feds” were capable of a defamatory meaning under New York’s “right-thinking persons” standard.
2. Whether the alleged defamation was libel per se or instead required extrinsic facts (libel per quod), triggering a special-damages requirement.
3. If special damages were required, whether Agnant pleaded and proved itemized pecuniary loss with sufficient specificity to survive summary judgment.

## Decision

- The court granted summary judgment to the Shakur Estate and the record-company defendants and dismissed the complaint as to them.
- The court held the lyrics were not capable of a defamatory meaning because labeling someone an informant does not subject the person to hatred or contempt in the eyes of “right-thinking” members of the community.
- Independently, the court held the alleged defamation was not libel per se and Agnant failed to plead and prove special damages with the required particularity.

## Legal Principles

- Under New York law, whether words are capable of a defamatory meaning is a threshold question of law for the court.
- A statement is defamatory only if it tends to expose the plaintiff to public contempt, ridicule, or disgrace, measured by the reaction of “right-thinking” persons in the community at large.
- Accusations that a person cooperates with law enforcement (e.g., being an informant) are not inherently defamatory under this objective standard, even if a particular subculture views such conduct negatively.
- Libel per se is limited to statements that, on their face and without extrinsic facts, impute a serious crime, loathsome disease, professional unfitness, or serious sexual misconduct.
- When the allegedly defamatory meaning depends on innuendo or extrinsic context (libel per quod), the plaintiff must plead and prove special damages as specific, itemized pecuniary losses; generalized reputational harm is insufficient.

## Conclusion

The court dismissed the libel claims because the challenged lyrics were not actionable defamation under New York’s objective community standard and, in any event, the plaintiff failed to provide the specific proof of pecuniary loss required where the alleged libel is not per se.


Agnant v. Shakur, 30 F. Supp. 2d 420 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)