Home /  Browse Decisions /  IN RE GRAÑA Y MONTERO S.A.A.

SECURITIES LITIGATION

IN RE GRAÑA Y MONTERO S.A.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION

No. 17-CV-1105 (JMA) (ARL). Email | Print | Comments (0)

View Case
IN RE GRAÑA Y MONTERO S.A.A. SECURITIES LITIGATION.

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

March 5, 2019.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a)
Cause: 15 U.S.C. § 78m(a) Securities Exchange Act
Nature of Suit: 850 Securities / Commodities
Source: PACER
Attorney(s) appearing for the Case
Grana Investor Group, Movant, represented by Phillip Kim , Rosen Law Firm, P.A. P.C.

Treasure Finance Holding Corp., Plainti , represented by Alan Ian Ellman , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd LLP, David Avi Rosenfeld , Robbins Geller
Rudman & Dowd, LLP & Moshe O. Boroosan , Robbins Geller.

Marcia Goldberg, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Consol Plainti , represented by Samuel H. Rudman , Robbins Geller Rudman
& Dowd, LLP & David Avi Rosenfeld , Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP.

Grana y Montero S.A.A., Defendant, represented by George S. Wang , Simpson Thacher & Bartett LLP, Anar Rathod Patel , Simspon Thacher & Bartlett
LLP & Caitlyn Chacon , Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, pro hac vice.

Monica Miloslavich, also known as Monica Miloslavich Hart, Defendant, represented by Derek A. Cohen , Goodwin Procter LLP, Jared Robin Killeen ,
Goodwin Procter LLP & William J. Harrington , Davis Polk & Wardwell.

ORDER

JOAN M. AZRACK, District Judge.

This action was commenced on behalf of all purchasers of Graña y Montero S.A.A. American Depository Shares from July 24, 2013 through February 24,
2017 against defendants Graña y Montero S.A.A. ("Graña" or "Company"), Monica Miloslavich Hart, Jose Graña Miro Quesada, Mario Alvarado P ucker,
and Hernando Graña Acuna (collectively, "Individual Defendants"). Plainti s allege that Graña violated federal securities laws by making misleading
public statements as to how the Company obtained lucrative public works projects.

On July 12, 2018, plainti s moved for an order pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f)(3) directing service of process by alternate means on the
Individual Defendants, who are Peruvian citizens. (ECF No. 34.) Speci cally, plainti s ask the Court for an order permitting service on defendant Hart
either through Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP or the Company's registered agent for service of process, and on the remaining Individual Defendants by
(1) registered and/or overnight mail to their last known addresses, or (2) to the extent applicable, service on the attorneys representing them in related
criminal matters in Peru. On August 20, 2018, I referred the fully briefed motion to Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay for a Report & Recommendation
("R&R").

On December 4, 2018, Judge Lindsay issued an R&R recommending that plainti s' motion for alternate service be granted in part and denied in part.
Judge Lindsay recommended granting the motion with respect to defendant Hart because: (1) there is no indication that plainti s have been able to
ascertain the home address of Hart; and (2) alternate service comports with constitutional requirements of due process and is not prohibited by the
Inter-American Convention. Judge Lindsay recommended denying the motion with respect to the other Individual Defendants because Plainti s failed
to make any e ort on their own to e ectuate service. On January 23, 2019, Defendants led a partial objection to Judge Lindsay's R&R. (ECF No. 63.)

Having reviewed the full record and applicable law, I adopt Judge Lindsay's R&R in its entirety as the opinion of the Court. In reviewing a magistrate
judge's R&R, the Court must "make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or . . . recommendations to which objection[s][are] made."
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see Brown v. Ebert, No. 05-CV-5579, 2006 WL 3851152, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 29, 2006). The Court "may accept, reject, or modify,
in whole or in part, the ndings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Those portions of an R&R to which there
is no speci c reasoned objection are reviewed for clear error. See Pall Corp. v. Entegris, Inc., 249 F.R.D. 48, 51 (E.D.N.Y. 2008).

I have undertaken a de novo review of the record, the R&R, and the instant objections, and I agree with Judge Lindsay's R&R and adopt it as the opinion
of this Court. Accordingly, the Court grants plainti s' motion for alternate service in part with respect to defendant Hart and denies it in part with
respect to the other Individual Defendants.

SO ORDERED.

Comment
Your Name

Your Email

Comments

Submit
1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.
 

Copyright © 2019, Leagle, Inc. Disclaimer | Terms of Use | Privacy Statement | Corporate Social Responsibility | About Us | Contact Us