TaskUs, Inc.

Investigation
01/20/2022

Initial Lawsuit
02/23/2022

Lawsuit Progression
04/25/2022

Investigation

Continous Holding
June 11, 2021 to January 19, 2022
Proposed Claim
Securities Violation

Investors investigation following Spruce Point’s short report on TaskUs alleging exaggerated business claims and cover-up of financial strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and non-standard key performance metrics.

Main Event

Short Attack

01/20/2022

Research Report (Short)

Spruce Point publishes an 80-page short thesis on TaskUs, Inc. (TASK) alleging, among other things, exaggerated business claims and cover-up of financial strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and non-standard key performance metrics.

The stock impact compares the closing price immediately preceding the date of the event and the following closing price. The price difference also reflects the overall mix of information.

Stock Impact

Close	Previous close	Price variation	Percentage variation
$30.13	$35.59	$-5.46	-15.34%

See more on Factual Timeline

Initial Lawsuit

First Complaint - 02/23/2022

Plaintiff brings this securities class action on behalf of all persons and entities that purchased or acquired TaskUs publicly traded securities between June 11, 2021 and January 19, 2022, inclusive.

Filing Date
02/23/2022
Class Period
06/11/2021 to 01/19/2022
Transgression
Securities Violation
Filing Firms
Bleichmar Fonti & Auld LLP
Kehoe Law Firm
Case Title
Lozada v. TaskUs, Inc. et al
Docket Number
1:22-cv-01479
Court
New York Southern District Court
Free File
Complaint

Allegations

According to the complaint, defendants made materially false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, defendants allegedly failed to disclose to investors that:

(1) TaskUs was experiencing severe financial strain and business challenges, particularly with its most important customer Facebook;
(2) the Content Security market was smaller than defendants represented and defendants’ representations were based on outdated market data;
(3) TaskUs improperly recognized revenue from certain key contracts;
(4) defendants overstated the size of TaskUs’ workforce as well as employee retention rates, and understated attrition rates; and
(5) that, as a result of the foregoing, defendants’ positive statements about the company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.