Category “Lawyer Monthly”

INVESTOR ALERT: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of SunPower Corporation (SPWR) on Behalf of Investors

Saturday, 22 January, 2022

BENSALEM, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an investigation on behalf of SunPower Corporation (“SunPower” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: SPWR) investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of the federal securities laws.

On January 21, 2022, SunPower announced that it had “identified a cracking issue that developed over time in certain factory-installed connectors.” The Company “expects approximately $27 million of supplier-quality related charges in fourth quarter 2021 and approximately $4 million in the first quarter of 2022” to replace the faulty connectors.

On this news, SunPower’s stock fell $3.22, or 16.9%, to close at $15.80 on January 21, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

If you purchased SunPower securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Howard G. Smith, Esquire

215-638-4847

888-638-4847

howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com

TASKUS ALERT: Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C. is Investigating TaskUs, Inc. on Behalf of TaskUs Stockholders and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm

Saturday, 22 January, 2022

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–#Class–Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C., a nationally recognized stockholder rights law firm, is investigating potential claims against TaskUs, Inc. (“TaskUs” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: TASK) on behalf of TaskUs stockholders. Our investigation concerns whether TaskUs has violated the federal securities laws and/or engaged in other unlawful business practices.

Click here to participate in the action.

On January 20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC published a short-seller report on TaskUs. In the report, Spruce Point states, “After conducting a forensic financial and accounting review, Spruce Point believes shares of TaskUs, Inc. (Nasdaq: TASK), a highly promoted business process outsourcing (BPO) firm to digital and emerging technology companies, has a pattern of exaggerated and inflated business claims, including revenue, and is covering-up financial strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and non-standard key performance metrics.” trade at material valuation discounts as a result of being under-covered in the BPO.

On this news, TaskUs’s stock fell $5.46, or 15.3%, to close at $30.13 per share on January 20, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired TaskUs shares and suffered a loss, are a long-term stockholder, have information, would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Brandon Walker or Alexandra Raymond by email at investigations@bespc.com, telephone at (212) 355-4648, or by filling out this contact form. There is no cost or obligation to you.

Contacts

Bragar Eagel & Squire, P.C.

Brandon Walker, Esq.

Alexandra B. Raymond, Esq.

(212) 355-4648

investigations@bespc.com
www.bespc.com

INVESTOR ALERT: Kirby McInerney LLP Reminds Investors That a Securities Class Action Lawsuit Has Been Filed on Behalf of Talis Biomedical Corporation (TLIS) Investors and Encourages Investors to Contact the Firm Before March 8, 2022

Saturday, 22 January, 2022

NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–$TLIS–The law firm of Kirby McInerney LLP reminds investors that a class action lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of those who acquired Talis Biomedical Corporation (“Talis” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: TLIS) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s February 2021 initial public offering (“IPO” or the “Offering”). Investors have until March 8, 2022 to apply to the Court to be appointed as lead plaintiff in the lawsuit.

Talis develops diagnostic tests to enable accurate, reliable, low cost, and rapid molecular testing for infectious diseases and other conditions at the point-of-care. The Talis One tests are being developed for respiratory infections, infections related to women’s health, and sexually transmitted infections.

On February 12, 2021, the Company filed its prospectus on Form 424B4 with the SEC, which forms part of the Registration Statement. In the IPO, the Company sold 15,870,000 shares of common stock at a price of $16.00 per share. The Company received net proceeds of approximately $232.6 million from the Offering. The proceeds from the IPO were purportedly to be used for commercial activities (including the hiring and training of sales and marketing personnel), research and development, and working capital and other general corporate purposes.

On March 8, 2021, Talis announced that it had withdrawn its Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) application for the Talis One COVID-19 test. In a press release, the Company revealed that “[i]n late February, the FDA informed the company that it cannot ensure the comparator assay used in the primary study has sufficient sensitivity to support Talis’s EUA application.” As a result, Talis “intends to initiate its previously planned clinical validation study in a point-of-care environment” to submit its EUA application “early in the second quarter of 2021.” This study “was designed with a different comparator assay, which Talis believes will address the FDA’s concerns.” On this news, the Company’s stock price declined by $1.80 per share, or approximately 12.29%, from $14.65 per share to close at $12.85 per share on March 8, 2021.

Then, on August 10, 2021, Talis revealed that its “development timelines have been extended by delays in the launching of [Talis’s] COVID-19 test and manufacturing scale.” As a result, Talis “expect[s] to see [its] first meaningful revenue ramp in 2022.” On this news, the Company’s stock price declined by $0.58 per share, or approximately 6.47%, from $8.97 per share to close at $8.39 per share on August 11, 2021.

On August 30, 2021, after the market closed, Talis announced that its Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”), Brian Coe, had “stepped down” as President, CEO, and Director. On this news, the Company’s stock price declined by $1.00 per share, or approximately 11.04%, from $9.06 per share to close at $8.06 per share on August 31, 2021.

On November 15, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser was appointed as President, CEO, and Director of Talis effective December 1, 2021. However, a week after his appointment, on December 8, 2021, Talis announced that Brian Blaser had stepped down from his positions. On this news, the Company’s stock price declined by $0.55 per share, or approximately 11.39%, from $4.83 per share to close at $4.28 per share on December 8, 2021.

The lawsuit alleges that the Registration Statement was false and misleading and omitted to state material adverse facts. Specifically, Defendants failed to disclose to investors that: (1) the comparator assay in the primary study lacked sufficient sensitivity to support Talis’s EUA application for Talis One COVID-19 test; (2) as a result, Talis was reasonably likely to experience delays in obtaining regulatory approval for the Talis One COVID-19 test; (3) as a result, the Company’s commercialization timeline would be significantly delayed; and (4) as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects, were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Talis securities, have information, or would like to learn more about these claims, please contact Thomas W. Elrod of Kirby McInerney LLP at 212-371-6600, by email at investigations@kmllp.com, or by filling out this contact form, to discuss your rights or interests with respect to these matters without any cost to you.

Kirby McInerney LLP is a New York-based plaintiffs’ law firm concentrating in securities, antitrust, whistleblower, and consumer litigation. The firm’s efforts on behalf of shareholders in securities litigation have resulted in recoveries totaling billions of dollars. Additional information about the firm can be found at Kirby McInerney LLP’s website: http://www.kmllp.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Kirby McInerney LLP

Thomas W. Elrod, Esq.

212-371-6600

https://www.kmllp.com
investigations@kmllp.com

Relief From Runaway PAGA Claims May Be On The Horizon

Friday, 21 January, 2022

Many employers in California have had the unfortunate experience of either litigating a lawsuit or resolving a pre-litigated matter under the Private Attorneys General Act (PAGA), typically after extensive time, effort and resources have been expended.  In both instances, the cost to defend is usually enormous.  Indeed, some small (and large) businesses have been forced to declare bankruptcy because of PAGA claims.

The Rise Of PAGA And Its Adverse Impact On Employers

Under PAGA, an “aggrieved employee” may bring a representative action on behalf of him or herself and other “aggrieved employees” for civil penalties for various violations of the Labour Code.  (Labour Code §§ 2698, et seq.)    

PAGA was intended to deputise citizens as private attorneys general to enforce the labour code considering the state government’s limited resources.  Particularly, PAGA – sometimes called “the Bounty Hunter” statute – allows these employees to step into the shoes of state regulators to recover civil penalties and to receive part of the amount recovered as compensation: seventy-five per cent (75%) of the penalties recovered go to the state, and twenty-five (25%) go to the employees.  

However, since its enactment in 2004, rather than streamline and regulate employer violations of the Labour Code, PAGA claims have skyrocketed for various reasons unrelated to legitimate violations, including the fact that employees cannot waive their right in an arbitration agreement to bring PAGA claims, thereby creating litigation challenges for employers.  Further, because PAGA allows for attorneys’ fees, most employers will settle PAGA claims before trial to avoid expensive litigation.

Notably, underlying claims that create exposure in PAGA actions include the full gamut of wage and hour violations, such as missed meal and rest breaks, failure to provide itemised wage statements, and failure to pay overtime.  Given the array for potential exposure, even for the scrupulous employer, plaintiffs are incentivised to file complaints alleging a wide variety of purported violations, even if they did not or could not have personally suffered a violation of the subject provision.

The Potential Solution: California Fair Pay And Employer Accountability Act

In October 2021, several business organisations, including the California Chamber of Commerce, California New Car Dealers Association and Western Growers proposed an initiative, the California Fair Pay and Employer Accountability Act (CFPEAA), for the 2022 ballot. If approved by California voters, the CFPEAA effectively repeals PAGA by eliminating the ability to pursue civil penalties via a representative action.  

For employers, the greatest upside of the CFPEAA, as it relates to future PAGA lawsuits, is that it would eliminate the ability for aggrieved employees to stand in the shoes of the Labour Commissioner and recover civil penalties through a representative action. Instead, the Division of Labour Standards Enforcement would have greater enforcement responsibility and the California Legislature would be required to provide funding for the Labour Commissioner to enforce Labour Code violations (i.e., the Labour Commissioner handles violations).  This would remove the supposed need for private enforcement.

Additional benefits of the CFPEAA to employers includes, but is not limited to, the following:

  • Reforms California’s wage and hour enforcement law to:
    • Eliminate shakedown lawsuits on small businesses
    • Streamline the system to produce quicker resolutions
    • Avoid prolonged and costly court processes
  • Allows workers to recover 100% of the penalties imposed without hiring a lawyer, instead of 25% going to workers and 75% going to the state
  • Provides resources to guide and assist employees with compliance
    • The Consultation and Publication Unit would provide:
      • Confidential consultation; and
      • Binding compliance letter advice
  • Prohibits the outsourcing of the Labour Commissioner’s enforcement duties/actions
  • Redirects the state’s portion of any remaining PAGA settlements to the Labour Commissioner to fund enforcement including the costs of this program

Clearly, for employers, the CFPEAA is a promising solution to California’s rampant PAGA problem. Supporters of the initiative have until June 6, 2022, to collect at least 623,212 valid signatures to qualify the measure for the November 2022 general election.  While the CFPEAA may admittedly struggle to qualify for the ballot (considering that three PAGA-reform initiatives did not make it on the ballot in 2017), the passage of Proposition 22 in 2020 demonstrates that business-driven employment law ballot measures can be adopted, even in the very employee-friendly Golden State.

About the authors: 

Antwoin Wall is a Senior Associate with Pearlman, Brown & Wax, LLP assisting clients in employment matters, including claims of discrimination, harassment, retaliation, wrongful termination, and wage and hour litigation. He can be reached at adw@4pbw.com.  

Corinne Spencer is a Senior Employment Counsel and Chair of the Labour and Employment Practice Group at Pearlman, Brown & Wax, LLP. She focuses on counselling clients in employment-related matters including litigation, risk assessment, policy preparation, and training. She can be reached at cds@4pbw.com.

What Is A Car Accident Lawyer And How Does The Claim Process Work?

Friday, 21 January, 2022

If you are injured in a car accident that wasn’t your fault, you can pursue compensatory damages. The first step is to contact a personal injury lawyer who has a wealth of experience in car accident cases.

What does a car accident lawyer do?

Car accidents can happen for numerous reasons. When a driver is negligent, reckless, or distracted, accidents are more likely to happen. Speeding, not paying attention to the road, and being under the influence of alcohol or drugs are just some of the causes of car accidents.

Accidents can be caused by any kind of negligent driver, too. So, do not think drivers who work on behalf of ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft are exempt from being negligent or reckless on the road. Regardless of whether you need a Lyft car accident attorney or a lawyer who has experience in all kinds of car accidents, one of the main tasks of a car accident lawyer is to discover who is liable for any damages.

If you are not at fault, the attorney can help you to pursue financial compensation.Your lawyer will help to build a solid personal injury case and seek damages from the other driver. They can also review your claim to make sure everything is filled out correctly so you can gain all you are entitled to. An experienced car accident lawyer knows which experts to hire and how to gather evidence to help you win your case, too. They also has a wealth of knowledge, skills, and experience to win your lawsuit.

In short, a car accident lawyer can:

  •   Help you to understand your rights
  •   Provide legal advice
  •   Investigate your case and gather evidence
  •   Assess the full extent of your damages
  •   Call on medical professionals
  •   Negotiate for a fair settlement
  •   Represent you in court, if required

 Also, it is worth noting that car accident lawyers can help you if you are involved in a minor accident in which the other driver is denying responsibility and attempting to blame you for the accident.

How does the claim process work?

The first step is to contact an experienced car accident lawyer to gain a free consultation. Once you have spoken to a potential lawyer and discussed your case, you can hire him or her to pursue financial compensation for you. Typically, lawyers only charge fees when a case is won.

Your lawyer will perform the tasks mentioned above, such as collecting evidence and determining the other driver’s fault, and more, to put together a solid case. Sometimes, your car accident lawyer can settle out of court to gain compensation to cover immediate costs. Other times, the case will go to court.

The amount of compensation you can receive depends on your specific case. The amount will be based on things like the extent of your injuries, the amount of your loss of earnings, the cost of medical and travel expenses, and the pain and suffering you experience as a result of the accident.

The takeaway

If you are injured in a car accident that was not your fault, obtain the services of a lawyer who has experience in car accident personal injury cases. They will be able to help you prove the accident was the other driver’s fault and assist you in gaining financial compensation.

What Is An Attorney’s Role In Crime Scene Investigation?

Friday, 21 January, 2022

While it’s true that most lawyers have a far more mundane existence than those in a John Grisham thriller, they can still have a part to play in crime scene investigations. Let’s discuss the form that this involvement takes.

Looking out for clients

The primary reason that any attorney would visit the scene of a crime and carry out any kind of investigation or evidence-gathering is if they think that by doing so they would be better equipped to defend their clients. For example, if you got a personal injury lawyer for your case, they might determine that the evidence and claims made by any third parties involved in the incident are incorrect, misremembered or deliberately misleading. If so, they could choose to visit the place where the accident occurred and see whether the claims hold up, or if it is possible to disprove them with their own investigations.

Of course, it is equally likely that adequate evidence will have been gathered by the police in such a scenario. Teams of auto accident investigators exist for just this reason. In this scenario, an attorney would have full access to the evidence and be able to scrutinise this to see how it can help their client, whether they are the plaintiff or the defendant.

Whatever the case, evidence from the scene of a crime can be exceptionally powerful ammunition for an attorney and their clients if a case goes to trial. And while actual crime scene visits are incredibly rare, they are not entirely out of the question in this context.

Leveraging witness testimony

Another point to make about the way that attorneys can extract value from crime scene investigation is through witness testimony, which is often required in combination with hard evidence to make key points when representing their clients in front of a judge and jury.

One of the reasons that attorneys might not visit crime scenes themselves is that they are not able to testify on their client’s behalf. So even if they had seen something pertinent and recorded it for posterity, they could not take the stand and make claims about it in court.

If such an eventuality arises, they could call on a colleague or another party, such as a private investigator, to head to the scene of the crime, make independent observations about it and potentially record more evidence if needed. They could then get this individual to testify in court to their own interpretations of the crime scene and the evidence; all the better if they are in some way a relevant expert.

Using discretion

Every legal case is unique, and attorneys will treat them as such, which is why it is not always possible to say for sure what tools, tactics and strategies they will deploy in service of their clients.

When it comes to crime scene investigations, you won’t find lawyers turning up at the same time as the cops in order to take stock, collect evidence and dust for prints. However, a combination of evidence and witness testimony relating to crime scenes of all kinds will likely form the central pillar of any argument that an attorney makes, so they are definitely reliant on the outcome of investigations to succeed in court.

Starbucks Suspends Covid-19 Vaccine-Or-Test Requirement Following US Court Ruling

Friday, 21 January, 2022

Coffeehouse chain Starbucks has suspended its Covid-19 vaccine-or-test requirement for US employees. The move follows a ruling to block vaccine mandates for large businesses by the US Supreme Court earlier this month. 

Previously, Starbucks had said it would require its 220,000 US employees to be fully vaccinated against Covid-19 or take weekly Covid-19 tests. However, after the Biden administration’s vaccination-or-testing mandate was struck down, Starbucks has suspended its policy. 

We respect the court’s ruling and will comply,” wrote Starbucks Chief Operating Officer John Culver in a memo to staff, though added that Starbucks continues to believe strongly in the spirit and intent of the mandate.” He encouraged employees to get the vaccine.

According to the memo, over 90% of the coffeehouse chain’s employees have already disclosed their vaccination status, with the vast majority having been fully vaccinated against the virus.

In the United States, the current 7-day average of daily new coronavirus cases is 744,616. While this is a 5% decrease from the previous week, rates of the virus remain high in the nation.  

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP Reminds Investors of Looming Deadline in the Class Action Lawsuit Against Bright Health Group, Inc. (BHG)

Friday, 21 January, 2022

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”) reminds investors of the upcoming March 7, 2022 deadline to file a lead plaintiff motion in the class action filed on behalf of investors who purchased or otherwise acquired Bright Health Group, Inc. (“Bright Health” or the “Company”) (NYSE: BHG): (a) common stock pursuant and/or traceable to the registration statement and prospectus (collectively, the “Registration Statement”) issued in connection with the Company’s June 2021 initial public offering (“IPO” or the “Offering”); (b) and/or securities between June 24, 2021 and November 10, 2021, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

If you suffered a loss on your Bright Health investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/bright-health-group-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

In June 2021, Bright Health completed its IPO, selling approximately 51 million shares of common stock for $18.00 per share.

On November 11, 2021, Bright Health reported its third quarter financial results, revealing earnings per share (“EPS”) of -$0.48 as calculated under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”), missing consensus estimates by $0.31. The Company also reported a sharp rise in the Company’s medical cost ratio (“MCR”), advising investors that its MCR “for the third quarter of 2021 was 103.0%, including a 540 basis point unfavorable impact from COVID-19 related costs and a 900 basis point unfavorable impact primarily from a cumulative reduction in premium revenue due to an inability to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives.”

On this news, Bright Health’s stock fell $2.36, or 32%, to close at $4.94 per share on November 11, 2021, significantly below the IPO price.

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that 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 failed to disclose to investors that: (1) Bright Health had overstated its post-IPO business and financial prospects; (2) the Company was ill-equipped to handle the impact of COVID-19-related costs; (3) the Company was experiencing a decline in premium revenue because of a failure to capture risk adjustment on newly added lives; (4) all the foregoing was reasonably likely to have a material negative impact on Bright Health’s business and financial condition; and (5) as a result, Defendants’ positive statements about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects were materially misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

If you purchased or otherwise acquired Bright Health securities during the Class Period, you may move the Court no later than March 7, 2022 to request appointment as lead plaintiff in this putative class action lawsuit. To be a member of the class action you need not take any action at this time; you may retain counsel of your choice or take no action and remain an absent member of the class action. If you wish to learn more about this class action, or if you have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to the pending class action lawsuit, please contact Charles Linehan, Esquire, of GPM, 1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100, Los Angeles, California 90067 at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, by email to shareholders@glancylaw.com, or visit our website at www.glancylaw.com. If you inquire by email please include your mailing address, telephone number and number of shares purchased.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles

Charles Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224

shareholders@glancylaw.com
www.glancylaw.com

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, a Leading Securities Fraud Law Firm, Announces Investigation of NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NRXP) on Behalf of Investors

Friday, 21 January, 2022

LOS ANGELES–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP (“GPM”), a leading national shareholder rights law firm, today announced that it has commenced an investigation on behalf of NRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“NRx” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: NRXP) investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of the federal securities laws.

If you suffered a loss on your NRx investments or would like to inquire about potentially pursuing claims to recover your loss under the federal securities laws, you can submit your contact information at www.glancylaw.com/cases/nrx-pharmaceuticals-inc/. You can also contact Charles H. Linehan, of GPM at 310-201-9150, Toll-Free at 888-773-9224, or via email at shareholders@glancylaw.com to learn more about your rights.

In June 2021, NRx announced that it filed an application with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) requesting Emergency Use Authorization (“EUA”) for ZYESAMI (Aviptadil-acetate) to treat critically ill COVID-19 patients suffering with respiratory failure.

On November 4, 2021, NRx announced that the FDA declined to issue an EUA for ZYESAMI “due to insufficient data regarding the known and potential benefits of the medicine and the known and potential risks of ZYESAMI in patients suffering from Critical COVID-19 with respiratory failure.”

On this news, NRx’s stock fell $2.27, or 25.5%, to close at $6.65 per share on November 5, 2021, thereby injuring investors.

Follow us for updates on LinkedIn, Twitter, or Facebook.

Whistleblower Notice: Persons with non-public information regarding NRx should consider their options to aid the investigation or take advantage of the SEC Whistleblower Program. Under the program, whistleblowers who provide original information may receive rewards totaling up to 30 percent of any successful recovery made by the SEC. For more information, call Charles H. Linehan at 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224 or email shareholders@glancylaw.com.

About GPM

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP is a premier law firm representing investors and consumers in securities litigation and other complex class action litigation. ISS Securities Class Action Services has consistently ranked GPM in its annual SCAS Top 50 Report. In 2018, GPM was ranked a top five law firm in number of securities class action settlements, and a top six law firm for total dollar size of settlements. With four offices across the country, GPM’s nearly 40 attorneys have won groundbreaking rulings and recovered billions of dollars for investors and consumers in securities, antitrust, consumer, and employment class actions. GPM’s lawyers have handled cases covering a wide spectrum of corporate misconduct including cases involving financial restatements, internal control weaknesses, earnings management, fraudulent earnings guidance and forward looking statements, auditor misconduct, insider trading, violations of FDA regulations, actions resulting in FDA and DOJ investigations, and many other forms of corporate misconduct. GPM’s attorneys have worked on securities cases relating to nearly all industries and sectors in the financial markets, including, energy, consumer discretionary, consumer staples, real estate and REITs, financial, insurance, information technology, health care, biotech, cryptocurrency, medical devices, and many more. GPM’s past successes have been widely covered by leading news and industry publications such as The Wall Street Journal, The Financial Times, Bloomberg Businessweek, Reuters, the Associated Press, Barron’s, Investor’s Business Daily, Forbes, and Money.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Glancy Prongay & Murray LLP, Los Angeles

Charles H. Linehan, 310-201-9150 or 888-773-9224

1925 Century Park East, Suite 2100

Los Angeles, CA 90067

www.glancylaw.com
shareholders@glancylaw.com

INVESTOR ALERT: Law Offices of Howard G. Smith Announces Investigation of TaskUs, Inc. (TASK) on Behalf of Investors

Friday, 21 January, 2022

BENSALEM, Pa.–(BUSINESS WIRE)–Law Offices of Howard G. Smith announces an investigation on behalf of TaskUs, Inc. (“TaskUs” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: TASK) investors concerning the Company’s possible violations of federal securities laws.

On January 20, 2022, Spruce Point Capital Management, LLC published a report alleging, among other things, that TaskUs “has a pattern of exaggerated and inflated business claims, including revenue, and is covering-up financial strain with reduced disclosures, cherry-picked market data, and non-standard key performance metrics.” Regarding the financial strain, the report alleged that “28% of sales [are related] to Facebook and related to the controversial area of ‘Content Moderation,’” which has “requir[ed] more labor to fill tasks, but that it is not translating into additional revenue.”

On this news, TaskUs’s stock fell $5.46, or 15.3%, to close at $30.13 per share on January 20, 2022, thereby injuring investors.

If you purchased TaskUs securities, have information or would like to learn more about these claims, or have any questions concerning this announcement or your rights or interests with respect to these matters, please contact Howard G. Smith, Esquire, of Law Offices of Howard G. Smith, 3070 Bristol Pike, Suite 112, Bensalem, Pennsylvania 19020 by telephone at (215) 638-4847, toll-free at (888) 638-4847, or by email to howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com, or visit our website at www.howardsmithlaw.com.

This press release may be considered Attorney Advertising in some jurisdictions under the applicable law and ethical rules.

Contacts

Law Offices of Howard G. Smith

Howard G. Smith, Esquire

215-638-4847

888-638-4847

howardsmith@howardsmithlaw.com
www.howardsmithlaw.com