TaskUs Investors Weigh Fiduciary Concerns in Going-Private Deal Amid Legal Scrutiny

Investors in TaskUs, Inc. (NASDAQ: TASK) face a critical decision as the company moves forward with a $16.50-per-share going-private transaction led by an affiliate of Blackstone and its co-founders. The Schall Law Firm has launched an investigation into whether the TaskUs board violated fiduciary duties in negotiating the deal, raising questions about whether shareholders are receiving fair value and adequate disclosure.

The investigation, announced in May 2025, centers on the board’s approval of a transaction that would take TaskUs private through an all-cash offer. The $16.50 price represents a 26% premium over the company’s 30-day volume-weighted average price (VWAP), but legal experts argue that such premiums alone do not guarantee fairness, especially when directors or insiders are part of the buyer group.

A History of Legal Headwinds

This is not TaskUs’s first encounter with shareholder lawsuits. In February 2025, the company settled a securities class action for $17.5 million, resolving claims that it misled investors about employee attrition rates and workplace culture during its 2021 IPO and subsequent offerings. That case, led by the Kehoe Law Firm, alleged TaskUs inflated Glassdoor ratings by mandating positive reviews from new hires, thereby artificially boosting its stock price.

The current investigation, however, focuses on governance during the going-private process. The Schall Law Firm is scrutinizing whether the board’s Special Committee—a group of independent directors formed in March 2025—acted impartially. The committee recommended the deal, but its members may face conflicts if they relied on flawed financial advice or failed to explore alternative bids.

Shareholder Approval and Risks

To proceed, the transaction requires approval from public shareholders who do not belong to the Buyer Group (Blackstone, CEO Bryce Maddock, and President Jaspar Weir). Their votes are critical, as the Buyer Group’s shares are excluded from the tally. A proxy statement detailing the terms and risks will be filed with the SEC, outlining the 26% premium, regulatory hurdles (including antitrust reviews), and the risk of competing bids or litigation.

Critics argue that the 26% premium may pale in comparison to TaskUs’s long-term potential. The company has positioned itself as a leader in AI-driven customer service, with contracts from major tech firms. However, its stock has underperformed since the 2021 IPO, reflecting skepticism about its ability to sustain growth amid rising attrition and operational challenges.

Legal Precedent and Investor Strategy

Shareholder lawsuits in going-private deals often hinge on whether directors prioritized their own interests over minority stakeholders. In 2022, a separate case (Rosen Law Firm) alleged that TaskUs misrepresented revenue recognition practices and customer relationships, though that matter was unrelated to the current transaction.

Investors weighing the Schall investigation must consider both the premium and the governance process. A 26% premium may be insufficient if comparable companies or alternative buyers could offer more. The Special Committee’s due diligence, including the role of financial advisors like Evercore and BofA Securities, will also be under scrutiny.

Conclusion: A Delicate Balance of Risks and Rewards

TaskUs shareholders now face a pivotal moment. The $16.50 offer provides immediate cash liquidity, but the Schall investigation underscores lingering concerns about transparency and director accountability. With the 2025 settlement of the Kehoe case recovering $17.5 million for prior misstatements, investors may view legal action as a viable path to securing better terms or compensation for governance failures.

The transaction’s success hinges on stockholder approval and regulatory clearance, but the Schall inquiry adds another layer of uncertainty. Shareholders should review SEC filings, consult legal counsel, and evaluate whether the 26% premium reflects TaskUs’s true value—or if it masks a rushed deal favoring insiders. In an era of heightened scrutiny of corporate governance, this case could set a precedent for how boards navigate going-private transactions amid investor skepticism.

For now, the clock is ticking. TaskUs investors must decide whether to accept the offer, seek a higher bid, or join the Schall investigation to challenge the board’s actions. The stakes—both financial and reputational—are high.