Integer Holdings Sued Over Alleged Misleading Growth Statements

NEW YORK, NY – December 19, 2025 – Medical device manufacturing giant Integer Holdings Corporation (NYSE: ITGR) is facing a class action securities lawsuit that alleges the company and its executives made materially false and misleading statements to investors, concealing significant business headwinds while publicly projecting strong growth.

The lawsuit, filed by the law firm Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, seeks to recover losses for shareholders who invested in the company between July 25, 2024, and October 22, 2025. The legal action puts a spotlight on the transparency and reporting standards within the highly competitive medical technology sector, where investor confidence often hinges on promises of innovation and market penetration.

Lawsuit Alleges Concealed Weakness in Key Growth Area

At the core of the complaint are allegations that Integer Holdings misrepresented its performance and competitive standing within the lucrative electrophysiology market. According to the lawsuit, the company failed to disclose critical information to investors, creating an artificially positive picture of its business prospects.

The complaint filed against the company alleges that defendants made false statements and concealed that: "(1) Integer materially overstated its competitive position within the growing electrophysiology manufacturing market; (2) despite Integer's claims of strong visibility into customer demand, the Company was experiencing a sustained deterioration in sales relating to two of its electrophysiology devices; (3) in turn, Integer mischaracterized its electrophysiology devices as a long-term growth driver for the Company's cardio & vascular segment; and (4) as a result of the above, defendants' positive statements about the Company's business, operations, and prospects were materially false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis at all relevant times."

These allegations suggest a significant disconnect between the company's internal reality and its public-facing narrative, particularly concerning a product line that was consistently presented as a cornerstone of its future success.

A Contradiction in Corporate Disclosures

Throughout the alleged class period, Integer Holdings consistently issued positive financial reports and forecasts, frequently attributing its success to the strength of its Cardio & Vascular (C&V) segment, which includes electrophysiology products. This steady drumbeat of positive news bolstered investor confidence and the company’s stock price.

For instance, in its third-quarter 2024 results, the company reported a 15% sales increase in its C&V product line, citing “new product ramps in Electrophysiology.” This narrative continued into 2025. The first-quarter report for 2025 highlighted a 17% increase in C&V sales, again driven by “new product ramps in electrophysiology.” By the second quarter of 2025, the company announced an even more robust 24% increase in the same segment, once more crediting electrophysiology product launches. During this period, the company also raised its full-year earnings outlook, signaling to the market that its growth trajectory was not only stable but accelerating.

The lawsuit contends that these statements were misleading because, behind the scenes, the company was allegedly grappling with deteriorating sales for key products within that very segment. The consistent emphasis on electrophysiology as a primary growth engine forms a central pillar of the plaintiffs' case against the company.

The Market Correction and A Sudden Reversal

The optimistic narrative came to an abrupt halt on October 23, 2025. On that day, following the release of its third-quarter 2025 earnings, Integer Holdings' stock price plummeted by 17.6%. The sharp decline occurred even as the company met revenue expectations and beat adjusted earnings per share estimates for the quarter.

The catalyst for the sell-off was not the past performance but the future outlook. For the first time, the company acknowledged significant challenges, lowering its full-year revenue guidance and providing a preliminary 2026 outlook that anticipated “select headwinds.” Management specifically cited “customer updates related to the adoption of new products in the market” and “lower-than-anticipated adoption” as the reasons for the sudden change in forecast, which were expected to impact both the Cardio & Vascular and Neuromodulation product lines.

This sudden reversal directly contradicted the previous quarters of positive reinforcement. It occurred against the backdrop of a booming global electrophysiology market, which was experiencing double-digit growth driven by an aging population and technological advancements like pulsed field ablation (PFA). The strong market fundamentals made Integer’s prior growth story highly plausible to investors, potentially amplifying the shock and financial impact when the company’s revised outlook was revealed.

What Investors Need to Know

For shareholders who believe they suffered financial losses due to the alleged misrepresentations, the class action lawsuit provides a formal path for seeking compensation. Levi & Korsinsky has established a deadline of February 9, 2026, for affected investors to petition the court to be appointed as a lead plaintiff. The lead plaintiff acts on behalf of all other class members in directing the litigation.

However, an investor’s ability to share in any potential recovery is not dependent on serving in this lead role. According to the announcement, class members may be entitled to compensation without any out-of-pocket fees or costs, regardless of their participation level in the case. The law firm, known for its work in securities litigation, has a history of securing financial recoveries for shareholders in similar high-stakes cases.

The lawsuit now places Integer Holdings under intense legal and market scrutiny, raising broader questions about corporate disclosure obligations in a fast-moving industry where future growth is often priced into today's stock value. The case will serve as a critical test of whether the company's communications with the market were a fair representation of its business or a misleading facade that ultimately harmed investors.