Glazing Employers and Glaziers’ Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc.

The Court’s hearing on the fairness of the Settlement and related matters scheduled for November 5, 2026, at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time will be held by Zoom video conference. Any Settlement Class Member or member of the public who wishes to listen to or participate in the hearing may do so by contacting Lead Counsel at settlements@blbglaw.com or may visit https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jsc to obtain the access information.

This is a securities class action that was brought on behalf of persons or entities that purchased or otherwise acquired the common stock of iRhythm Technologies, Inc. (“iRhythm”) from July 25, 2022, through August 9, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”).

Lead Plaintiff Has Reached a Proposed Settlement of the Action for $45 Million

Lead Plaintiff Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, on behalf of itself and the Settlement Class, has reached a proposed settlement of the Action with iRhythm and iRhythm’s CEO, Quentin Blackford, for $45,000,000 in cash that, if approved, will resolve the Action (the “Settlement”).

If you are a member of the Settlement Class, your rights will be affected and you may be eligible for a payment from the Settlement. The Settlement Class consists of:

all persons and entities who purchased or otherwise acquired iRhythm common stock from July 25, 2022 through August 9, 2024, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and were allegedly damaged thereby

Certain persons and entities are excluded from the Settlement Class by definition (see paragraph 31 of the Notice) or may request exclusion (see paragraphs 53-54 of the Notice).

Please read the Notice to fully understand your rights and options. Copies of the Notice and Claim Form can be found in the Case Documents list on the right of this page. You may also visit the case website, www.iRhythmSecuritiesLitigation.com, for more information about the Settlement.

To be eligible to receive a payment under the proposed Settlement, you must submit a Claim Form postmarked (if mailed) or submitted online by no later than October 1, 2026.

Payments to eligible claimants will be made only if the Court approves the Settlement and a plan of allocation, and only after any appeals are resolved, and after the completion of all claims processing.  Please be patient, as this process will take some time to complete.

IMPORTANT DATES AND DEADLINES

October 1, 2026	Claim Filing Deadline.  Claim Forms must be postmarked (if mailed) or submitted online no later than October 1, 2026.
October 1, 2026	Exclusion Deadline.  To exclude yourself from the Settlement Class, you must submit a written request for exclusion so that it is received no later than October 1, 2026, in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.
October 1, 2026	Objection Deadline.  Any objection to the proposed Settlement, the proposed Plan of Allocation, or the motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses, must be submitted or postmarked no later than October 1, 2026, in accordance with the instructions in the Notice.
November 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time	Settlement Hearing.  The Settlement Hearing will be held on November 5, 2026 at 9:00 a.m. Pacific time, before the Honorable Jacqueline Scott Corley, United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, by Zoom video conference. The Settlement Hearing will be held by the Court to consider, among other things, whether the proposed Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate and should be approved; whether the proposed Plan of Allocation is fair and reasonable and should be approved; and whether Lead Counsel’s motion for attorneys’ fees and expenses should be approved. Any Settlement Class Member or member of the public who wishes to listen to or participate in the hearing may do so by contacting Lead Counsel at settlements@blbglaw.com or may visit https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/jsc to obtain the access information.

Background

On February 6, 2024, Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP (“BLB&G”) filed a class action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California alleging violations of the federal securities laws by iRhythm and certain of the Company’s current and former senior executives.

BLB&G initially filed this action on behalf of its client, Glazing Employers and Glaziers’ Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund, and the case is captioned Glazing Employers and Glaziers’ Union Local #27 Pension and Retirement Fund v. iRhythm Technologies, Inc., No. 24-cv-706 (N.D. Cal.).

iRhythm’s Alleged Fraud

iRhythm develops and manufactures heart monitoring devices designed to diagnose arrythmias.  The Company’s principal product is a monitoring patch that provides electrocardiogram (“ECG”) monitoring for up to 14 days, called Zio XT.  The Zio XT is intended for non-critical patients, as it does not provide real-time reporting.    

In 2017, iRhythm developed Zio AT, a device the Company described as “offer[ing] the full benefits of [its] Zio XT Service, with the addition of real-time data transmission and notification of actionable clinical events.” Actionable arrhythmic events include atrial fibrillation, a condition that can cause troubling symptoms and serious medical complications, including blood clots that can lead to stroke and heart failure. The Zio AT comes with a cellular transmittal device that provides connectivity between the Zio AT and the proprietary algorithmic software that analyzes the ECG data and detects arrhythmic events for the 14-day wear period.  Importantly, given its purported capabilities to provide “real-time” notifications of arrhythmic events, the Zio AT device is marketed to high-risk patients as a mobile cardiac telemetry device. These types of heart monitors that are approved for high-risk patients and provide near real-time alerts are also referred to as “real-time” monitors. Real-time monitors sell for a premium over monitors that do not provide real-time notifications of arrhythmic events.

The Complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, Defendants falsely represented to investors that the Zio AT monitor was a real-time monitor intended for high-risk patients. Specifically, Defendants repeatedly touted the potential growth for the Zio AT as an innovative product that had only just begun to penetrate the market for real-time monitoring, which investors looked upon favorably given the premium selling price associated with devices approved for high-risk patients. The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these misrepresentations, the price of iRhythm common stock traded at artificially inflated prices throughout the Class Period.

The Complaint alleges that the truth emerged through a series of disclosures beginning on November 1, 2022, when the Company reported revised fourth quarter and full-year guidance, in part due to “Zio AT utilization.” The Company explained during a conference call with investors that “coming into the fourth quarter, [iRhythm] voluntarily issued a Customer Advisory Notice to [its] Zio AT customers.” Therefore, the Company lowered its Zio AT forecast for the quarter from the 40% growth target it had provided through the past three quarters to just 20%. Three days later, on November 4, 2022 the Company disclosed that it initiated the Customer Advisory Notice on September 28, 2022, following issues raised by the FDA during an inspection that culminated in an inspection observation report on Form 483, and that the Customer Advisory Notice warned patients of a “labeling correction” related to “the device’s maximum transmission limits during wear,” as well as other critical issues that prevent the device from working as advertised. However, Defendants tried to assuage investors’ concerns and continued to tout the growth of the Zio AT.

Then, on May 4, 2023, the Company announced that “on April 4, 2023, [it] received a Subpoena Duces Tecum from the Consumer Protection Branch, Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice, requesting production of various documents regarding [its] products and services.” Although the Company refrained from providing additional detail about the DOJ’s request, in a May 5, 2023, report, J.P. Morgan analysts noted that one of iRhythm’s competitors, Boston Scientific, had also disclosed that it received a subpoena from the DOJ relating to its real-time monitoring product, which indicated to the analysts that the DOJ investigation into iRhythm was related to the Zio AT. 

Finally, on May 30, 2023, iRhythm disclosed that it had received a warning letter from the FDA, which addressed a series of deficiencies tied to the marketing and capabilities of the Zio AT device. In particular, the FDA noted that iRhythm had falsely marketed the Zio AT as approved for use in high-risk patients that require real-time cardiac monitoring. In truth, according to the FDA, Zio AT is only approved for “long-term monitoring of arrhythmia events for non-critical care patients where real-time monitoring is not needed.” The Complaint alleges that, as a result of these disclosures, the price of iRhythm common stock declined precipitously.

History of the Litigation

On May 15, 2024, the Court appointed BLB&G’s client, Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System, as Lead Plaintiff for the Action and approved BLB&G  as Lead Counsel under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (“PSLRA”).

On October 11, 2024, Lead Plaintiff filed the Second Amended Class Action Complaint for Violations of the Federal Securities Laws (the “Complaint”). The Complaint alleged that Defendants iRhythm and Blackford and the Former Individual Defendants  made materially false and misleading statements or omissions concerning iRhythm’s Zio AT heart monitoring device, including its purported near real-time data transmission capabilities, its appropriateness for high-risk patients, and the accuracy of data reported by the device. T

On December 10, 2024, Defendants and the Former Individual Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint, asserting (among other things) that Lead Plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege: (i) any actionable misrepresentation or (ii) that defendants acted with scienter in making any alleged misrepresentation. The motion was fully briefed and the Court held oral argument on the motion to dismiss the Complaint on April 24, 2025.

On June 3, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part the motion to dismiss the Complaint. The Court sustained Lead Plaintiff’s Section 10(b) claims against iRhythm and Blackford with respect to statements regarding the Zio AT’s timeliness, accuracy, and appropriateness for high-risk patients, but dismissed claims against the Former Individual Defendants, dismissed claims regarding the Zio AT’s characterization as a mobile cardiac telemetry device, and dismissed all claims for statements prior to July 25, 2022.

On July 18, 2025, Defendants filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The motion was fully briefed, and, on November 7, 2025, the Court denied the motion.

On November 3, 2025, Lead Plaintiff moved for class certification. The motion was fully briefed, and, on February 26, 2026, the Court held a hearing on Lead Plaintiff’s motion for class certification.

Discovery in the Action commenced following the Court’s June 3, 2025 partial denial of Defendants’ motion to dismiss the Complaint. Through the class certification stage of the litigation, the Parties engaged in discovery, producing over 405,000 pages of documents and conducting seven depositions in total. Lead Plaintiff and Defendants also issued subpoenas to produce documents from several non-parties.

The Parties began exploring the possibility of a settlement in early 2026. The Parties agreed to engage in private mediation and retained David Murphy of Phillips ADR Enterprises to act as mediator in the Action. Counsel for the Parties participated in a mediation session before Mr. Murphy on April 2, 2026. In advance of that session, the Parties exchanged and submitted detailed mediation statements to Mr. Murphy.

In the weeks following the mediation, Mr. Murphy made a mediator’s recommendation that the Parties settle the Action for $45,000,000, which the Parties accepted. The agreement’s terms were memorialized in a term sheet executed on May 13, 2026.

After additional negotiations regarding the specific terms of their agreement, the Parties entered into the Stipulation on June 3, 2026.

On July 13, 2026, the Court preliminarily approved the Settlement, authorized notice of the Settlement to be provided to potential Settlement Class Members, and scheduled the Settlement Hearing to consider whether to grant final approval of the Settlement for November 5, 2026.