The Law Offices of Frank R. Cruz announces that a class action lawsuit has been filed on behalf of shareholders who purchased or otherwise acquired Regencell Bioscience Holdings Limited (“Regencell” or the “Company”) (NASDAQ: RGC) securities between October 28, 2024 and October 31, 2025, inclusive (the “Class Period”). Regencell investors have until June 23, 2026 to file a lead plaintiff motion.

What Happened?

On October 31, 2025, Regencell disclosed that “following recent volatility in the market for [its] Ordinary Shares, the Company received correspondence and a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice (‘DOJ’), indicating that the DOJ is conducting an investigation into the trading in [its] Ordinary Shares.” The Company further stated that “[t]he DOJ has requested the production of documents and communications concerning these and other corporate operational, financial and accounting matters” and that the Company “expect[s] to continue to incur significant legal costs and other expenses in connection with responding to the investigation” and “may be required to pay fines, penalties, damages or settlement costs in excess of [its] insurance coverage, if any, related to the investigation.”

On this news, Regencell’s stock price fell $3.09, or 18.56%, to close at $13.56 per share on November 3, 2025, thereby injuring investors.

What Is The Lawsuit About?

The complaint filed in this class action alleges that throughout the Class Period, 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) Regencell was vulnerable and/or subject to market manipulation; (2) the resulting volatility in the market for the Company’s ordinary shares exposed Regencell’s investors to significant financial risk; (3) all the foregoing subjected Regencell to a heightened risk of regulatory and/or governmental scrutiny and enforcement action, as well as significant legal, monetary, and reputational harm; and (4) 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.