Cordlife customers take legal action; first demand letter sent

Cordlife also said on Thursday that in February it had received notice of a lawsuit filed against it in the Small Claims Court (SCT) by another client.

The claim alleged that the damage to the customer’s child’s umbilical cord blood unit was the result of Cordlife’s storage of the unit. The amount of the claim was not indicated. Matters heard by the Small Claims Court have a claim limit of S$20,000 and lawyers are not permitted to represent the parties.

In SGX’s filing, the company said it was unable to determine the exact financial impact of the claim in the demand letter.

“If the Company is ultimately required to resolve the claim in the Demand Letter, the SCT Claim and/or claims made by multiple clients, this will likely result in a negative impact on the Group’s financial position for the year. financial year ending December 31, 2024,” Cordlife said.

So far, seven directors or former directors have been arrested in connection with Cordlife’s alleged mishandling of cord blood, including the group’s former chief executive, Tan Poh Lan. On April 17, Cordlife’s board of directors filed a police report regarding “potential wrongdoing” by former employees.

The cord blood bank has offered customers a refund of annual fees “from the start of the rise” and promised to waive any subsequent fees until their child turns 21.

However, some customers told CNA in April that they were dissatisfied with Cordlife’s offer, claiming it lacked fairness.

Some parents told CNA then that they would not accept Cordlife’s refund offer or were weighing their options, including legal action.

Customers who accept the refund offer must agree to four clauses, one of which is to accept the offer as a “final agreement.”