SINGAPORE: In the aftermath of Cordlife’s mishandling of cord blood units, some clients have accepted the refunds offered by the beleaguered firm.
While affected clients have said the refunds offered do not cover years of annual fees paid, those who accepted them told CNA that nothing more can be done if their children’s cord blood units have already been damaged.
It was first revealed last November that seven of the cord blood banking firm’s tanks had been exposed to temperatures above the acceptable limit of -150 degrees Celsius.
A total of 2,200 cord blood units, belonging to about 2,150 clients, in one of the tanks were found to be damaged. Another 5,300 cord blood units in a second tank and a dry shipper - which is intended for transport and not long-term storage - were deemed to be "non-viable" in April.
The remaining five tanks, which contain about 14,000 cord blood units, were assessed to be at low risk of being affected.
Following the incident, Cordlife, a Singapore-listed firm and the longest-running private cord blood bank in the country, offered customers a refund of annual fees paid since "the start of temperature excursion".
Earlier this month, the company said "a significant number" of clients had accepted the refunds but declined to give the exact figure when contacted by CNA.
The refunds would entail Cordlife continuing to store the cord blood units of these clients until the maturity of their service agreements, when their children turn 21, without charge.
Mdm Evelyn Wu, whose eldest daughter’s cord blood was among those affected, was one of the parents who accepted Cordlife's refund. The 46-year-old will receive a refund of the annual fees from 2022 onwards, which amounts to S$1,819 (US$1,350) inclusive of GST.
"If the sample is destroyed or … has been undermined, there’s no point in stalling further," said the mother-of-three, who is an educator.
She also pointed to a clause in the refund agreement, where Cordlife stated it would try to find a match if her child requires cord blood in future.
The clause reads: "I am also aware that, pursuant to the agreement, (Cordlife Group Limited) will uphold their promise to seek a suitable replacement cord blood unit for my child if, at the point a transplant is required, the transplant physician determines that the stored cord blood is not viable for use in an approved cord blood transplant for my child solely due to the stem cells not meeting the viability criteria."
"So in a way, it’s (the) best of both worlds," Mdm Wu said. "I don't think suing is possible because they agreed to find me a match … If I can't get anything else, I might as well get the money back."
She added that her oldest child still has a "lifeline" at Cordlife as Mdm Wu’s second daughter’s cord blood is also stored with the bank. The status of the younger child’s cord blood is still under investigation.
Still, Mdm Wu said she is not entirely satisfied with the refund amount, given that she made an upfront payment of S$5,630 to store her child’s cord blood for 21 years. She too, like many parents, wishes the company offered full compensation.
"But in a way, I’m just cutting my losses short because I don’t think much can be done."
Mdm Wu added that any penalties or fines imposed on the company would not go to customers. "I might as well get back my refund first," she said.
Another parent was offered the same refund amount. Ms Shialey Tan, 50, has been storing her youngest child’s cord blood with Cordlife since 2009.
The 50-year-old, who works in the social service sector, said she accepted the refund as it was "better than not having any amount of money back at all".
"The damage has already been done to the organisation. The PR is really so bad. I don't think anybody wants to bank with them. So, no point me adding fuel to the fire and … (filing) a lawsuit," said Ms Tan.
The mother-of-three added that she would still have to spend money to pursue legal action against the company, which could cost more than what was refunded to her.
She also pointed out that the refund would not be given to her in cash as she paid for the fees using her son’s Child Development Account – a special savings account that can be used for child-raising expenses such as healthcare and preschool fees. The amount will be transferred to her son’s Post-Secondary Education Account instead.
Ms Tan added: "Banking of the cord blood is just an insurance that I may need in the future. Who knows? I may actually never need it in the future too."
"Given this incident that has happened, I feel that this is the best situation and for me, this is what I want. I’m willing to accept."
On the other hand, more than 350 clients are in talks with law firms for legal advice.
In a statement to the media, Peter Low Chambers said 157 parents have engaged the law firm for advice. The onboarding process, which began in mid-April, took more than two weeks and involved screening the clients' contracts with Cordlife, said the firm.
"This group of parents not only includes parents whose children’s cord blood was affected by the temperature rises in Cordlife’s storage tanks and dry shippers, but also parents who have been informed by Cordlife that their children’s cord blood were at 'low risk' of being affected or 'unaffected'," it added.
Before engaging the law firm, a group of nine parents asked fellow Cordlife customers about their concerns and queries. These parents also gathered various iterations of agreements that Cordlife had entered into in the past years, said Peter Low Chambers.
In the first stage of legal work, the firm said it would provide a written legal opinion to advise parents on their rights and remedies. It added that its registration for legal opinion closed on May 10 "in the interest of expediency".
After the legal opinion is given, other Cordlife parents would be able to join in any courses of action proposed by the law firm, subject to conditions including the payment of fees.
The firm has not replied to queries from CNA on how much Cordlife clients are paying for its services.
Separately, another group of over 200 parents have registered their interest to pursue legal action under international law firm Withers KhattarWong.
The law firm held a town hall meeting with Cordlife clients earlier this month. Those interested in engaging its services were directed to fill up an online form with their personal information and details of their child with the affected cord blood unit, including whether he or she is above the age of 21.
Parents were also asked to choose from a list of outcomes they hoped to achieve such as the safe transfer of cord blood units to another firm or compensation for the loss of the blood units.
Following the meeting, the law firm said it was not recommending a lawsuit yet as it was still gathering facts. But it noted that a possible class action lawsuit against Cordlife could take at least two years.
While Withers KhattarWong did not confirm how much it is charging Cordlife clients, one parent told CNA that its fee at the onboarding stage is S$300 per family, regardless of whether more than one child’s cord blood unit was affected.
The law firm told CNA that it is "conscious" that affected families have invested substantial amounts into Cordlife and are looking for legal support "with a budget". It added that it will take this into account when advising families on its fees.
Continue reading...
While affected clients have said the refunds offered do not cover years of annual fees paid, those who accepted them told CNA that nothing more can be done if their children’s cord blood units have already been damaged.
It was first revealed last November that seven of the cord blood banking firm’s tanks had been exposed to temperatures above the acceptable limit of -150 degrees Celsius.
A total of 2,200 cord blood units, belonging to about 2,150 clients, in one of the tanks were found to be damaged. Another 5,300 cord blood units in a second tank and a dry shipper - which is intended for transport and not long-term storage - were deemed to be "non-viable" in April.
The remaining five tanks, which contain about 14,000 cord blood units, were assessed to be at low risk of being affected.
Following the incident, Cordlife, a Singapore-listed firm and the longest-running private cord blood bank in the country, offered customers a refund of annual fees paid since "the start of temperature excursion".
Earlier this month, the company said "a significant number" of clients had accepted the refunds but declined to give the exact figure when contacted by CNA.
The refunds would entail Cordlife continuing to store the cord blood units of these clients until the maturity of their service agreements, when their children turn 21, without charge.
Related:
"NO POINT IN STALLING FURTHER"
Mdm Evelyn Wu, whose eldest daughter’s cord blood was among those affected, was one of the parents who accepted Cordlife's refund. The 46-year-old will receive a refund of the annual fees from 2022 onwards, which amounts to S$1,819 (US$1,350) inclusive of GST.
"If the sample is destroyed or … has been undermined, there’s no point in stalling further," said the mother-of-three, who is an educator.
She also pointed to a clause in the refund agreement, where Cordlife stated it would try to find a match if her child requires cord blood in future.
The clause reads: "I am also aware that, pursuant to the agreement, (Cordlife Group Limited) will uphold their promise to seek a suitable replacement cord blood unit for my child if, at the point a transplant is required, the transplant physician determines that the stored cord blood is not viable for use in an approved cord blood transplant for my child solely due to the stem cells not meeting the viability criteria."
"So in a way, it’s (the) best of both worlds," Mdm Wu said. "I don't think suing is possible because they agreed to find me a match … If I can't get anything else, I might as well get the money back."
She added that her oldest child still has a "lifeline" at Cordlife as Mdm Wu’s second daughter’s cord blood is also stored with the bank. The status of the younger child’s cord blood is still under investigation.
Still, Mdm Wu said she is not entirely satisfied with the refund amount, given that she made an upfront payment of S$5,630 to store her child’s cord blood for 21 years. She too, like many parents, wishes the company offered full compensation.
"But in a way, I’m just cutting my losses short because I don’t think much can be done."
Mdm Wu added that any penalties or fines imposed on the company would not go to customers. "I might as well get back my refund first," she said.
Another parent was offered the same refund amount. Ms Shialey Tan, 50, has been storing her youngest child’s cord blood with Cordlife since 2009.
The 50-year-old, who works in the social service sector, said she accepted the refund as it was "better than not having any amount of money back at all".
"The damage has already been done to the organisation. The PR is really so bad. I don't think anybody wants to bank with them. So, no point me adding fuel to the fire and … (filing) a lawsuit," said Ms Tan.
The mother-of-three added that she would still have to spend money to pursue legal action against the company, which could cost more than what was refunded to her.
She also pointed out that the refund would not be given to her in cash as she paid for the fees using her son’s Child Development Account – a special savings account that can be used for child-raising expenses such as healthcare and preschool fees. The amount will be transferred to her son’s Post-Secondary Education Account instead.
Ms Tan added: "Banking of the cord blood is just an insurance that I may need in the future. Who knows? I may actually never need it in the future too."
"Given this incident that has happened, I feel that this is the best situation and for me, this is what I want. I’m willing to accept."
Related:
MORE THAN 350 CLIENTS ENGAGED LAW FIRMS
On the other hand, more than 350 clients are in talks with law firms for legal advice.
In a statement to the media, Peter Low Chambers said 157 parents have engaged the law firm for advice. The onboarding process, which began in mid-April, took more than two weeks and involved screening the clients' contracts with Cordlife, said the firm.
"This group of parents not only includes parents whose children’s cord blood was affected by the temperature rises in Cordlife’s storage tanks and dry shippers, but also parents who have been informed by Cordlife that their children’s cord blood were at 'low risk' of being affected or 'unaffected'," it added.
Before engaging the law firm, a group of nine parents asked fellow Cordlife customers about their concerns and queries. These parents also gathered various iterations of agreements that Cordlife had entered into in the past years, said Peter Low Chambers.
In the first stage of legal work, the firm said it would provide a written legal opinion to advise parents on their rights and remedies. It added that its registration for legal opinion closed on May 10 "in the interest of expediency".
After the legal opinion is given, other Cordlife parents would be able to join in any courses of action proposed by the law firm, subject to conditions including the payment of fees.
The firm has not replied to queries from CNA on how much Cordlife clients are paying for its services.
Separately, another group of over 200 parents have registered their interest to pursue legal action under international law firm Withers KhattarWong.
The law firm held a town hall meeting with Cordlife clients earlier this month. Those interested in engaging its services were directed to fill up an online form with their personal information and details of their child with the affected cord blood unit, including whether he or she is above the age of 21.
Parents were also asked to choose from a list of outcomes they hoped to achieve such as the safe transfer of cord blood units to another firm or compensation for the loss of the blood units.
Following the meeting, the law firm said it was not recommending a lawsuit yet as it was still gathering facts. But it noted that a possible class action lawsuit against Cordlife could take at least two years.
While Withers KhattarWong did not confirm how much it is charging Cordlife clients, one parent told CNA that its fee at the onboarding stage is S$300 per family, regardless of whether more than one child’s cord blood unit was affected.
The law firm told CNA that it is "conscious" that affected families have invested substantial amounts into Cordlife and are looking for legal support "with a budget". It added that it will take this into account when advising families on its fees.
Continue reading...