SINGAPORE – About 400 affected Cordlife parents attended a town hall on May 3 to explore potential legal recourse for lapses at the private cord blood bank.
Improper storage of cord blood units at the company has damaged about 7,500 such units thus far.
Processes at the company have been in the spotlight after it was revealed on Nov 30 that cryo-preserved cord blood units in seven of its 22 storage tanks were exposed to sub-optimal storage temperatures. Cord blood units have to be stored at temperatures of no higher than minus 150 deg C.
Around 7,500 cord blood units in two tanks and in a dry shipper – a container used to transport cord blood units at extremely low temperatures – have been deemed non-viable and unlikely to be suitable for stem cell transplants.
The families had approached Withers KhattarWong for the firm’s legal opinion, as frustrations with Cordlife’s handling of the crisis simmered over.
The town hall was helmed by three of the law firm’s partners, and was held at its office at 18 Cross Street. Parents could also attend the meeting online.
Those who attended described a lively discussion of more than 2½ hours. While the lawyers did not give legal advice at the town hall, they fielded questions from worried and frustrated parents on the legal options available to them.
The international law firm is now in the midst of onboarding affected parents for a possible representative-action lawsuit, similar to a class-action lawsuit, which is commonly filed in the United States. Singapore does not have a US-style class-action mechanism.
A class-action lawsuit allows a few claimants to bring a case to court on behalf of an entire class of claimants, except those who have opted out. In representative action, all claimants have to consent to being represented.
Such lawsuits are rare in Singapore because they are complex to organise.
A parent who helped to organise the town hall, Ms Shanta Sundarason, said various people face different issues.
Some have cord blood units deemed unviable for stem cell transplants; others have been told their units are at low risk of damage and are still awaiting results of further testing. There are also parents who have been told their cord blood units are unaffected but have lost confidence in Cordlife.
Parents also seek different outcomes – from compensation to demanding more answers and accountability from Cordlife.
“First and foremost, what the lawyers can do now is to start to understand what the contracts state and their limitations, because everyone’s contract could be different. They also need to try and understand what remedies could be offered to different parties,” said Ms Sundarason.
Other Cordlife clients have already begun legal action on their own.
The private cord blood bank announced on May 2 that it has already received its first letter of demand from lawyers of an unnamed client, with the amount claimed between $60,000 and $250,000. It is also in the midst of proceedings in the Small Claims Tribunals over a case lodged against the company in February. The SCT deals with claims not exceeding $20,000.
Realtor Sum Chong Ming, 65, who attended the town hall in person, said that he is interested in joining the representative-action lawsuit.
“There is definitely strength in numbers,” said Mr Sum.
Another group of Cordlife customers has banded together for representative action, too.
They held a town hall to seek legal opinion in January 2024, and are also in the process of onboarding parents for representative action.
Sign-ups for the group for the current stage are closed for now and will reopen for more parents in due course, said a parent volunteer who wanted to be known only as Mr L. T.
