Cordlife Group

[weijian]

It is highly probable that all the cord blood units in the 7 storage units are damaged and not suitable for future usage. This makes up ~20% of all cord blood units stored in Spore. This business sells hope and insurance. With this reputational damage, there isn't much "hope left" and not a lot of parents (those willing to spend 6k upwards to store their baby's cord) will buy a 21year old insurance with them in the future. For context, based on AR22, Spore makes up ~40% of revenue.

It is also unknown at this point of time, how much reparations will be required of them to carry out the "every effort to find a suitable replacement cord blood for their child" for the affected parents. They do have substantial cash but most of them are actually upfront payments for future obligations stretching to 21years, and so they are mostly encumbered.

Cordlife storage lapses damaged thousands of customers’ cord-blood units; group slapped with 6-month suspension

CONSUMER healthcare company Cordlife Group : P8A -38.46% was on Thursday (Nov 30) issued a notice to stop collecting new cord blood and human tissue after a Ministry of Health check found seven of the company’s 22 cord-blood storage tanks being kept at temperatures above acceptable limits.

Unannounced audits by MOH, carried out in August and November, found that the seven storage tanks had been exposed to temperatures above -150 deg C. Being stored at suboptimal temperatures triggers a thawing of the cord-blood units, which could damage the stem cells in them.

Since the exposure was discovered, Cordlife Group has completed testing the cord-blood samples in one of the seven tanks. These samples make up 2.7 per cent of all cord-blood units stored by the group’s blood-banking facility in Singapore.

An independent panel of three cord-blood banking specialists appointed by MOH to review these test results concluded that the units have been damaged and are unlikely to be suitable for stem-cell transplant purposes.

https://www.businesstimes.com.sg/compani...omers-cord

Under the Company’s standard service agreement with all clients, if, in the opinion of their healthcare provider, it is subsequently determined that the cord blood cannot be successfully used for an approved cord blood transplant, the Company will make every effort to find a suitable replacement cord blood for their child.

Cordlife Group announcement: https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/CGL%20Ann...eID=779714

[dreamybear]

It is also unknown at this point of time, how much reparations will be required of them to carry out the "every effort to find a suitable replacement cord blood for their child" for the affected parents.

In quantifiable terms, the "Cordlife Pledge360" section did provide an amount of $50k. Of course, it's best for customers of Cordlife to clarify the exact details(e.g. T&Cs) of the plan.

$50k for each of the 19,000+ affected seems a lot of $ but the actual costs may be lower ? I think these are best answered by professionals in the related medical field.

----------------
https://www.cordlife.com/sg/infopack/Cor...are360.pdf

[Bibi]

It is also unknown at this point of time, how much reparations will be required of them to carry out the "every effort to find a suitable replacement cord blood for their child" for the affected parents.

In quantifiable terms, the "Cordlife Pledge360" section did provide an amount of $50k. Of course, it's best for customers of Cordlife to clarify the exact details(e.g. T&Cs) of the plan.

$50k for each of the 19,000+ affected seems a lot of $ but the actual costs may be lower ? I think these are best answered by professionals.

----------------
https://www.cordlife.com/sg/infopack/Cor...are360.pdf

I read the pdf and it says will "pay the $50k if the cord blood losses is viability at point of transplant". In insurance its impt to read every word carefully. Sure they can pay u provided one uses it. And who knows if one uses it 20 yrs later, $50k then is like $15k now assuming things double every 10 yrs.

[weijian]

It is also unknown at this point of time, how much reparations will be required of them to carry out the "every effort to find a suitable replacement cord blood for their child" for the affected parents.

In quantifiable terms, the "Cordlife Pledge360" section did provide an amount of $50k. Of course, it's best for customers of Cordlife to clarify the exact details(e.g. T&Cs) of the plan.

$50k for each of the 19,000+ affected seems a lot of $ but the actual costs may be lower ? I think these are best answered by professionals.

----------------
https://www.cordlife.com/sg/infopack/Cor...are360.pdf

I read the pdf and it says will "pay the $50k if the cord blood losses is viability at point of transplant". In insurance its impt to read every word carefully. Sure they can pay u provided one uses it. And who knows if one uses it 20 yrs later, $50k then is like $15k now assuming things double every 10 yrs.

ChatGPT did not give a statistic of the usage for private cord blood banking.

As such, I took a look at the leukemia statistics for Spore. Assuming that cord blood is only used to treat leukemia and 100% of these cases have a match for stored cord blood:

Spore 5year prevalence = 36.6 persons per 100k population
Cordlife's potential exposure = 36.6 /(100k/19.2k) = 7 cases that will use it
Monetary exposure - 50k x 7 = 350k

[specuvestor]

Just saying that only when crap happens that counterparty risk and structure matters

Applies to any prepayments like membership or even life insurance. MAS require life funds to be separated and ringfenced but not all jurisdiction do so

[madagnet]

Cordlife is a terrible company. Product itself is questionable in terms of use case + its operationally very primitive (like a warehouse/industrial space vs a medical facility)

[specuvestor]

Just curious: would you say the same for StemCord then?

Cordlife is a terrible company. Product itself is questionable in terms of use case + its operationally very primitive (like a warehouse/industrial space vs a medical facility)

[madagnet]

Just curious: would you say the same for StemCord then?

Cordlife is a terrible company. Product itself is questionable in terms of use case + its operationally very primitive (like a warehouse/industrial space vs a medical facility)

I only visited Cordlife and met with their management so can only comment on them. Use case wise, I can't remember the statistics exactly but I remember it was extremely low in terms of actual usage. If your baby were to need stem cells, he or she would probably need stem cells from someone else rather than his or her own stem cells.

https://www.healthxchange.sg/women/post-...gs-to-know

4. Can any patient who needs a stem cell transplant find a match?

The probability of being able to use one’s own cord blood for treatment of blood cancers and diseases is extremely low. Reason being that genetic defects that caused the illness are often already present in the patient’s own cord blood. Within a family, a healthy baby’s cord blood has a 25% chance of being a match for a sibling in need of treatment.

[weijian]

This looks bad. On paper, the company (i assume is those in the C-suite) only knew of 1 breach in 1 tank before the MOH audits. The rest of the affected tanks (total 7) and its multiple breaches that extended back to 2020, were only "known" after the 2 MOH audits. If this ignorance were true, we have to accept that people will not forgive such ignorance more than if they were trying to hide.

REPLIES TO QUERIES FROM THE SINGAPORE EXCHANGE SECURITIES TRADING LIMITED

Certain members of the management team were alerted by a Company employee in June 2022 that there was one tank that was exposed to irregular temperatures for several days in June 2022. Upon being notified, they took immediate actions and carried out internal investigations to further understand the issue. These members of the management team thereafter strengthened the Company's laboratory processes, procedures and staff training, to prevent the recurrence of such lapses.

After the above-mentioned incident was reported to the Board in February 2023 as further explained the response to Question 4(b) below, the Board had assessed the financial impact of the abovementioned incident and took the view that there would be no material impact on the financial performance of the Group for the financial year ended 31 December 2022 and the financial year ending 31 December 2023, taking into account, among others, that the Group has adequate provisions to offset against the potential financial impact of any fee refunds or waivers of the remaining storage years that may be offered to clients in connection with the incident.

The irregular temperature exposure in the affected tank and one other tank in February and March 2022 was brought to the attention of the Company during the MOH unannounced audit in August 2023.

https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/CGL%20-%2...eID=780385

[weijian]

Seems like a BOD fight in progress between 2 majority shareholders in regards to the future of the company (ie. appointment of the new CEO related to TransGlobal).

From AR22 shareholding statistics, both of them are pretty evenly matched at ~28-30%. Of course, there are still some other majority shareholders holding <10% which is going to sway the results. But I wonder if there is a chance for minorities to gain when 2 elephants are fighting? A MGO from 1 of them?

1. RECEIPT OF REQUISITION NOTICES

The board of directors (the "Board") of Cordlife Group Limited (the "Company" and together with its subsidiaries, the "Group") wishes to announce that:

(a) it has on 14 March 2024 received a letter (the "First Requisition Notice") from Phillip Securities Pte Ltd ("Phillip Securities") as nominee for Nanjing Xinjiekou Department Store Co., Ltd. ("NJXJK") requesting the Board to convene an extraordinary general meeting of the Company ("EGM"); and

(b) it has on 18 March 2024 received a letter (the "Second Requisition Notice") from TransGlobal Real Estate Group, Ltd. ("TransGlobal") requesting the Board to convene an EGM.

https://links.sgx.com/FileOpen/CGL%20-%2...eID=792628

Dispute revealed in previous clarification of appointment of new CEO:
For the avoidance of doubt, as Mr Yiu Ming Yiu and Mr Chow Wai Leong are nominee directors of TransGlobal Real Estate Group Limited (a controlling shareholder of the Company) and Mr Yiu Ming Yiu is the brother of Mr Yiu, both Mr Yiu Ming Yiu and Mr Chow Wai Leong have abstained on the Board’s decision in relation to the appointment of Mr Yiu. In addition, Ms Chen Xiaoling and Mr Zhai Lingyun (“Mr Zhai”), both non-independent and non-executive directors of the Company, also expressed their reservations on the appointment of Mr Yiu as the GCEO as they had proposed that the Board conduct an executive search and appoint a GCEO with the requisite qualifications, expertise and experience in the medical field to lead the Company through the current crisis as well as to prepare for the future. As their proposal was not supported by the other directors, they abstained on the Board's decision to appoint Mr Yiu as GCEO.