«

»

Jul 05

Print this Post

RNL Bio, Jeong Chan Ra, Human Biostar Inc. & Jin Han Hong Sued for Fraud in Stem Cell Lawsuit

Introduction

RNL Bio Co. Ltd. and its President, Jeong Chan Ra (also known as Ra Jeong-Chan), along with Human Biostar Inc., formerly known as RNL Life Science Inc., and Jin Han Hong, President and Chief Operating Officer of Human Biostar Inc., are defendants in a lawsuit alleging fraud related to marketing and administration of stem cells. The lawsuit, Ben Hang Lee et al v. Human Biostar Inc. et al, was first filed May 21, 2012 in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Los Angeles. On June 29, 2012, the case was shifted (or “removed”) to United States District Court, Central District of California, Western Division-Los Angeles. Michael W. Fitzgerald is the Presiding Judge.

 

RNL Bio: Some Background

RNL Bio is a South Korean stem cell company known for banking adult autologous stem cells and shipping processed, cultured, and expanded stem cells to clinics located in China, Japan, and Mexico.  At least 10,000 individuals reportedly have received infusions or injections of adult autologous stem cells at clinics affiliated with RNL Bio.  Numerous health researchers and journalists accuse RNL Bio of promoting stem cell tourism to countries with inadequate regulation of stem cells and unlawfully providing clinically unproven stem cell procedures to patients at several South Korean health care facilities.  More recently, in the U.S. RNL Bio attracted considerable scrutiny as a result of licensing its stem cell technology to Celltex Therapeutics and both staffing and running Celltex’s controversial stem cell processing facility and bank in Sugar Land, Texas. FDA investigators recently inspected the Celltex biological drug manufacturing facility; the inspection report issued by investigators identified numerous problems with manufacturing practices at the site. In subsequent press release Celltex noted its close ties to RNL Bio, stating, “Celltex’s laboratory is currently operated by its licensing partner RNL Bio (dba Human Biostar), with lab technicians and scientists from RNL’s Seoul, Korea headquarters.” Celltex Therapeutics is not a defendant in Ben Hang Lee et al v. Human Biostar Inc. et al.

 

Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs listed in the suit are Ben Hang Lee, Brad Lee, Eun Joo Lee, Helen Ju Lee, Jung Hui Lee, and William Lee. All plaintiffs reside in Los Angeles County. The lawsuit alleges that the six plaintiffs underwent stem cell procedures marketed and facilitated by Human Biostar Inc. (operating as RNL Life Science at the time of the alleged events described in the lawsuit). Plaintiffs named in the lawsuit seek judgment for damages for intentional misrepresentation of fact; negligent misrepresentation of fact; false advertising in violation of California Business and Professions Code; unfair competition in violation of California Business and Professions Code; financial elder abuse; negligence; and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Sang I. Lee represents all six plaintiffs.

 

Defendants

Defendants named in the lawsuit are Human Biostar Inc. (formerly known as RNL Life Science Inc. and RNL Life), RNL Bio, Jin Han Hong, and Jeong Chan Ra. Human Biostar Inc. is now registered as a Texas Corporation. At time of alleged events described in the lawsuit the company was a California corporation located at 3250 W. Olympic Boulevard, #225, Los Angeles. Operating from an office located in a shopping mall, Koreatown Galleria, Human Biostar Inc. reportedly marketed stem cell procedures provided at facilities located in China, Japan, and Tijuana, Mexico. Plaintiffs allege that Jin Han Hong, in addition to marketing and coordinating clinically unproven stem cell procedures, “is a shareholder, director, and officer of RNL LIFE and RNL BIO.” Plaintiffs also allege that Jeong Chan Ra is and was at time of alleged events “majority shareholder, director and founder, and CEO of both RNL LIFE and RNL BIO.” Karis Ann-Yu Chi and Ekwan E. Rhow, both of Bird Marella Boxer Wolpert Nessim Drooks and Lincenberg, represent defendants.

 

Lawsuit claims that RNL LIFE is a “Shell” Intended “to Avoid Individual Liability”  

The lawsuit alleges that RNL LIFE,

“is a mere shell, instrumentality, and conduit through which RA (Jeong Chan Ra) carried on his business without capital or assets, except as herein alleged, and was conceived, intended, and used by RA as a device to avoid individual liability and for the purpose of substituting a financially insolvent entities in his place. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that RNL LIFE was so inadequately capitalized that, compared with the business to be done as hereinafter alleged, and the risks of loss attendant thereon, capitalization was illusory. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that the activities and business of RNL LIFE were carried out without the holding of direct or or (sic) shareholders meetings, no records or minutes of any proceedings were maintained. Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that RA completely controlled, dominated, managed, and operated RNL LIFE and commingled assets to suit his convenience, in particular by leaving RNL LIFE with insufficient income to satisfy its liabilities, all in order to avoid payment of the obligations owed to creditors of RNL LIFE.”

“Adherence to the fiction of the separate existence of RNL LIFE as entities distinct from RA would permit an abuse of the corporate privilege and would sanction fraud or promote injustice and an inequitable result for Plaintiffs, as complained herein.”

“Plaintiffs are further informed and believe and thereon allege that at all times herein mentioned or relevant, there existed a unity of interest and ownership between RNL LIFE and RNL BIO such that any individuality and separateness between them have ceased and each corporate Defendant is the alter ego of each of the other corporate Defendants. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that RNL LIFE and RNL BIO are, and at all times mentioned herein were located and doing business out of the same location, that they were doing business under same or similar trade name, that they use the same employees as one another, that they are all controlled, dominated, managed, and operated by same individuals, and that they have commingled their funds and/or assets.”

 

In brief, plaintiffs allege that while RNL LIFE and RNL BIO have separate names, for practical purposes they functioned as a single corporate entity.

 

Allegations of Fraud

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs are victims of fraud. According to the lawsuit, plaintiffs allege that,

“This action arises from a scheme by which defendants defrauded elderly Plaintiffs through false representations that experimental stem cell therapy, which is not approved in the United States and South Korea as an acceptable method of medical treatment, would cure not only all known ailments, but also would reverse aging, thereby improve overall health and quality of life and prevent future illness.”

“The stem cell therapy Plaintiffs allegedly underwent in the instant action is commonly known as autologous stem cell transplant, in which patient’s own healthy stem cells, which are harvested from a patient, and separated and cultured in a laboratory, are infused and injected back to the same patient.”

 

Plaintiffs allege that in late 2009 and 2010 they attended workshops and meetings organized by defendants.  These events were promotional gatherings intended to market stem cell procedures for variety of ailments.  Jin Han Hong allegedly served as organizer, host and speaker at these gatherings.  Plaintiffs believed “that Defendant HONG was a medical doctor”; they allege that he indicated he had a Ph.D. According to lawsuit,

“At these workshops and meetings, Defendants explained, by video presentations and through oral representations by Defendant HONG that Plaintiff’s own stem cell would be extracted from Plaintiffs’ body, typically from Plaintiff’s abdominal area, then the cell would be transported to Defendant’s laboratory in Korea.  In the laboratory, Defendants would separate young and healthy cells from old, defective and unhealthy cells.  Only these young and healthy cells would then be cultured, treated, grown and multiplied, and infused and injected back to Plaintiffs.”

“Plaintiffs were told that, with any patient’s cells, Defendants would separate young and healthy cells showing the potency of those of a healthy person in his or her twenties and thirties from cells that are older. In fact, Plaintiffs were told that every patient’s stem cells, even cells of patients as old as Plaintiffs, some of whom were in their mid 70’s, contain some young and healthy cells that are as young, healthy and potent as those found in their twenties and thirties. Defendants further stated that only these young cells would be cultured, treated, grown and multiplied under specific conditions. Then millions and millions of these young cells would be injected and infused back into the same Plaintiff.”

“Defendants represented that, once infused and injected, these young cells would circulate within the Plaintiffs’ body until these cells find weak, old, damaged, diseased, defective, and/or unhealthy cells anywhere in the body, including the skin.  Then these young cells would replace such sick and damaged cells, and would start regenerating and multiplying themselves.”

“Defendant HONG, who hosted these workshops and meetings, represented that the therapy would cure all ailments, such as diabetes, arthritis, high blood pressure, back pain and even insomnia that Plaintiffs were then suffering from.”

“Defendant HONG, represented that the treatment would not only cure any all ailments, but also prevent any future illness and ailments from occurring in the first place, by turning back the clock. By replacing old cells with young and healthy cells, the therapy would reverse aging, restore health and virility including sex drive, and rejuvenate their skin and body functions to that of their twenties and thirties.”

“Defendants further represented that the treatment is completely safe and risk free without any side effects or allergic reactions, since patient’s own cells are transplanted back to the same patient. Defendants did not disclose any potential side effects and risks involved in the treatment at all.  At these workshops and meetings, Plaintiffs were shown video presentation of testimonials of various individuals who went through successful stem cell treatment for various ailments.”

“Plaintiffs were also provided brochures which state that RNL BIO is the ‘World No. 1 Stem Cell Company.’ They further states that ‘RNL Bio is right in the center of medical technology revolution, Stem Cell.’ The brochures also state that Defendants have established and are operating hospitals in various cities in China specializing in stem cell treatment. They also state that RNL BIO established RNL LIFE in Los Angeles for overseas marketing and overseas patient procurement. They further provide case studies of patients whose ailments were successfully cured using stem cell treatment.”

“Defendants also provided a website address, which shows a lot of the same information as the brochures, wherein Defendants boast an annual income in millions with a graph showing a rapid year by year increase in the income generated from what Defendants call a ‘medical tourism’ business.”

“Defendants advertised and solicited from mostly elderly and infirm patients…Plaintiffs are informed, believe and therefore allege that stem cell therapy itself, and transportation of stem cells cultured, treated, grown and manipulated in a laboratory, as in the instant case, is unlawful both in the United States and Korea.”

 

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs were not provided accurate description of adult autologous stem cell procedures.  Lawsuit notes,

“Stem cell treatment is still in the clinical and experimental stage, i.e., scientist have not conducted enough research to conclusively know what works, doesn’t work and what the side effects are.  It is in fact shown to have many side effects including increased risks of cancer, blood clots, serious illness, infection, and even death in some cases.”

 

The lawsuit claims that plaintiffs were not told about these side effects or informed that stem cell interventions are experimental and clinically unproven rather than established, safe, and demonstrably efficacious therapies.  Plaintiffs, in short, allege that defendants made numerous claims concerning benefits of stem cell procedures and did not provide stem cell recipients with adequate account of risks associated with these interventions.

 

Stem Cells Allegedly Obtained From Fat Tissue

According to the lawsuit, body fat reportedly was obtained from plaintiffs’ abdominal area on different occasions in 2009 and 2010. Once adipose (fat) tissue was extracted from patients, tissue samples were sent to RNL Bio’s laboratory in South Korea for processing and expansion.  Following conclusion of this process, RNL Bio then reportedly shipped stem cells to clinics in several countries.  Plaintiffs allegedly traveled to these locations and received infusions or injections of their processed and expanded adult stem cells. Stem cells were allegedly administered to plaintiffs in South Korea, China, Japan, and Mexico.

 

Lawsuit Describes Alleged Experiences of Six Plaintiffs: Health Problems Reportedly Worsened or Did Not Improve Following Stem Cell Procedures 

The lawsuit describes alleged experiences of six plaintiffs.  One plaintiff reportedly underwent initial stem cell procedure in South Korea followed by second procedure in Mexico. Remaining plaintiffs all received stem cells in China or Mexico.

 

Brad Lee

According to court filing, one plaintiff allegedly received stem cells in South Korea. The lawsuit states,

“Plaintiff, Brad Lee, was injected with stem cells in Korea, despite the fact that it is prohibited in Korea. After the injection, Plaintiff Brad Lee was told by Defendants not to reveal to anyone the fact that his treatment was performed in Korea.”

The suit adds,

“Plaintiff BRAD LEE was, and is, suffering from acute arthritis on his left knee, and diabetes. He paid $15,000 for the treatment. He received intravenous infusion and injection in his left knee on or about September 1, 2009 in Korea, and on or about September 30, 2010 in Mexico. His condition has worsened.”

 

With the exception of Brad Lee, remaining plaintiffs allegedly received infusions and injections in China or Mexico. Court filing states, “Plaintiffs are informed, believe and therefore allege that such treatments in China and Mexico were performed by unqualified individuals without proper licenses, permits, training, or supervision.”

 

Ben Hang Lee

According to lawsuit,

“Plaintiff BEN HANG LEE was, and is, suffering from diabetes. He paid $15000 for the treatment. He received intravenous infusion on two occasions, on or about July 31, 2010 and September 30, 2010, both in Tijuana, Mexico. His condition has worsened.”


Eun Zoo Lee

“Plaintiff EUN ZOO LEE was, and is, suffering from insomnia, and minor discomfort on her left knee.  She paid $15,000 for the treatment. She received intravenous infusion on two occasions, on or about July 31, 2010 and September 30, 2010, both in Tijuana, Mexico. She also received injection of the stem cells in her left knee on or about September 30, 2010. Her condition has worsened.”

 

William Lee

“Plaintiff WILLIAM LEE was, and is, suffering from diabetes and back pain. He paid $7,500 for the treatment. He received intravenous infusion on or about January 5, 2010 in China. His condition did not improve at all.”

 

Jung Hui Lee

“Plaintiff JUNG HUI LEE was, and is, suffering from insomnia, and minor discomfort on her right knee.  She paid $15,000 for the treatment. She received intravenous infusion on or about January 5, 2010 in China. She also received intravenous infusion and injection in her right knee on or about September 30, 2010 in Mexico. Immediately after receiving injection in her right knee, she developed an excruciating pain on her right knee that lasted for weeks, and she had to be on a wheel chair during that time.”

 

“In or around November, 2010, a settlement was reached between Plaintiff JUNG HUI LEE and Defendants. The settlement is unfair, unduly oppressive, unreasonable and unconscionable in that it is not commensurate with Plaintiff JUNG HUI LEE’s physical and mental pain and suffering. Also the settlement was not a result of fair and good faith negotiation in that Plaintiff JUNG HUI LEE was hurried into executing the agreement written in English without fulling understanding its terms.”

 

Helen Ju Lee

“Plaintiff HELEN JU LEE was, and still is, suffering from high blood pressure. She paid $7,500 for the treatment. She received intravenous infusion on or about September 30, 2010 in Mexico. Her condition did not improve at all.”

 

Transportation and Administration of Stem Cells

According to lawsuit, stem cells were shipped to and from South Korea

“in containers and under conditions not suitable for such transportation by individuals who were neither qualified nor trained to transport the stem cells.”

“In fact, the stem cells that were administered into Plaintiffs in Mexico were transported from Korea to China and then to Mexico through Los Angeles in the course of a few days during the hot summer in high temperature.”

“Despite the lengthy, unsanitary, and unsuitable transportation, Defendants did not perform any tests on the stem cells to ascertain their quality and freshness prior to administering them into Plaintiffs in Mexico.”

“Defendants are informed, believe and thereon allege that the stem cells that were injected and infused in Mexico were stale, which caused severe infection in Plaintiff JUNG HUI LEE, and caused other Plaintiffs’ ailments to worsen.”

“Plaintiffs are further informed, believe and thereon allege that the individuals who administered the stem cells in Korea, China and Mexico were neither trained nor qualified to do so.”

 

Allegation that Pre-and-Post Operative Care Was Not Provided

The lawsuit alleges that plaintiffs did not receive adequate care both prior to administration of stem cells and following completion of stem cell procedures. Plaintiffs reportedly requested such treatment.  The suit states,

“Other than extraction of fat cells, and infusion and injection of cells back into Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs were not provided with any care, information, assistance, or instruction regarding pre and/or post treatment and care whatsoever, even though Plaintiffs repeatedly demanded and requested such care and information.”

 

Causes of Action

The lawsuit describes seven causes of action.

First Cause of Action: Fraud-Intentional Misrepresentation of Fact

Plaintiffs allege that when Defendants made claims and representations concerning use of stem cells,

“they knew them to be false in that the stem cell treatment is only in the experimental state, not approved in the United States and Korea, and there is no scientific data or evidence that stem cell treatment would cure all ailments, or any specific ailments that Plaintiffs were then and are now suffering from. Defendants further knew that there is no scientific data or evidence that stem cell treatment would reverse aging, restore virility, and therefore prevent future illness. Furthermore, Defendants intentionally concealed risks involved with the treatment, or the fact that the risk is largely unknown due to lack of clinical data. Defendants made such representations as alleged herein with the intention to induce Plaintiffs to undergo the treatment in reliance on such representations, or with the expectation that Plaintiffs would so act.”

“Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made, were ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations, and believed them to be true and reasonably relied on them. In reasonable reliance on these representations, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to undergo the treatment at great expense and discomfort. Had Plaintiffs known the actual facts, they would not have taken such actions.”

“…The aforementioned conduct of Defendants was an intentional misrepresentation, deceit, or concealment of a material fact known to the Defendants with the intention of depriving Plaintiffs of property or legal rights or otherwise causing injury, and was despicable conduct that subjected Plaintiffs to a cruel and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.”

 

Second Cause of Action: Negligent Misrepresentation of Fact

The lawsuit states, “To the degree that” various representations made by Defendants

“were not intentional misrepresentations of material facts, Defendants had no reasonable basis to believe such facts to be true and had a duty to disclose the true facts.”

“Defendants made such representations as alleged herein with the intention to induce Plaintiffs to undergo the treatment in reliance on such representations, or with the expectation that the Plaintiffs would so act.”

“Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made, were ignorant of the falsity of Defendants’ representations, and believed them to be true and reasonably relied on them. In reasonable reliance on these representations, Plaintiffs paid large sums of money to undergo the treatment at great expense and discomfort. Had Plaintiffs known the actual facts, they would not have taken such actions.”

 

Third Cause of Action: False Advertising in Violation of California Business and Professions Code

According to filing for plaintiffs,

“Defendants’ conduct (including both acts and omissions) as alleged herein, was and is false or misleading advertising which is likely to, and has, caused deception of the general public, and constitutes a violation of the Unfair Competition law…such conduct is deceptive and injures consumers as well as Plaintiffs.”

“Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law for the injuries caused by Defendants’ conduct, acts, and omissions, and the general public will be irreparably harmed if such acts and omissions are not enjoined. Plaintiffs are entitled to injunctive relief to prohibit these acts and omissions and/or continued threatened acts of Defendants, to prevent such irreparable harm from happening in the future.”

“As a result of Defendants’ conduct, acts and omissions, Plaintiffs are entitled to equitable restitution of any and all profits, revenues, compensation or other payments obtained by Defendants as a result of their acts of false advertising.”

 

Fourth Cause of Action: Unfair Competition in Violation of California Business and Professions Code

Court filing states,

“The acts of Defendants alleged above constitute unfair competition in that such acts are unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices and are unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising and promotion that is prohibited by…the California Business & Professions Code, which prohibits practice of medicine without a certificate, and Section 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code.”

“Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law and is presently suffering irreparable injury by and through Defendants’ actions.”

“Defendants’ acts of unfair competition will be ongoing unless enjoined by this court, and unless the court makes such orders as are necessary to prevent the use or employment by Defendants of any act which constitutes unfair competition, or as may be necessary to restore to Plaintiffs any money which may have been acquired by Defendants by means of such unfair competition.”

 

Fifth Cause of Action: Financial Elder Abuse in Violation of Wel & Int. Code Section 15610.30 et al.

The lawsuit notes that five of six plaintiffs were over sixty-five when alleged stem cell procedures occurred.

“Defendants obtained personal property, to wit-money, from Plaintiffs.”

“Plaintiffs, except for HYUN JU LEE, were well over 65 years of age at the time of the conduct alleged in this complaint.”

“Defendants knew or should have known that such taking was likely to be harmful to Plaintiffs.”

“As a direct and proximate result of such conduct, Plaintiffs were harmed and suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.”

“In addition to the financial loss, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiffs endured pain and suffering including emotional distress, nervousness, distraction, loss of sleep, and humiliation.”

“Defendants’ conduct was done with recklessness, oppression, fraud, and malice in that Defendants knew such conduct was wrongful, knew it was likely to damage Plaintiff, and used fraud and deceit to carry out the conduct, so as to justify an award of exemplary and punitive damages.”

 

Sixth Cause of Action: Negligence

Court filing states that alleged recipients of stem cells were owed a duty of care.  It states, defendants

“owed plaintiffs a duty of care to exercise reasonable skill and care in performance of their duties. They knew or should have known that failure to exercise their duty of care would cause harm to Plaintiffs.”

“Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendants, and each of them, violated their duty of care to Plaintiffs and failed to exercise ordinary care in harvesting, culturing, growing, storing, transporting, and administering the stem cells.”

“As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiffs have been damaged.”

 

Seventh Cause of Action: Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing

Lawsuit alleges breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.  It states,

“Agreements and transactions between Plaintiffs and Defendants contain an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing which obligates each party from refrain from acting in any way that could jeopardize, impair, or interfere with the rights of the other party to receive the benefits of said agreements and transactions.”

“Defendants materially breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing…by, among other things, engaging in the wrongful acts and omissions described above, including but not limited to their above-referenced fraudulent conduct.”

“…As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ material breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, Plaintiffs have suffered damages.”

 

Court Judgment Sought by Plaintiffs

Plaintiffs seek following court judgment against defendants:

“AS TO THE FIRST, FIFTH AND SEVENTH CAUSES OF ACTION

1. For punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendants and deter others form (sic) engaging in similar misconduct;

AS TO THIRD AND FOURTH CAUSES OF ACTION

2. Injunctive relief enjoining Defendants from fraudulent acts alleged in the complaint;

3. Restitution and disgorgement of profit according to proof at trial;

AS TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION

4. For compensatory damages according to proof at trial;

5. For costs of suit incurred herein;

6. For attorneys’ fees according to proof;

7. For such other and further relief as the court deems just and proper.”

 

Conclusion

As my repeated use of the words “alleged” and “allegedly” indicate, claims made by plaintiffs are allegations. This point needs to be noted when examining and discussing Ben Hang Lee et al v. Human Biostar Inc et al. The case is not settled.  However this case is resolved, plaintiffs’ claims merit notice.

 

According to an article published in Nature in 2010, at that time 130 patients from the United States had purchased and undergone stem cell procedures marketed by RNL Life Science and provided at clinics in Mexico, China, and Japan. Company President Jin Han Hong was forthcoming about RNL Life Science’s activities when interviewed by David Cyranoski.  Hong, for example, reportedly disclosed details concerning affiliated clinics and the types of illnesses the company claimed could be treated with the stem cell procedures it promoted and provided.  Prior to filing of Ben Hang Lee et al v. Human Biostar Inc et al, it appears that there are no publicly accessible reports of clients of RNL Life Science claiming to have suffered complications as a result of undergoing stem cell procedures or alleging that they are victims of fraud. (In contrast, there are reports that at least two individuals died and other patients were harmed after receiving stem cells processed by RNL Bio and shipped to health care facilities in China and Japan.) This lawsuit reveals that six patients allege that they were given inaccurate information about risks and benefits associated with undergoing adult autologous stem cells, did not benefit or experienced a worsening of health problems following these procedures, and were victims of fraudulent activity. Proponents and critics of stem cell tourism, interested observers of RNL Bio and RNL Life Science Inc., and corporate licensing partners of RNL Bio will want to pay close attention to this lawsuit and observe how plaintiffs’ allegations are addressed.

——————–

*Explanatory note: The case was moved from the Superior Court of the State of California to United States District Court for the Central District of California on grounds of diversity. Diversity jurisdiction refers to the fact that plaintiffs are citizens of California, Human Biostar Inc. is a Texas Corporation, RNL Bio Co. Ltd. Is a South Korean company, Jin Han Hong is permanent resident of the U.S. and resides in Maryland, and Jeong Chan Ra is a citizen of South Korea.

———————

Leigh Turner

July 5, 2012

PDF24 Creator    Send article as PDF   

Permanent link to this article: http://www.healthintheglobalvillage.com/2012/07/05/rnl-bio-jeong-chan-ra-human-biostar-inc-jin-han-hong-sued-for-fraud-in-stem-cell-lawsuit/

6 pings

  1. ‘Blood in the water’ as Korean stem cell clinic sued by patients for fraud | Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog

    [...] Bio of Korea has reportedly just been sued for fraud by patients related to stem cell treatments it allegedly gave them. RNL [...]

  2. Cells Weekly – July 8, 2012 | Stem Cell Assays

    [...] was publicly exposed. Bioethicist @LeighGTurner has published a description of RNL Bio case on his blog: This lawsuit reveals that six patients allege that they were given inaccurate information about [...]

  3. Celltex & RNLBio/Biostar: breaking up is hard to do? | Knoepfler Lab Stem Cell Blog

    [...] Biostar was itself sued by patients for alleged stem cell fraud. [...]

  4. RNL « Jay's Blog station

    [...] to complete the picture, read about other RNL Bio lawsuits here and here.So, RNL Bio generated a fontain of lawsuits this year. We’re looking forward for 2013! [...]

  5. Regenerative medicine and cell therapy industry in 2012 | Stem Cell Assays

    [...] that we have never seen before. I’d mention only major cases. For the first time, the patient-initiated lawsuit against stem cell therapeutic company (RNL Bio) went public. Very recently we observed another weird case, where “stem cell [...]

  6. Cells Weekly – January 6, 2013 | Stem Cell Assays

    [...] Chairman of RNL BIO and Nobel Prize nominee (!) Finally, as a follow-up of summer’s lawsuit, a public document: RNL Bio sues their 6 patients, who alleged fraud against the company few months [...]

Leave a Reply