Former Bermuda Fire director Gregory Haycock yesterday continued to wrangle in Supreme Court with Cooper & Lines representative Ian Croxford QC, over the role of Bermuda Fire's finance advisors at the time that Bermuda Fire planned its 1991 reorganisation.

Mr. Croxford's legal colleagues also got their wigs ruffled during his cross-examination, on the question of Bermuda Fire's solvency in 1991.

With respect to Mr. Haycock's own understanding of that issue, the witness said: "I never felt at any time the company was insolvent ... my clear understanding was it was not likely to be insolvent in the future. Bermuda Fire had good assets, good income, good cashflow; the income produced good capital, which was retained by the company.'' Much of the afternoon sessions were occupied with the executive overview of Bermuda Fire presented by investment bankers J.P. Morgan in April, 1991. As with the preceding testimony of BF&M chief executive officer Glenn Titterton, Mr. Haycock described a disappointment on the part of management with the summary nature of that $250,000 report.

Examining a hard copy of the report, Mr. Croxford noted: "Morgans were saying that the company's international books were deteriorating.'' Mr. Haycock said that he had been aware of this element from year to year.

"When they mentioned solvency points, what did they say?'' Mr. Haycock replied: "They didn't go into detail about any of these points.'' Mr. Croxford then turned to a Bermuda Fire board meeting of July 9, 1991, at which an audit report was presented, based largely on Bermuda Fire's accounts up to December 31, 1990. Mr. Haycock pointed out that subsequent events -- material items such as a significant deterioration of assets -- should also have been considered by auditors, including anything subsequent that was of possible significance and known to underwriters Tillinghast of London.

"In July, 1991, you had absolutely no expectation, did you, that Tillinghast was considering post 31/20/90 figures,'' Mr. Croxford said. Mr. Haycock answered, "Put it this way. If Coopers had an obligation to consider matters subsequent, then Tillinghast would have an obligation to respond.'' "Are you suggesting that in respect of an audit, an auditor can require an actuary to carry out further work?'' said Mr. Croxford. Mr. Haycock repeated that auditors had an obligation "to be satisfied that there was nothing untoward they would have to bring to our attention.'' "The obvious people to ask about this whole area of Weavers would be management, wouldn't it?'' Mr.

Croxford asked, to which the witness answered: "The finance department of Bermuda Fire relied to a large degree on the added expertise of the auditors.'' Mr. Haycock added: "The auditors cannot simply rely on management. They must also make independent inquiries.'' When Mr. Croxford pointed out that he had no personal experience in auditing insurance, Mr. Haycock insisted: "I don't think that matters.'' The case continues today.