decision in London which turned back an attempt to block his discharge from his first bankruptcy.

But he warns that should he win a European Court of Human Rights case he has filed, Bermuda could be forced to pay compensation to him by way of reimbursement of the UK's costs.

The Englishmen said that Focus liquidators were spending huge sums of the company's money in litigating against him.

Mr. Hardy was initially declared bankrupt as a result of a disputed claim by Focus liquidators three years ago. Coopers & Lybrand/Cooper & Lines partners David Lines and Peter Mitchell this summer unsuccessfully sought to have the bankruptcy continue past the usually automatic three-year term.

Mr. Lines was loath this week to get into a war of words, but he responded: "The man talks nonsense. Remember, there is an arrest warrant for him in Bermuda for failing to answer the court. The man has not responded to a court order, when the charges are very serious.'' Mr. Lines was referring to a committal warrant, ordered by the Supreme Court 18 months ago in Mr. Hardy's absence. He faces instant arrest upon arrival here.

A Supreme Court judge accepted allegations that he scandalised the court with a letter campaign aimed at then Chief Justice Sir James Astwood.

But the liquidators also want from Mr. Hardy some $20 million that went missing from his former Focus Insurance.

Mr. Lines said, "As liquidators, we are working with the trustee in bankruptcy to pursue those monies, wherever they are. Mr. Hardy is a very difficult man to get to answer. But he is now presumably cooperating with the British judicial system.'' Mr. Hardy's assets will continue to be scrutinised because of a second bankruptcy put in effect in April, after an application by Coopers & Lybrand.

He had maintained last month, in comments to The Royal Gazette , that the actions of the Coopers partners in trying to block his discharge from bankruptcy were not proper under insolvency laws.

And as a result of the court decision, he commented: "In essence the High Court has stated that not even Coopers & Lybrand can usurp the function of an officer of the crown in the exercise of his public office.'' It was Coopers that sought action by the official receiver and Mr. Hardy's trustee in bankruptcy to bring the failed action to the court. When they refused, Coopers went to the courts themselves.

Mr. Hardy said, "This further defeat follows hard on the heels of the decision of the Vice Chancellor Sir Richard Scott, that the English High Court would refuse to assist Lines and Mitchell, stating that having chosen bankruptcy as their preferred route, they must stick to that choice and do nothing that would conflict with the English bankruptcy regime.

"Sir Richard also stated that it was still up to the trustee to investigate whether Lines and Mitchell's underlying claim was capable of being regarded as a proper debt, which I and others say it clearly is not even by their own correspondence and admissions, which contradict their whole case.

"Taken together, these two applications must have set the Focus estate back not less than $500,000 in legal and accounting fees, which does not bear a great deal of comparison with the estimated dividend to creditors of two percent, or $1,300,000, which Lines and Mitchell told Sir Richard Scott was all that was left after their, and their lawyers, fees before this latest fiasco.

"I believe that the total paid out on legal fees is more than $3 million to date, none of which can be recovered as I don't have any monies. Indeed, the problem is made worse because Lines has subordinated Focus' claims until after their nominee as trustee has been paid, and he says there isn't enough to pay him anyway.'' Mr. Hardy said that creditors of Focus, Forum and Aneco really should take a hard look at where their best interests lie.

"Lines and Mitchell,'' he said, "are frantically trying to ensure that their silly statement of claim is never investigated on its merits in order to avoid being brought to account by the creditors and me.

"One day people will wake up to the fact that the only "pot of gold'' is the unlimited damages undertakings given by Coopers & Lybrand for malicious and false prosecution, which extends to any person affected by the Mareva injunction and thus includes Forum and Aneco, if not Focus.'' Mr. Lines responded: "On that subject alone, it goes back to the Supreme Court judgment in Bermuda. The man has not answered the question. "On the fees, I will make no comment. I will not get drawn into that discussion.'' Mr. Hardy said the Court of Appeal this November was to hear his appeal against the original bankruptcy order that was made without consideration of the merits of his defence.

He said, "All I have ever sought is a determination of the merits of the claims against me, but that is of course wholly unacceptable to Lines and Mitchell, who know that their own evidence shows that I neither did nor could I have done what they accuse me of.'' Mark Hardy BUSINESS BUC