rejected one of several lawsuits filed against them as absurd.

The latest statement from Nasdaq-listed Stirling Cooke reiterated that the Odyssey Re (London) legal case was "totally without merit''. It followed Odyssey Re's move to file an amended complaint earlier this week.

Stirling Cooke shares have taken a battering over the past year, not helped by negative publicity emanating from the legal wrangles over business brokered and underwritten by the company.

There was also the shock news last month that CEO, president and company founder Nicholas Mark Cooke was to stand down.

Rumours circulated in April that major shareholder in the company Goldman Sachs, which owns around a quarter of Stirling Cooke, met with the company's senior management in April to discuss the "company's plight'' prompting the shake up.

That same month Bermuda-based director Warren Cabral resigned suddenly from the company -- although a Stirling Cooke spokesman insisted then there was "no news behind the resignation''.

And previous auditor KPMG Peat Marwick also resigned from the job. Odyssey Re amended their complaint earlier this week in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in reply to Stirling Cooke's June 28 motion in the same court to dismiss the suit. The original suit in question is against Stirling Cooke, several of its subsidiaries and other parties.

Yesterday Stirling Cooke's statement said: "The amended complaint contains no new causes of action against the defendants.

"Stirling Cooke Brown continues to view Odyssey Re's allegations to be totally without merit, and is vigorously pursuing its motion to dismiss this lawsuit.'' Chiefs at Stirling Cooke -- which through subsidiaries provides risk management services mostly to US-based small and mid-sized businesses -- expect to file a motion to dismiss Odyssey Re's amended complaint by October.

The latest defensive stance of their legal position follows their second quarter results filed last week which showed net income was down 75 percent on the same period in 1998, to $1 million from $4 million.

The company blamed the disappointing results partly on the costly impact of several law suits it was battling, which saw it put aside $4.8 million before tax during the first six months of 1999.

The financial outlook was "further revised downward for the remainder of 1999'' because of the spiralling legal and advisory costs as well as competitive market forces. And the company estimated net income for the year would be driven to about $8 million -- around half of the $16 million posted last year.

COURTS CTS