The woman at the helm of Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance Co. Ltd.'s international operations believed the company's losses in the London market were under control when profitable domestic assets were transferred to BF&M Ltd. in 1991, a court heard yesterday.

Irmgard Viera, who became head of Bermuda Fire's international operations in 1989, also said she relied on figures presented by Cooper & Lines which showed that Bermuda Fire would have a $12 million surplus left after the 1991 reorganisation.

Ms Viera was testifying on behalf of defendant BF&M. She is currently vice president of BF&M Management Ltd. Bermuda Fire's liquidator claims the 1991 reorganisation was a fraud designed to strip profitable assets out of the company and away from creditors.

Ms Viera said she would have spoken up at board and finance committee meetings if she had believed financial figures had been inaccurate.

A pro forma balance sheet presented at a September 1991 board meeting was "reasonable and accurate'', she agreed under questioning from lawyer Robin Potts, who represents five members of the finance committee accused of fraud.

She said actuarial reports from Tillinghast estimating the company's losses seemed to be getting more accurate and the company was fully reserving for those losses.

"I assumed that after eight or nine actuarial reports and that with more information available at the time, the data was more complete and the projections more accurate,'' Ms Viera said.

She said she understood company auditors Cooper & Lines to be giving advice on the reorganisation to the finance committee and board meetings.

Cooper & Lines, a defendant in the case, denies the firm acted beyond a role of auditor.

Under questioning from Geoffrey Vos, lawyer for defendant Conyers Dill & Pearman, Ms Viera said she understood the board received legal advice on the reorganisation from the firm.

Conyers Dill & Pearman claims that it gave Bermuda Fire and the board of directors the proper legal advice on the reorganisation.

She could not remember the specific proposals on the reorganisation presented by Conyers Dill & Pearman.

The firm's lawyers had originally presented a proposal for a holding company with the international and domestic operations as separate subsidiaries.

She disputed claims made by Cooper & Lines that the figures in the pro forma balance sheet were intended as a "rough'' guide.

She agreed it would have been her duty to make it known if she believed the figures were inaccurate.

"They didn't suggest they were rough or unreliable,'' she said.

Ms Viera continues giving testimony Monday.

BUSINESS BUC