today in defence of the allegations of professional negligence made against the firm by the liquidators of Bermuda Fire & Marine Company Ltd.

The other three defendants before him will have passed on to him by implication a heavy ball with which to carry.

BF&M Ltd.'s defence included the claim that the transfer of assets in 1991 to the company wasn't a fraud because the Bermuda Fire board trusted professional advice -- the auditors in particular -- that there was a $12 million surplus left in the international operation for creditors.

Bermuda Fire's five former directors accused of fraud then claim the decision to reorganise the company was made by the board, and they in turn trusted profession advice from Conyers Dill & Pearman and Cooper & Lines.

On Friday in Supreme Court Geoffrey Vos, lawyer for Conyers Dill & Pearman, in turn lobbed the liability ball to Mr. Croxford. He said Mr. Collis did not know, as alleged, whether Bermuda Fire was insolvent and as a lawyer he was not qualified to make financial decisions.

However as a lawyer he advised the board of directors on ten occasions not to make a dividend of BF&M shares to Bermuda Fire's shareholders if it would render the company insolvent and harm creditors. He also advised the board in writing that they had to make a decision by relying "upon the opinions and valuations of its expert advisors insofar as it is reasonable to do so''.

Mr. Vos said the allegation that Mr. Collis could have known Bermuda Fire was insolvent was wrong and that his advice was proper by stating the responsibility lay with the board.

"No corporate lawyer would ever be prepared to take responsibility for the advice of experts in other disciplines,'' he said. "If you consider what other advice CD&P could have given, you realise immediately how this advice was correct. CD&P could, for example, have said: `It is reasonable for the directors to rely on the advice of these experts'. If CD&P had said that, it would be endorsing the advice of Cooper & Lines, and of Tillinghast, which it had no expertise to do, and was not instructed to do, and could not have been expected to do. It was for the directors to evaluate the advice of experts.'' Bermuda Fire's liquidator claims that the board should have made millions of dollars more of provisions in liabilities for future pollution claims and bad debt from reinsurers. Such provisions would have meant Bermuda Fire was insolvent at the end of 1990, they claim.

Liquidator Ernst & Young also claims the defendants should not have relied on the estimates on liabilities from actuarial firm Tillinghast as these had consistently underestimated future claims since 1988.

Cooper & Lines to begin defence Mr. Vos said Mr. Collis never saw the actuarial reports and wasn't qualified to evaluate them.

Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux asked who then was qualified to evaluate the Tillinghast estimates. Mr. Vos said Mr. Collis might have advised the company the figures weren't reliable if it knew that Tillinghast was an incompetent expert. However since Tillinghast was one of the top actuarial firms in the world, he had no reason to give such advice.

"Mr. Vos, but perhaps the long and short answer would have been, `Well, they are advised by Cooper & Lines','' Mr. Justice Meerabux suggested.

"That is certainly an answer,'' Mr. Vos replied.

At this point the three lawyers for Cooper & Lines shook their heads vigorously in denial.

Mr. Vos plans to conclude his opening early today, after which Cooper & Lines takes the stage to make a more vocal protest against the allegations.

The end of the line for passing on responsibility for underestimating future liabilities potentially rests with Tillinghast. This may be part of the Cooper & Lines defence. Tillinghast, which is not a defendant in the trial, declined to send any experts to Bermuda to testify at the trial.

Charles Collis: Bermuda Fire & Marine chairman could not have known the company was insolvent.

BUSINESS BUC