The lawyer defending BF&M Ltd. and the company's shareholders in the Bermuda Fire case got off to an inauspicious start yesterday when she suggested that Supreme Court Puisne Judge Vincent Meerabux delay hearing her opening argument until he first do some homework.

Mr. Justice Meerabux did not seem amused by the suggestion and asked Elizabeth Gloster to be ready to give her opening defence for BF&M and the shareholders this morning.

Ms Gloster had asked Mr. Justice Meerabux to spend all day today reading the witness statements so she wouldn't have to outline them in such detail when laying out BF&M and the shareholder's case.

"I do not know where you get your information from in relation to how this particular court operates,'' Mr. Justice Meerabux said. "It seems to be, some of you may be misinformed about how I conduct my trials. What I ask you to do is to come here promptly at 9.45 and let us get on with your side of the story.'' The statements came at the end of a day in which Gabriel Moss, lawyer for Bermuda Fire liquidator Ernst & Young, wrapped up ten days of outlining his case against the defendants.

Yesterday, Mr. Moss finished off by going through documents he claimed showed that Bermuda Fire finance committee minutes were altered and important references to potential liquidation were left out in discussions leading up to the 1991 reorganisation.

He alleged that the missing information was an attempt to cover up traces that their real intention was to strip assets out of an insolvent Bermuda Fire and into BF&M, away from international creditors.

Mr. Moss was comparing detailed notes of the meetings taken by Conyers Dill & Pearman lawyer Martin Lane and the official minutes.

Mr. Lane's notes of a key May 29, 1991 meeting of the finance committee noted that company chairman Charles Collis stated that the company was having problems and "may have to look at shareholders for cash to enable it to continue trading.'' Mr. Moss also said this statement and six others referring to the organisation were missing from the official minutes when they were finally approved. Mr.

Lane's notes were submitted for inclusion in the minutes but he was told they had "too much detail'' according to Mr. Moss.

Later Conyers Dill & Pearman lawyer John Collis produced an abridged version of Mr. Lane's notes. It was this abridged version that was then made part of the official minutes.

Mr. Moss claimed that during the May 29 meeting John Collis emphasised that the current shareholders in Bermuda Fire should hold at least 51 percent of BF&M shares so in case of liquidation the creditors could not seize control of the new company.

"The word `liquidation' never made it into the official minutes,'' Mr. Moss said.

Other statements allegedly omitted included John Collis' statement that the reorganisation would have to be done so as to guard against claims of fraud from policyholders, and David Lines' statement that Cooper & Lines could take an "aggressive view'' of Bermuda Fire's balance sheet.

The passing of the official minutes was deferred for three subsequent meetings. They were finally approved on July 21.

Mr. Moss claimed that subsequent notes by Mr. Lane and the official minutes show the same pattern of a cover up of the nature of the 1991 reorganisation.

In one of Mr. Lane's notes David Lines is quoted at a meeting on June 5 as stating that he had instructed liquidation specialists in the UK to look at how "he would attack the reorganisation as a liquidator''.

Elizabeth Gloster