Mr. Andrew Martin of Mello, Hollis, Jones & Martin said yesterday that he acted for "a number'' of preferred shareholders in Televest Ltd. and had advised them to ask that their shares be redeemed.

The action could help resolve competing claims about the company's solvency, Mr. Martin told The Royal Gazette .

"Those preferred shareholders who have sought our advice so far have been advised that if they want their money back, then the sensible thing to do is issue a notice of redemption in accordance with the shares that they purchased,'' he said.

"If you don't ask for it, you're not going to get it.'' Mr. Julian Hall, who represents three Televest directors fighting petitions to wind up Televest and related companies, accused Mr. Martin of recommending a run on the company's assets.

"Wait to see what the outcome of the proceedings are,'' Mr. Hall said. "I cannot understand the rationale for giving this advice, except if, as I suspect, it comes ultimately on the recommendation of the joint provisional liquidators.'' Attracted by guaranteed annual returns of seven to nine percent, more than 500 Bermudian investors bought blocks of preferred shares in Televest. The shares were to be redeemable upon 14 days notice.

But redemption of shares was halted in December when the Supreme Court named Mr. Charles Kempe and Mr. Gil Tucker of Kempe & Whittle Ltd. joint provisional liquidators of Televest. A hearing date on petitions to wind up the Televest group has not been set.

Mr. Kempe said yesterday any requests for share redemption would not be acted on pending "a resolution of the status of those shareholders in a winding-up''.

He said he took no position on whether preferred shareholders should ask for redemptions or not.

Both Mr. Martin and Mr. Kempe said that in the event Televest was ordered wound up, preferred shareholders who had asked that their shares be redeemed would be treated no differently than those who had not.

"There is no suggestion on anyone's part that some shareholders are going to get redemption ahead of others,'' Mr. Martin said.

But if the company was solvent and shareholders who demanded redemptions did not receive them, "they will be entitled to ask why not''.

The petition to wind up Televest and Telecheck Holdings Ltd. has been described as the end of a chain reaction begun by claims from a bankrupt company in the Channel Islands.

Sarnia Mutual Investments Ltd of Guernsey, which is in receivership, reportedly provided millions of dollars in start-up capital and equity investment to CTRAK Ltd. and TBL Ltd., two companies which are related to Televest.

A day after CTRAK and TBL were placed in provisional liquidation, Televest and Telecheck suffered the same fate. A fifth company, Compuguide Ltd., was later added to the list.

A note to financial statements said Televest was "economically dependent'' on CTRAK.

Telecheck, which owned Televest, operated 10,000 Signature and Travel Club credit cards, as well as a cheque authorisation service for merchants.

Mr. Hall has said Televest "to all intents and purposes...had no debts.'' On behalf of clients Mr. Thomas Burns, Mr. Richard Burns, and Mr. Christopher Donnachie, he is also opposing the winding-up petition on the grounds it "purports to have been presented by Televest itself.'' "Mr. Ernest Morrison of Hallett, Whitney & Patton, who was corporate legal adviser to Televest Ltd., has sworn a comprehensive affidavit which confirms that the company did not instruct Appleby, Spurling & Kempe to present a petition on its behalf for winding up,'' Mr. Hall said in a January 31 letter to Mr. Martin.

A February 7 Supreme Court hearing is set to hear arguments from Mr. Hall that the petitions and provisional liquidators be dismissed. At that time, the court is also expected to resolve differences over an undertaking that Chief Justice the Hon. Austin Ward ordered to cover damages if it is determined the petitions should never have been brought.

Mr. Martin said the companies had not yet been ordered wound up and investors were receiving mixed signals.

"On the one hand, Mr. Hall and his clients are saying: `Don't worry, there is no problem.' On the other hand, you have the liquidators saying that this company doesn't have any money.

"If you make an investment... you certainly are entitled to ask for your money back,'' Mr. Martin said. "If in fact, the company is solvent, there should be no difficulty with that.''