for probing the affairs of Televest.

Mr. Kempe was put on the spot in Supreme Court by Mr. Julian Hall, lawyer for three directors of the troubled firm.

On December 15, Mr. Kempe and Mr. Gil Tucker were named joint provisional liquidators of Televest and four related companies.

A hearing is now under way into whether Televest and its parent company Telecheck should be wound up.

It has been claimed that about 500 Televest investors are owed a total of more than $8 million.

A group together representing $2 million in deposits have demanded their money back.

Mr. Kempe spent the afternoon on the witness stand.

"How much have you cost so far?'' Mr. Hall asked him.

Opposing lawyer Mr. Narinder Hargun objected, saying the question was not relevant. The issue was the state of the company on December 15, he said.

Mr. Hall disputed this. He argued it was important to find out how much money Televest had left.

But Puisne judge the Hon. Mr. Justice Ground told Mr. Hall: "Apart from the mischief value of the information, I don't see how it can assist your clients at all.

"It's nothing to do with the case that is being put before me.'' It would damage the case against winding up if it was shown the firm had fewer assets, he said.

After a break, Mr. Hall said he saw the "good sense'' of this caution.

The lawyer represents directors Mr. Richard Burns, Mr. Thomas Burns and Mr.

Chris Donnachie.

Much of his questioning yesterday was aimed at disputing alleged debts resulting from a transfer of assets and liablities to Telecheck from TBL, a related company already ordered to be wound up.

He argues his clients agreed to the deal mistakenly.

He put it to Mr. Kempe that there had been offers to pay back money borrowed from Televest by directors.

Mr. Kempe said there had been "hints and suggestions'' but not an offer.

He rejected a suggestion that for the past week he had discouraged such discussions.

Even if the loans were recoverable, Televest would still be insolvent, he said.

Mr. Kempe denied a figure included in a report on the company had been plucked "out of thin air''.

And he defended the cancellation of Signature credit cards issued by Telecheck.

Mr. Hall suggested the chance of recovering credit card debts had been reduced by "shutting the business down''. Mr. Kempe disagreed. Arrears had been increasing, he said.

An "appalling'' number of cardholders had been paying only the minimum monthly amounts.

Mr. Hall turned to a meeting on December 15 involving Mr. Kempe and Televest directors.

He suggested that at the meeting, Mr. Kempe's position was not that Televest was hopelessly insolvent. Instead, Mr. Kempe had suggested voluntary liquidation as a way of protecting the company from a run on its assets by investors.

"At that time it was my view that the company was insolvent,'' Mr. Kempe replied.

His position had been that breathing space was needed so a "white knight'' could be found and a rescue plan put together.

Earlier yesterday, Mr. Hall questioned Mr. Peter West, of English accounting firm Price Waterhouse.

Mr. Hall asked if his involvement in the case had been with two dormant companies TBL and CTRAK, and if he knew there were two functioning companies in Bermuda called Televest and Telecheck.

Mr. Hall suggested Mr. West had been an "architect'' behind the plan to wind up all the companies. Mr. West denied this.

He said: "I was involved in the decision to petition the court for the winding up of CTRAK and TBL but then it was up to the petitioners to take it further.

"I was aware that there was a possibility that there could be a knock-on effect from the appointment of liquidators for the two dormant companies to Televest and Telecheck. But it was not a planned decision to close these companies.'' Mr. Hall faced legal arguments from Mr. Hargun and Mr. Saul Froomkin, who represents more than 175 investors seeking the winding up of Televest.

Mr. Justice Ground supported their arguments that even if there was malice or, as Mr. Froomkin put it, a criminal conspiracy to destroy the Burns brothers by winding up their company, it was not relevant to the case because it was not in the sworn statements before the court.

At one point Mr. Hall became so annoyed with interruptions to his cross examination that he threw his notepad onto his desk.

At another point, Mr. Froomkin was told by the judge to sit down and stop "meddling''.