Bermuda affiliate, is set to go to court in London and New York over claims that key executives conspired to damage the business.

Meanwhile the top executives of the Bermuda company, Advertising Associates Company Ltd. (AAC), are watching the still unfolding story of the global advertising group, Saatchi & Saatchi, and the man in the middle, Mr. Maurice Saatchi, although they expect no local fall out.

They are awaiting the results of legal action that is expected to be heard on both sides of the Atlantic beginning over the next fortnight, for a company that has had no leader since Mr. Saatchi several weeks ago was forced out of the company that he and his brother Charles started in 1970.

Principal of AAC, Mrs. Sue White, was coordinator as Bermuda played host in 1982 to Mr. Saatchi and others when he was in Bermuda to ink a deal that saw his UK company pay $60 million for the US advertising agency, Compton New York, which itself, at one time owned a 30 percent stake in AAC.

She arranged for the two camps to occupy luxury Tucker's Town homes for the duration of the 11th hour negotiating and the final signings.

Husband Mr. John White, and fellow AAC principal recalled: "The Saatchis group from London did not want to meet in America and the US group, Compton, didn't want to meet in Britain. So, Sue set up the big summit here and Maurice was here at that time.'' Mrs. White said: "They decided on Bermuda because we were closer to New York, but we were British. It was a sort of compromise. The talks were held between Maurice Saatchi and the CEO of Compton, Milt Gossett, who is very friendly with John and I.

"He probably thought about us here in Bermuda and they called us and asked us to set up the visit and rented two or three houses in Tucker's Town. We hosted a dinner for them at Little Venice, after the signing was concluded.

"There were some hard points to work out in the deal, as I recall. We gave them all cedar friendship goblets because it had been rather tense and we didn't know how amicable things had been between the two parties.'' In 1986, the Saatchis bought the Ted Bates advertising company for $500 million and became the world's largest advertising agency.

Mrs. White believes the current scenario is a sad one.

"They started out as two brothers with an advertising agency and they made a lot of acquisitions over the years. And they became so big, it was no longer practical for it to be managed the way it had been managed by them for years, as a family company.

"Charles was always very much a background person, a creative genius at the company. Maurice was the finance and administration man.'' But later, the Saatchis would take their company public, recapitalising the company in 1991, issuing a new ordinary rights issue.

Said Mr. White: "Maurice Saatchi was an incredibly nice guy. But when his company went public, he and Charles were no longer in total control of the company. They were so used to having that control, but with a board of directors to answer to, it just didn't work.

"Maurice is his own creative person and he has had a great relationship with his clients and I look for him to be successful in a new company.'' Harris Associates, a Chicago-based fund management group, had been a significant force in getting Mr. Saatchi deposed from his chairmanship of Saatchi & Saatchi in December.

This week Harris has put self up for sale, using the services of Goldman Sachs.

But Mr. Saatchi has kept moving, starting up a new, rival agency immediately after being ousted, that is now called the New Saatchi Agency.

And, as an indication of how highly regarded Mr. Saatchi is, not only did his senior executives follow him but British Airways has pitted the two Saatchi companies, and two others, against each other for its $90 million advertising account.

But the Financial Times reported that British Airways wasn't the only firm that refused to flat out renew Saatchi & Saatchi's long held relationships. In fact, some extremely significant accounts have made it known that they are reviewing their contracts with the company.

Organisations that are having a re-think include Mars, the giant US confectioner, British retailer of household electronic goods, Dixons group, and the UK Conservative Party.

But the political defection to The New Saatchi Agency may not happen because the Conservatives still owe more than $1.5 million to the agency for the election advertising campaign of 1992.

The firms are clearly concerned about the way Mr. Saatchi was deposed. And the huge British media conglomerate, Mirror Group plc, dumped the firm altogether.

Meanwhile, a London court is set to hear next week Wednesday from the original company allegations that Mr. Saatchi and three directors, who all resigned to start up a rival company, were involved in a "conspiracy to injure the business of the group''. The law suit also claims that it was Mr. Saatchi that solicited the others into the scheme.

If the suit is successful, it could stop the establishment of a new, rival agency.

A New York court might decide this week whether proceedings can continue against Mr. Bill Muirhead, the one-time head of the Saatchi agency in the US.

But there were another round of directors that resigned in January, leaving a company that Bloomberg reported has 400 group offices, 11,000 employees and annual revenues of $6.5 billion.