Former Bermuda Fire director Gregory Haycock defended his witness statement in the Supreme Court yesterday, denying suggestions that he had overstated the involvement of the company's advisors.

Afternoon sessions began with Mr. Haycock assuring Ian Croxford QC, who represents accounting firm Coopers & Lines, that he was not trying in his witness statement to understate his knowledge of the facts concerning allegations in the case, trying to understate his own involvement or, in Mr.

Croxford's words, "trying to overstate the involvement of other people''.

Mr. Haycock said that a firm like Coopers & Lines traditionally worked in the local market as "assurance-based advisory services'', to which Mr. Croxford said: "Bermuda Fire had neither the manpower nor the expertise to consolidate its accounts for the finance committee.'' Mr. Haycock agreed.

He stressed, however, that this would have been an informal understanding based on what had to be done. Referring to similar remarks in Mr. Haycock's statement, Mr. Croxford said: "This in no way relieved either the management or directors of Bermuda Fire from their respective responsibilities of running the company.'' Mr. Haycock agreed, but said that company management's views were clearly influenced by the advice given to them.

Regarding the London actuarial firm Tillinghast, Mr. Haycock said: "I looked to Coopers & Lines more than I did to them ... I took greater comfort in the work they did on the Tillinghast report.'' He said also that Coopers had actuaries in London which they could use when necessary, and he entirely disagreed with Mr. Croxford's suggestion that he would not have expected use of such an actuary.

Mr. Haycock also disputed Mr. Croxford's claim that Tillinghast would have produced a "range'' of figures for either liabilities on Bermuda Fire's books with underwriters Weavers of London, or its recommended bad debt reserves.

The precise meaning of an actuarial "best estimate figure'' -- whether this constitutes a "range'' -- has been a frequent bone of contention in the case.

Mr. Haycock told the court that "we were provided with a gross figure, and a net figure. At the same time, with the net figure, there was some leeway between conservative or reasonable figures. I don't think that's a range of numbers.'' He also said that, as a non-actuary, reading a Tillinghast report would have been of little personal use, and he never did. "I took much more comfort in knowing auditors were involved and looking at it in detail,'' Mr. Haycock said.

Mr. Croxford questioned Mr. Haycock on 1986 meetings of Bermuda Fire's finance committee, particularly regarding a report by Coopers & Lines actuary John Narvell on the Weavers books. Mr. Haycock disputed suggestions that as a director it would have been necessary for him to read this report.

And, with reference to a later meeting on March 19, 1987, at which the committee agreed to double Bermuda Fire's bad debt reserve for the then-current year, Mr. Croxford said: "Would you not have asked about the nature of the bad debt being reserved for?'' "Not likely,'' Mr. Haycock replied, adding that "we were quite happy that Coopers would review that process and satisfy themselves.'' "And you're really not trying to overstate the role of the auditor?'' Mr. Croxford asked, to which Mr. Haycock answered: "Absolutely not.'' The case continues today.

BUSINESS BUC