John Collis

Arthur Andersen's Bermuda registered captive, Professional Services Insurance Company Ltd., is seeking to enter into a Scheme of Arrangement with its creditors.An order was issued at Bermuda Supreme Court on November 14, 2002 granting the firm's application to meet with

A new group that is operated from the same offices as Imperial Consolidated by people who are described as ex-Imperial employees has denied that it has become involved with a Bermuda-registered mutual fund. A spokesman for Alpha Toronto described as "incorrect" an article that was recently published in a magazine operated by British-based Charterhouse Communications.

Two Bermuda-based captives that are either wholly or partly owned by Arthur Andersen face an uncertain future following the collapse of Enron Corp. in the United States. They are Professional Services Insurance Company Ltd., which is owned by Andersen firms in 32 countries, and Professional Asset Indemnity Ltd., which is owned by the Big Five accounting firms.

The Bermuda Fire & Marine Insurance trial began, as scheduled, on May 4 and most of the rest of the month was spent hearing allegations of lies, deceit and fraud against people who were at one time considered to be among the crème de la crème of the local business community.

If investors who pumped $2.6 million into Bermuda-based hi-tech firm NimsTec on the basis of misleading and inaccurate information are looking for someone to sue for negligence, they could do worse than to explore the role of law firm Conyers Dill & Pearman in helping NimsTec to raise capital. Before parting with their funds, investors in NimsTec who bought shares in two private placements were assured by NimsTec's officers and directors - who included CD&P partners - that no material facts were omitted from a share prospectus and that "all reasonable care" had been taken in its compilation. However, we can reveal that CD&P should have known about the appalling track record of NimsTec's 3-D camera and printing technology and its management that was not disclosed to investors because the law firm previously represented a similar company called Nimslo.