One error that crops up from time to time relates to quora at EGM's. In the first instance, section 370 of the Companies Act requires that two members present in person are required. However, provided that the company you are dealing with has adopted table A, this allows representation by proxy.
Quite often, on visits, monitors find that there is no evidence on file as to whether the company has table A articles or not, leaving the possibility that proxy representation for the EGM is not valid. Therefore, you should always obtain a copy of the memorandum and articles from the instructing director and check that it includes the table A amendment.
Even if table A has been adopted, you must still watch out for the requirement for two members to be present or represented. I have seen several cases where the instructing director (sorry for not being politically correct, but it is usually the husband) attended the EGM and was the 99% shareholder, but failed to produce a proxy for his wife, who held the remaining shares.
If the meeting is not quorate, this casts doubt upon the validity of any resolutions passed, which usually include those placing the company into liquidation and appointing you as liquidator, a pretty fundamental flaw in any appointment!
Where there is only one shareholder and that shareholder is a company, you need to be careful that a proxy holder has been properly appointed and instructed. I have seen too many variations of what can go wrong in this case, but possibly the most dangerous is where the IP is nominated proxy holder but is not given instructions so that he faces conflict in voting for his own appointment.
