Explorer

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in determining the fair value of an intangible asset acquired in a business combination and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it with testing the valuation of this intangible asset. The following deficiency was identified: · The auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the intangible asset beyond reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist and identifying qualitative factors that could result in a significant difference between the assumption and the range for that assumption identified by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

During the year the issuer completed a business combination where the issuer's operations from before the transaction remained on the issuer's existing information systems (“legacy systems”) and continued to be recorded in these systems separately from the other company's operations. The issuer engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of the loans acquired and the deposits assumed in connection with the business combination. The firm selected for testing various controls over the acquired loans and assumed deposits data that were provided to and used by the company's specialist. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of the data from the legacy systems that were used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The acquired assets primarily consisted of oil and gas properties that had oil and gas reserves assigned. The issuer used company-employed specialists to determine the fair value of the acquired oil and gas properties based on discounted cash flows that they developed using various assumptions including future production volumes. The company's specialists used historical production data produced by the acquired business and certain other non-financial assumptions developed by the company's specialists to develop the future production volumes. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reliability of the historical production data used by the company's specialists. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The acquired assets primarily consisted of oil and gas properties that had oil and gas reserves assigned. The issuer used company-employed specialists to determine the fair value of the acquired oil and gas properties based on discounted cash flows that they developed using various assumptions including future production volumes. The company's specialists used historical production data produced by the acquired business and certain other non-financial assumptions developed by the company's specialists to develop the future production volumes. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the future production volumes assumption but did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain significant non-financial assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialists. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The acquired assets primarily consisted of oil and gas properties that had oil and gas reserves assigned. The issuer used company-employed specialists to determine the fair value of the acquired oil and gas properties based on discounted cash flows that they developed using various assumptions including future production volumes. The company's specialists used historical production data produced by the acquired business and certain other non-financial assumptions developed by the company's specialists to develop the future production volumes. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reliability of the historical production data used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The acquired assets primarily consisted of oil and gas properties that had oil and gas reserves assigned. The issuer used company-employed specialists to determine the fair value of the acquired oil and gas properties based on discounted cash flows that they developed using various assumptions including future production volumes. The company's specialists used historical production data produced by the acquired business and certain other non-financial assumptions developed by the company's specialists to develop the future production volumes. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant non-financial assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialists beyond comparing the assumptions for the first year of the discounted cash flows for a selection of acquired properties to the historical production data of the acquired business and the issuer's other properties. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer determined the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various assumptions including revenue growth rates. The firm identified control deficiencies related to two controls selected for testing over management's review of these assumptions. Except for the two deficient controls the firm did not identify and test any controls that address the risk of potential misstatement related to errors in the assumptions including revenue growth rates. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses. With respect to one of these business combinations the following deficiencies were identified: · The purchase price for the acquisition included contingent consideration based on forecasted revenue. The issuer estimated the fair value of the initial contingent consideration using certain assumptions. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the fair value of the contingent consideration. (AS 2502.15)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses. With respect to one of these business combinations the following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer subsequently remeasured the contingent consideration and recorded the change as an expense. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the change was a result of events that occurred subsequent to the acquisition date and was appropriately recorded as an expense in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 805-30 Business Combinations - Goodwill or Gain from Bargain Purchase Including Consideration Transferred because the firm did not identify that the forecasted revenue the issuer used for the remeasurement was consistent with the historical revenue at the acquisition date. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses. With respect to one of these business combinations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of an intangible asset. (AS 2502.15) In addition the firm did not evaluate whether the method used to determine the fair value of this intangible asset was in conformity with FASB ASC 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses. With respect to one of these business combinations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether all identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed were identified and appropriately recorded. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to the other business combination the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of an acquired intangible asset was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used to determine the fair value of this asset. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

With respect to the other business combination the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the fair value of certain other assets acquired and liabilities assumed in this business combination. (AS 2502.15)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized an acquisition in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations because it did not evaluate whether the assets acquired and liabilities assumed met the definition of a business. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the fair value of certain liabilities assumed because it did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a report used in its testing. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures over the amount of certain liabilities assumed. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of intangible assets acquired in a business combination. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the financial projections used to value the acquired intangible assets because it limited its procedures to (1) inquiring of management (2) comparing projected sales prices to current sales prices without performing procedures to evaluate whether the current sales prices represented a reasonable expectation of future sales prices and (3) comparing the projected sales quantities to certain industry information without performing procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of that industry information. (CAS 500.07 and 08; CAS 540.15 and 18)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. The firm selected for testing controls that included the issuer's review of the business combinations. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed over the appropriateness of the accounting treatment the fair value of the acquired intangible assets and the allocation of the purchase price. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the intangible assets and goodwill was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged an external specialist to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the company's specialist and the appropriateness of the methods used by the company's specialist. The firm did not sufficiently test the fair value of the intangible assets and goodwill because it did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not evaluate (1) the reasonableness of the significant assumptions and (2) whether the method(s) used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8b and .A8c; AS 1210.09 and .12)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and used an external specialist to determine the fair values of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed. The firm's approach for testing these fair values was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used by the specialist to determine the fair values of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and used an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain of the acquired intangible assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired intangible assets was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the revenue growth rate assumptions the issuer provided to the external specialist that the specialist used to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets because it limited its procedures to inquiring of management and comparing the growth rates to historical revenue growth information of another company without performing procedures to evaluate whether that company's historical results would be representative of the future revenue growth rates of the acquired business. Further the firm did not evaluate contradictory evidence the specialist included in the valuation report that indicated that the expected revenue growth rate for the issuer's industry was significantly lower than the expected growth rates for the acquired business. (AS 1210.12; AS 2810.03)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and used an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain of the acquired intangible assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired intangible assets was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the discount rate developed and used by the external specialist to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets because it limited its procedures to inquiring of the specialist regarding data used in determining the discount rate and comparing certain of those data to data for other companies without performing procedures to evaluate whether the data for those companies would be representative of the data for the issuer. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and used an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain of the acquired intangible assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired intangible assets was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of the issuer's omission of a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - Beyond comparing certain forecasted assumptions to actual results for the period subsequent to the acquisition the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions provided by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions developed by the company's specialist including the consistency of these assumptions with relevant information. (AS 1105.A8b)

During the year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from sources external to the issuer that were used by the company's specialist in developing certain assumptions because it limited its procedures to inquiry of the company's specialist and obtaining information from the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business that resulted in an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data it used to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer acquired a business that resulted in an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to this business combination that were required by FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumptions to industry information. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumption to industry information without evaluating the significant difference between the assumption and the industry information. Further the firm did not evaluate the reliability of the industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the company's specialist to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of industry information it used to evaluate the reasonableness of an assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and used an external specialist to determine the fair values of the assets acquired and the liabilities assumed. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the external specialist's valuation report. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the criteria that the control owner used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recorded at fair value intangible assets that it acquired as part of a current-year business combination. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of one of the acquired intangible assets was to develop an independent estimate of the fair value using forecasted revenue growth rates produced by the issuer. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of these revenue growth rates. (AS 2501.24)

The issuer recorded at fair value intangible assets that it acquired as part of a current-year business combination. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of one of the acquired intangible assets was to develop an independent estimate of the fair value using forecasted revenue growth rates produced by the issuer. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of the other acquired intangible assets. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these business combinations the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of the company's specialist's work because it did not identify and evaluate inconsistencies between the measurement of or significant assumptions used in the enterprise fair value estimated by the company's specialist compared to both (1) the fair value of the consideration transferred by the issuer and (2) certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these business combinations the fair value measurement of acquired customer relationships resulted in a negative balance and the issuer concluded that an associated intangible asset did not exist. The firm did not evaluate whether the negative fair value represented future contract losses and should have been recorded as an assumed liability in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2301.08)

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of an acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-engaged specialist's approach consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value as a range. The following deficiency was identified · The firm did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not sufficiently evaluate whether the valuation method used by the company's specialist was appropriate under the circumstances because it did not consider the highest and best use of the acquired asset. (AS 1105.A8c; AS 1210.09 and .12) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this asset and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing.

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of an acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-engaged specialist's approach consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value as a range. The following deficiency was identified · When testing the issuer's process the firm did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1210.09 and .12) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this asset and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing.

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of an acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-engaged specialist's approach consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value as a range. The following deficiency was identified · The firm did not evaluate whether the auditor-engaged specialist's independent expectation of the fair value as a range encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1210.09 and .12; AS 2501.25) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this asset and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing.

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of an acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-engaged specialist's approach consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value as a range. The following deficiency was identified · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information used by the auditor-engaged specialist to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 1210.09 and .12) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this asset and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing.

The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of an acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-engaged specialist's approach consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value as a range. The following deficiency was identified · The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer incorrectly recorded the fair value of the acquired asset determined by the company's specialist. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this asset and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing.

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain acquired assets in these business combinations the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer including evaluating significant differences between the useful lives assigned to these assets and the cash flow forecast periods used to determine their fair values. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For two of these business combinations the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and used in the measurement of these acquired assets. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate this assumption. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these business combinations the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of another acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The firm did not identify that the auditor-engaged specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1210.09 and .12)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these business combinations the firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to assist it with testing the fair value of another acquired asset which was determined by the company's specialist. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information used by the company's specialist in determining the fair value of this asset. (AS 1105.A8a)

For certain business combinations the firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair values of certain other acquired assets. (AS 2501.07)

For two business combinations the firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of certain of these assets upon acquisition. (AS 2301.08)

For two business combinations the firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the provisions for contingent consideration to be paid to the sellers was to develop independent expectations of the estimates using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer which were also used by the firm to develop its independent expectations. (AS 2501.16)

For two business combinations the firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the provisions for contingent consideration to be paid to the sellers was to develop independent expectations of the estimates using an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiency was identified: · For one of these business combinations the firm did not evaluate a significant difference between the firm's independent expectation and the issuer's recorded contingent consideration. (AS 2810.13)