Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of data from various external sources that it used to test certain assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the issuer's (1) ownership rights of these assets and (2) gain on the sale of these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to determine the fair value of the asset. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used by the external specialist to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer identified impairment indicators related to a certain asset. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the asset's fair value and also relied upon its sale of the asset through a non-monetary transaction subsequent to year end in concluding that the asset was not impaired. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's conclusions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not test the fair value of the subsequent sale of this asset. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not evaluate whether the presentation of the asset as a current asset in the issuer's balance sheet was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to establish that the issuer had control and ownership of these assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the existence valuation and completeness of these assets beyond tracing quantities and prices to schedules provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a GAAP departure related to the issuer's disclosure that these assets were current assets and the issuer's classification of them as non-current assets on the balance sheet. (AS 2810.03 .30 and .31)

The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the accounting policies for these assets that were required by FASB ASC Topic 235 Notes to the Financial Statements. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's presentation of these assets was in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of certain assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions the issuer used to determine these fair values. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the specialist's procedures were limited to reading an issuer-prepared analysis and obtaining data from external sources that indicated a range of possible assumptions without evaluating whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for its selection of assumptions. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing certain review controls over a certain asset. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data and/or reports used in the operation of certain controls over a certain asset. (AS 2201.39)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether a payment made by the counterparty to another entity on behalf of the issuer was part of the proceeds from the issuer's sale of those assets to the counterparty. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the collectability of the outstanding receivable recorded at year end for the sale of the assets to the counterparty. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data it used to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in the valuation of the assets. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.11)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the impairment recorded on the assets because it limited its procedures to inquiry regarding how the loss was calculated. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the agreements were appropriately accounted for and disclosed in accordance with GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not obtain an understanding of and test the inputs methods and assumptions used to estimate the fair value of the recorded assets related to these transactions. (AS 2502.09 .26 and .28)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test the valuation of the underlying collateral. (AS 2502.15)

The issuer had certain agreements outstanding with counterparties as of year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the transactions should be identified as transactions with related parties because the counterparties were controlled by an individual who was listed as an officer of the issuer in a public filing and certain of the collateral was held by an entity the issuer disclosed as an entity with control. (AS 2410.14)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of evidence it used to test the issuer's ownership rights to certain assets at year end. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's presentation of these assets at year end (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test the disposal of certain assets including the loss recorded on disposition. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer purchased other certain assets from and then sold some of those assets at a loss back to a counterparty. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test payments for the purchase of the assets from the counterparty. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used a service organization to initiate and process transactions related to certain assets and identified relevant user controls. The firm did not identify and test a complementary user control over the valuation of these assets or identify and test any other controls that addressed the valuation of these assets. (AS 2201.39 and .B22)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures beyond obtaining information about the source's reputation and regulatory compliance. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of other information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to establish that the issuer had control over these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's classification of these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's presentation of certain assets as current assets because it did not evaluate beyond inquiring of management the issuer's intent to consume all of these assets within one year from the balance sheet date. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer performed an assessment of certain assets for recoverability when the firm was aware of events or changes in circumstances that existed and indicated that the carrying value may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to these assets required by GAAP. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the fair value of certain assets. (AS 2501.07)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair value of certain assets. The firm identified a deficiency in the operating effectiveness of this control. The firm identified and tested compensating controls that it believed would mitigate this deficiency. The firm did not identify that these other controls were not designed to address whether these assets were appropriately recorded at fair value. (AS 2201.68)

The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to test the fair value of certain of these assets which was determined by the company's specialist. The auditor-employed specialist's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that it did not (1) evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist (2) evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework and (3) test the accuracy and/or completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the company's specialist. The firm did not perform additional procedures or request the auditor-employed specialist to perform additional procedures to address these issues. (AS 1105.A8a .A8b and .A8c; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer reported certain assets that were held by an outside party. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the issuer's rights to these assets because it limited its procedures to confirmation review of the issuer's transaction detail and observation of the issuer logging in to an account with the outside party. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for an underlying assumption it developed because the firm obtained evidence that did not support the amount of the assumption. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a second underlying assumption it developed. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for a third underlying assumption it developed because the firm limited its procedures to obtaining evidence that indicated its assumption may not have been accurate. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis to test certain assets for impairment at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing this analysis was to develop an independent expectation of the estimate which included developing overall assumptions for revenue that included several underlying assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance of historical results of another company that it used to conclude that its overall assumptions for revenue were reasonable. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm developed certain other assumptions that it used in its independent expectation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for those assumptions because it used the historical results of another company to substantiate its assumptions without evaluating whether the historical results of the other company were relevant. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.22)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the fair values of certain assets. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of certain assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to determine the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of data from sources external to the issuer that were used by the company's specialist in developing significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to determine the fair value of certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the value of a certain asset. (AS 2301.08)

With respect to a certain asset to evaluate the possible impairment of this asset the issuer estimated the fair value of this asset using forecasted cash flows and other assumptions. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry of management and reviewing the issuer's analysis to test the issuer's fair value measurement. (AS 2502.15)