Explorer

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analyses. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data and test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-prepared data that the company's specialist used to develop certain significant assumptions. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a valuation specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analyses. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

In its annual goodwill impairment test the issuer compared the fair value of a reporting unit to the recorded amount of goodwill. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's failure to compare the fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying amount including goodwill in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment and used a recent fair value calculation prepared by an external specialist in concluding to not perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer considered certain relevant events or changes in circumstances in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 350-20 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other— Goodwill including the issuer's operating losses negative working capital and substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern. (AS 2810.03 and .30)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment and used a recent fair value calculation prepared by an external specialist in concluding to not perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry of the external specialist to (1) test the data (2) evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions and (3) evaluate the relevance and reliability of information the specialist used in the recent fair value calculation that the firm used to support its evaluation of the issuer's qualitative assessment. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The issuer reported goodwill for several reporting units and performed a quantitative assessment of the impairment of goodwill for each reporting unit. The firm's approach for substantively testing the quantitative assessments was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the reliability of data from external sources the issuer used to determine certain assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer reported goodwill for several reporting units and performed a quantitative assessment of the impairment of goodwill for each reporting unit. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of its goodwill. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the quantitative assessment beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test goodwill. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged an external valuation firm to perform a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. The firm did not perform procedures to test this assessment beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of the possible impairment of goodwill as of an interim date. The firm performed substantive procedures to evaluate certain assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts that the issuer used to determine the fair value of its reporting units for this analysis. The firm however (1) evaluated these assumptions at the consolidated financial statement level and not at the reporting unit level and (2) did not evaluate certain other assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts including the issuer's ability to carry out specific actions. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of triggering events as potential indicators of goodwill impairment. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control the firm did not identify that the issuer's evaluation did not consider certain adverse market conditions and deteriorating financial results that arose before and after year end. (AS 2201.44)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the issuer's determination that it did not need to test goodwill for impairment between its annual tests because the firm did not identify that the issuer's evaluation did not consider certain adverse market conditions and deteriorating financial results that arose before and after year end. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain industry information it used in evaluating the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and 06)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to revenue growth rates because it did not evaluate significant differences between these assumptions and industry information and historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of goodwill. To determine the fair value of the reporting unit the issuer developed cash-flow forecasts using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions because it did not take into account (1) certain contractual restrictions or (2) the issuer's written plans or other relevant documentation that could affect the issuer's ability to carry out its planned actions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill and certain intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the (1) reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and (2) relevance and reliability of certain external information used by the company's specialist in developing another significant assumption. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over goodwill and these intangible assets and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill and certain intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of these significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over goodwill and these intangible assets and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment and the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of this assessment and related significant assumptions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the assessment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of its goodwill for possible impairment and the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of this assessment and related significant assumptions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the review of the forecasted financial information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · In testing the issuer's process the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · In testing the issuer's process the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist because its procedures were limited to evaluating this assumption for consistency with historical experience without taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · 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 another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and (1) the auditor-employed specialist's independent expectation of this assumption and (2) management's analysis of this assumption. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of (1) testing the issuer's process and (2) developing an independent expectation of the fair value of the issuer's single reporting unit with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · In developing an independent expectation the firm used another significant assumption. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for its selection of this significant assumption from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.22)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer performed an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment assessment because its procedures were limited to performing sensitivity analyses. (AS 2501.16)

With respect to the Goodwill the issuer performed a qualitative assessment to determine whether or not a triggering event had occurred. The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of this assessment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the occurrence of the triggering events. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of the impairment of certain goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to address the appropriateness of certain significant assumptions developed and used by management's expert in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 500.8; CAS 540.24)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of the impairment of certain goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to address the relevance and reliability of certain data the issuer used to develop certain significant assumptions which management's expert used in the quantitative assessment. (CAS 540.25)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of the issuer's annual goodwill impairment analysis. 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 selected for testing a control over the review of the issuer's annual goodwill impairment analysis. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information (other than forecasted cash flows which is discussed above) used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for testing the issuer's annual goodwill impairment analysis was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to test the forecasted cash flows after the first forecasted year that were provided to the external specialist to determine the fair value of the reporting units. (AS 1210.12)

The firm's approach for testing the issuer's annual goodwill impairment analysis was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the carrying value of one of the issuer's reporting units. (AS 1210.12)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed these areas and also identified the deficiencies below. For two of the issuer's reporting units the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the forecasts used in its goodwill impairment analysis including certain assumptions used in these forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist because the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a component of this assumption. (AS 1105.A8b)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used in this impairment analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer and used in this impairment analysis beyond performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's method to determine the fair value used in the assessment that excluded certain costs from these cash-flow forecasts was in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer because its procedures were limited to comparing this assumption with the assumption used in prior years' impairment assessments. Further the firm did not evaluate a significant difference between this assumption and the issuer's historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of goodwill for possible impairment using cash-flow forecasts. The firm's approach for substantively testing this impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not evaluate the consistency of this assumption with historical or recent experience taking into account that this assumption was based on certain conditions or events that affected the company in the current year that may not recur in future years. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the determination of the reporting units. The firm did not test an aspect of this control that addressed the considerations for the aggregation of the two components into one reporting unit including the similarity of the economic characteristics of the components and various qualitative factors as required by FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of the reasonableness of significant assumptions used in the quantitative assessment of goodwill. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of the projected amounts for revenue growth and certain costs used in this assessment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer identified the reporting units in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate the similarities in the economic characteristics of the components and the various qualitative factors considered by the issuer when determining whether the two components should be aggregated into one reporting unit. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions related to revenue growth rates used in its quantitative assessment of goodwill at the Reporting Unit including consideration of the recent declines in the Reporting Unit's revenue growth rate. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to the revenue growth rates and certain costs for the Reporting Unit because it did not take into account beyond reading the issuer's overall business plan the issuer's ability to carry out its intended courses of action. (AS 2501.17)

The issuer determined that it had certain reporting units including one reporting unit that consisted of two components (“Reporting Unit”). The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test goodwill for impairment at the Reporting Unit and the firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: • For one component within the Reporting Unit the firm did not evaluate whether the significant assumptions the issuer used in its quantitative assessment were consistent with the issuer's historical and recent experience taking into account changes in conditions and events affecting the issuer beyond observing that the assumptions were directionally consistent with the issuer's overall business plan and strategy. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts used in the issuer's annual goodwill impairment assessment. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm performed certain substantive procedures to evaluate the significant assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts but did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the issuer's ability to carry out its cost-saving strategies to achieve these forecasts. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of forecasts used in the issuer's analyses of goodwill for possible impairment. For one of the issuer's reporting units the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the forecasted revenue growth rates and gross margin percentages the issuer used in these forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)