Explorer

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)

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 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'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 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 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 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)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit reviewed the goodwill area and also identified the deficiency below. For four of the issuer's reporting units the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of the forecasts and valuation model used in its goodwill impairment analysis including the assumptions used. 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 firm selected for testing a control that included 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 that consisted of the review of the qualitative or quantitative analysis based on the reporting unit used in the issuer's annual goodwill impairment assessment. 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 issuer performed an analysis to assess the possible impairment of goodwill using a combination of the income approach and the market approach. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of this analysis including the significant inputs and assumptions. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the EBITDA multiples used in the market approach and the issuer's cash-flow forecast used in the income approach. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of reporting units and evaluation of the possible impairment of goodwill and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently restated its financial statements to correct this and other material misstatements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. In conjunction with its reevaluation of controls over long-lived assets discussed below the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of reporting units and evaluation of the possible impairment of goodwill. The issuer concluded that a material weakness related to goodwill and long-lived assets existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the other material weaknesses discussed herein and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's reviews of analyses of the possible impairment of goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of certain inputs and assumptions the issuer used in these analyses. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing two controls that included the issuer's review of the valuation methods and the underlying assumptions used in its goodwill impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the appropriateness of the valuation methods and the reasonableness of the underlying assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that included the review of goodwill and intangible assets for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures performed by the control owners to assess the reasonableness of the methodologies and assumptions used in the issuer's goodwill and indefinite-lived intangible assets impairment analyses. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the assumptions used in the issuer's models to estimate the recoverable amount of goodwill. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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 that included the issuer's review of certain assumptions that were used to determine the fair value of the issuer's goodwill and intangible assets for purposes of evaluating these assets for possible impairment. 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 firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of its annual budget. The issuer used this budget in its qualitative assessment of goodwill for possible impairment. 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 controls that consisted of reviews of significant assumptions underlying the cash-flow forecasts used in the issuer's annual goodwill impairment assessment. 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 firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of forecasts and certain assumptions used in the annual goodwill impairment analyses. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of the forecasts and certain assumptions used in these analyses. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed its annual analysis of goodwill for potential impairment as of an interim date. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's quarterly assessment of qualitative and quantitative factors to determine whether indicators of potential impairment of goodwill existed. In testing the operating effectiveness of this control at year end the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer reported goodwill at several reporting units and evaluated certain reporting units for impairment using a discounted cash flow model ('DCF model') which relied on various assumptions. The firm's approach to substantively test the issuer's goodwill impairment analysis for one reporting unit was to test the issuer's process. The firm also developed an independent expectation of the issuer's annual revenue growth rates for this reporting unit and compared those expectations to the annual revenue growth rate assumptions used by the issuer in the DCF model. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the goodwill impairment analysis for each reporting unit. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions used in the goodwill impairment analysis for certain reporting units. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's post-issuance monitoring program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of impairment indicators for goodwill. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner 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 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. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of a significant assumption used in this assessment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control consisting of a review of forecasts used in the issuer's impairment analysis including an evaluation of the revenue growth and earnings assumptions underlying these forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to test its goodwill for impairment and engaged an external specialist to determine the fair value of its reporting units at year end. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the significant assumptions that were developed and used by the company's specialist to determine the fair value of the issuer's reporting units. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate the reasonableness of those significant assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of the reasonableness of the forecasts used in the issuer's goodwill impairment analysis including an evaluation of the revenue-growth assumptions underlying these forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the revenue-growth assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to perform its annual goodwill impairment analysis. The analysis included projected cash flows for four revenue categories provided by the issuer and assumptions developed by the specialist. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the annual goodwill impairment analysis prepared by the specialist. 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 engaged an external specialist (“company's specialist”) to assist in determining a significant assumption used by the issuer in performing its annual impairment analysis for certain goodwill using a Value in Use (VIU) approach. The issuer used various inputs and assumptions some of which the engagement team considered to be significant to prepare the VIU model used in the impairment analysis. The firm selected for testing a control over the valuation of this goodwill that consisted of the performance of an annual impairment analysis and management's review and approval of (1) certain projections and base data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist to determine the significant assumption and (2) the impairment analysis performed including the VIU model and carrying amount of the goodwill. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed to assess the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer in the VIU model. (AS 2201.42 and .44)