Explorer

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment to determine whether any of its intangible assets were impaired and concluded that no relevant events or circumstances existed based on certain assumptions. The firm did not evaluate these assumptions. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported an impairment loss for an intangible asset. The firm did not perform any procedures to test this impairment loss. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported an impairment loss for an intangible asset. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the amortization expense for the issuer's intangible assets. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach to evaluate these intangible assets for possible impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these assets and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing.

The firm's approach to evaluate these intangible assets for possible impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist because it did not evaluate whether these assumptions were consistent with existing market information. (AS 1105.A8b) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these assets and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing.

The firm's approach to evaluate these intangible assets for possible impairment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain external information used by the company's specialist in developing another significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these assets and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing.

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate certain indicators of potential impairment that existed at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the issuer used appropriate useful lives in the calculation of amortization expense for finite-lived intangible assets. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of certain of the issuer's intangible assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of these assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one asset group the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's impairment assessment. (AS 2501.07)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of certain of the issuer's intangible assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of these assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another asset group the firm's substantive procedures to test the issuer's impairment assessment consisted of developing an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows used to assess the asset group for recoverability. In developing its expectation the firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for the undiscounted cash flow period it used including taking into account certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2501.21 and .22)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that included 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 of these assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the issuer because its procedures were limited to evaluating the assumptions for consistency with the issuer's recent experience. Further the firm did not evaluate certain significant differences between these assumptions and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows in its assessment of certain amortizable intangible assets for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of these intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of the issuer's asset groups the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's inclusion of expected cash flows from a certain product in its forecasted cash flows was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows in its assessment of certain amortizable intangible assets for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of these intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of the issuer's asset groups the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used related to the expected cash flows from this product beyond obtaining evidence from an external party that this product was under development. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer used forecasted cash flows in its assessment of certain amortizable intangible assets for possible impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of these intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the other asset groups the firm used an issuer-prepared spreadsheet in its substantive testing of the issuer's allocation of historical revenue to these asset groups. The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of this spreadsheet. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate how the issuer tested its intangible assets for potential impairment as events or changes in circumstances existed that indicated that the carrying amount of the intangible assets may not be recoverable. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain intangible assets for possible impairment despite the issuer's deteriorating financial results and the issuer recording an impairment of other intangible assets during the year. (AS 2301.08)

Deficiencies evaluating the issuer's impairment allocation method and a significant assumption for intangible assets.

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to determine whether its intangible assets were impaired. The firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate that in developing its independent expectation it took into account certain requirements of the applicable financial framework so that its independent expectation considered the factors relevant to the estimate. (AS 2501.21)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to determine whether its intangible assets were impaired. The firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it independently derived beyond performing a sensitivity analysis for one of those assumptions. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to determine whether its intangible assets were impaired. The firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis including taking into account its understanding of the issuer's process for another assumption it derived because it did not demonstrate how its assumption took into account certain factors relevant to the estimate. (AS 2501.21 and .22)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment to determine whether its intangible assets were impaired. The firm's approach for substantively testing this assessment was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information it obtained from an external source and used to develop one of its assumptions. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer identified events indicating that the carrying value of its finite-lived intangible assets may not be recoverable and performed impairment analyses as of various interim dates and at year end. Starting in the second quarter the issuer determined that its impairment analysis should be performed using a single asset group. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate whether the issuer's change to a single asset group was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed quantitative assessments of the possible impairment of its intangible assets at an interim date and at year end using cash-flow forecasts. The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of these cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of certain assumptions the issuer used in these forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the interim impairment assessment the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and evaluating these assumptions for consistency with the issuer's historical or recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · For the year-end impairment assessment the firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions because it did not evaluate the significant differences between these assumptions and the industry information it had obtained. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of the possible impairment of certain intangible assets. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test this assessment. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's approach for substantively testing an intangible asset for impairment was to develop an independent expectation of the fair value of the asset. The firm did not take into account the requirements of the applicable financial framework so that the firm's independent expectation considered the factors relevant to the estimate. (AS 2501.21)

With respect to certain finite-lived intangible assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the assets were appropriately accounted for in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other. Specifically the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of (1) the classification of the assets as finite-lived intangible assets and (2) the useful lives assigned to the assets when no contractual term was present including the amortization expense recorded thereafter. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The issuer identified certain impairment indicators and performed a qualitative assessment of intangible assets for impairment at an interim date and at year-end. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond reading a memorandum prepared by the issuer to evaluate whether the issuer should have performed a quantitative assessment of intangible assets for impairment considering the existence of these unfavorable indicators of impairment. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

The issuer identified indicators of impairment for certain intangible assets and estimated undiscounted cash flows to assess the recoverability of those intangible assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions including taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out those assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer identified indicators of impairment for certain intangible assets and estimated undiscounted cash flows to assess the recoverability of those intangible assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data and reports it used in developing an independent expectation of another significant assumption. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer identified indicators of impairment for certain intangible assets and estimated undiscounted cash flows to assess the recoverability of those intangible assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions beyond comparing prior year issuer forecasted amounts to prior year actual amounts. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of its intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the issuer's quantitative assessment beyond (1) inquiry (2) obtaining and reading the issuer's analysis certain internal documentation and letters of intent from customers and (3) performing a sensitivity analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a quantitative assessment of impairment of its intangible assets. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumption related to the discount rate the issuer used in the quantitative assessment because it limited its procedures to comparing this assumption to the issuer's cost of borrowing. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer entered into an agreement ('acquisition agreement') to acquire a license that granted it the rights to sell certain products and it recorded the license agreement ('license agreement') as an intangible asset. The acquisition and license agreements required the issuer to among other terms pay royalty fees on future net sales (with guaranteed minimum royalty fees) pay an external party for future advisory services and issue convertible preferred stock. The issuer recorded certain of the payments to the external party as part of accounting for the transaction. The firm did not evaluate whether the future royalty payments should have been recorded as part of accounting for the transaction in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. In addition the firm did not evaluate whether it was appropriate to recognize certain of the payments to the external party as part of the accounting for the transaction and not recognize the remaining payments in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer entered into an agreement ('acquisition agreement') to acquire a license that granted it the rights to sell certain products and it recorded the license agreement ('license agreement') as an intangible asset. The acquisition and license agreements required the issuer to among other terms pay royalty fees on future net sales (with guaranteed minimum royalty fees) pay an external party for future advisory services and issue convertible preferred stock. The issuer recorded certain of the payments to the external party as part of accounting for the transaction. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of the convertible preferred stock that was issued was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to determine the value of the convertible preferred stock was appropriate. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer entered into an agreement ('acquisition agreement') to acquire a license that granted it the rights to sell certain products and it recorded the license agreement ('license agreement') as an intangible asset. The acquisition and license agreements required the issuer to among other terms pay royalty fees on future net sales (with guaranteed minimum royalty fees) pay an external party for future advisory services and issue convertible preferred stock. The issuer recorded certain of the payments to the external party as part of accounting for the transaction. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer used to determine the fair value of the convertible preferred stock. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from the applicable financial reporting framework related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to intangible assets required by the framework. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from the applicable financial reporting framework related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to intangible assets required by the framework. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain inputs used by the issuer to record intangible assets included the performance of analytical procedures. For certain of these inputs the firm did not (1) determine for one of these inputs whether the expectation used in the analytical procedures was based on predictable relationships and (2) perform procedures to evaluate significant differences between the expected input and actual input used by the issuer beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2305.13 .14 and .21)

The issuer acquired certain intangible assets through business combinations. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not test any controls over the determination of the estimated useful lives assigned to these intangible assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer acquired certain intangible assets through business combinations. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's recording of these assets as indefinite lived intangible assets rather than finite lived intangible assets with estimated useful lives based on their remaining contractual terms in conformity with International Accounting Standard (IAS) 38 Intangible Assets. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the quantitative impairment analysis that the issuer performed over certain finite-lived intangible assets. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer reported intangible assets at several reporting units and evaluated them for impairment using undiscounted cash flow analyses. The firm's approach to test the issuer's impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows for each reporting unit. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer to develop its undiscounted cash flows because it limited its procedures to evaluating the consistency of the assumptions with historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported intangible assets at several reporting units and evaluated them for impairment using undiscounted cash flow analyses. The firm's approach to test the issuer's impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows for each reporting unit. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it developed and used to determine its independent expectations. (AS 2501.22)