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 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 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)

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 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 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)

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 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 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 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)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain intangible assets for impairment beyond comparing the book value of the assets to the corresponding revenue stream for the current year. (AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer identified indicators of impairment and performed a quantitative assessment of impairment. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry observing the issuer's implementation of certain assumptions and performing a sensitivity analysis to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used in its quantitative assessment. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported intangible assets 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. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to the undiscounted cash flow projections used by the issuer to develop the impairment analyses. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for substantively testing these assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions that the issuer used to value these assets because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and performing a sensitivity analysis to determine whether changes to the assumptions would result in differences in excess of the firm's established materiality. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer evaluated its intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions it developed based on the issuer's planned course of action. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not (1) evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for these assumptions and (2) take into account changes in conditions or events affecting the issuer. Further when evaluating the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action the firm performed a sensitivity analysis for these assumptions but did not evaluate the significant differences between the alternative assumptions it used in this analysis and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to perform an assessment of an intangible asset for possible impairment. The firm's approach to substantively test this assessment was to test the issuer's process with the assistance of an auditor-employed specialist. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer performed assessments of certain intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions. The firm's approach to evaluate these impairment assessments was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in these impairment assessments. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer engaged a specialist to assist in its impairment analysis of its finite-lived intangible assets by determining the fair value of the assets. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the issuer-engaged specialist in determining the fair value of the assets. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer evaluated an intangible asset for possible impairment using various assumptions it developed including forecasted revenue that assumed significant growth. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant revenue growth assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer determined that it had a single cash-generating unit (“CGU”) for purposes of evaluating intangible and long-lived assets for possible impairment and used a discounted cash flow method to determine the recoverable amount of this CGU in its annual impairment analysis. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of an intangible asset was to review and test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer to determine the recoverable amount of the CGU including the Issuer's intent and ability to carry out those assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

To determine whether the intangible asset was impaired the issuer compared the asset's estimated undiscounted cash flows to its carrying value. The estimated cash flows were based on revenue projections that the issuer developed by weighting different categories of customers and estimating the sales price and number of units to be sold for each category. The firm compared the issuer's overall revenue projections and gross margin growth rates to those of several of the issuer's competitors. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions related to the weighting of customer categories and the number of units to be sold. Further the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the overall revenue projections and gross margin growth rates considering the decline in those rates for certain of the issuer's competitors. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11; AS 2810.03)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment analysis for certain intangible assets was to develop an independent expectation which included significant assumptions that were developed by the issuer and the firm. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a certain significant assumption that was developed by the issuer because the firm did not (1) evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for this assumption and (2) take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out this assumption beyond performing inquiries of management and inspecting invoices. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment analysis for certain intangible assets was to develop an independent expectation which included significant assumptions that were developed by the issuer and the firm. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate that it had a reasonable basis for a certain significant assumption that was developed by the firm including taking into account the requirements of certain elements of the applicable financial framework. (AS 2501.21 and .22)

During the year the issuer entered into agreements to jointly develop certain products and recorded the amounts paid in connection with these agreements as finite-lived intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test the useful life established for these assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer performed an impairment assessment of certain intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining and reading the issuer's sensitivity analysis to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions the issuer used in the impairment assessment. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's approach for testing the fair value of the intangible assets acquired in the asset acquisition was to review and test management's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of an assumption developed by the external specialist. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired certain intangible assets and used an external specialist to determine their fair value. The firm's approach for testing the fair value of these assets was to review and test management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions the external specialist developed. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's approach for substantively testing these intangible assets for possible impairment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's forecasted cash flows beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer evaluated certain of its intangible assets for possible impairment using forecasted cash flows that it developed using various assumptions including when and at what amounts the issuer would be able to begin recognizing revenue. The firm did not evaluate beyond inquiry of management whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the significant assumptions the issuer used including taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action for certain of these assumptions. (AS 2501.16 and .17)