Explorer

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 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 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)

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 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 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 whether the method used by the issuer to develop the impairment analyses was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment because it did not evaluate whether the carrying values of the reporting unit used by the issuer in its impairment analyses were consistent with the carrying values of the asset group as defined in FASB ASC Topic 360. (AS 2501.10)

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 sufficiently evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop the impairment analyses was in conformity with GAAP as it did not evaluate whether the method was in conformity with certain applicable requirements of FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles—Goodwill and Other and FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2501.10)

During the year the issuer extended the useful lives of its intangible assets from their original lives. The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis over the extended lives to evaluate its intangible assets for possible impairment. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the sales projections because the firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to test the reasonableness of extending the useful lives. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer extended the useful lives of its intangible assets from their original lives. The issuer used a discounted cash flow analysis over the extended lives to evaluate its intangible assets for possible impairment. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the issuer's ability to achieve its forecasted sales projections in light of the substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern because it limited its procedures to inquiry and comparing the forecasted sales projections to the current year results. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

The issuer reported intangible assets and performed an assessment of those assets for possible impairment. The principal auditor instructed the firm to perform procedures to test the valuation of these assets including an evaluation of indicators of impairment. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had capitalized the costs associated with these intangible assets in accordance with IAS 38 Intangible Assets beyond inquiry of management and reading management's assessment of the intangible assets. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer reported intangible assets and performed an assessment of those assets for possible impairment. The principal auditor instructed the firm to perform procedures to test the valuation of these assets including an evaluation of indicators of impairment. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform procedures to test the impairment expense recorded by the issuer related to these intangible assets beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported intangible assets and performed an assessment of those assets for possible impairment. The principal auditor instructed the firm to perform procedures to test the valuation of these assets including an evaluation of indicators of impairment. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate how management determined whether any indicators of impairment existed with respect to these intangible assets at year end. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

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 test the cash flow projections the issuer provided to the issuer-engaged specialist. (AS 1210.12)

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 sufficiently evaluate whether the method the issuer used to determine the recoverable amount of the CGU was in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework including the requirements of International Accounting Standard (IAS) 36 Impairment of Assets because it did not evaluate whether the issuer's use of a single CGU to evaluate the intangible asset for possible impairment was appropriate and in accordance with IAS 36. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer completed an asset acquisition including the purchase of certain intangible assets. The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the subsequent valuation of these intangible assets. (AS 2201.39)