Explorer

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer (1) not allocating certain capitalized costs to the carrying amounts of the related components of the acquired property in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 410 Asset Retirement and Environmental Obligations and (2) inappropriately disclosing all assets of the acquired property within one asset category instead of disclosing balances of major classes of depreciable assets by nature or function in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to value the acquired property. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate whether the assumed liabilities recorded by the issuer represented a reasonable estimate of their fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate whether the presentation of the assumed liabilities as a non-current liability was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of data the company's specialist obtained from external sources and used to develop the fair values. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist to develop the fair values were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of GAAP. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the disclaimers and limitations included in the auditor-engaged specialist's reports that affected the firm's use of the reports. (AS 1210.09 and .12)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the Long-Lived Assets area but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below related to this area. The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its proved and expected oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”). Proved reserves were used in the calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization of production plants and oil and gas assets and expected reserve estimates were used in the impairment analyses of production plants and oil and gas assets including assets under development. The issuer also engaged an external specialist (company's engaged specialist) to evaluate its proved reserve estimates. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reserve estimates because the firm did not: · Evaluate the relevance and reliability of external non-financial data the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates; (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the Long-Lived Assets area but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below related to this area. The issuer utilized internal specialists (company's employed specialists) including reserve engineers to estimate its proved and expected oil and gas reserves (“reserve estimates”). Proved reserves were used in the calculation of depreciation depletion and amortization of production plants and oil and gas assets and expected reserve estimates were used in the impairment analyses of production plants and oil and gas assets including assets under development. The issuer also engaged an external specialist (company's engaged specialist) to evaluate its proved reserve estimates. The firm's approach for substantively testing the reserve estimates was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the reserve estimates because the firm did not: · Evaluate whether the methods the company's employed specialists used to develop the reserve estimates were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop estimates related to certain long-lived assets. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

With respect to Long-Lived Assets which was affected by the audit deficiencies related to change management and user access the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged a specialist to perform a quantitative assessment of certain long-lived assets for the purpose of determining whether the carrying amounts of those assets were recoverable as of the end of the prior year. The firm did not perform procedures to test the recoverable amounts of these long-lived assets as of the end of the current year beyond obtaining the issuer's impairment schedule and the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist in the prior year. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to use the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not evaluate management's determination that there were no indicators of potential impairment for the first CGU beyond inquiring of management and reading the issuer's impairment indicator memorandum and a reserves report prepared by an external specialist. (AS 2301.08)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the work performed by the company's specialists and whether the specialists' findings support or contradict the recoverability of the asset because it did not (1) identify that the report compiled by the company's specialists was a year old and (2) evaluate whether the specialists' findings continued to be relevant and reliable. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate (1) the knowledge skill and ability of one company specialist and (2) the relationship of the issuer to this specialist. (AS 1105.A3 and .A4)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information the issuer used to determine the recoverability of the asset. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialists were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer engaged an external specialist to assist in testing its long-lived assets for impairment. The firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process. The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist in testing these analyses. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not test whether the issuer compared the fair value of each asset group to the carrying value of each asset group in determining that none of the asset groups were impaired. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop significant inputs used to determine the fair value of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from external sources used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop significant inputs used to determine the fair value of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of IFRS. (AS 1105.A8c)