Explorer

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or (as a result of the ITGC deficiencies discussed above) sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data it used in its substantive testing of the valuation of finite-lived intangible assets. (AS 2502.39) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of finite-lived intangible assets 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 goodwill discussed above the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of long-lived assets. As discussed above 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 review of possible impairment indicators for property plant and equipment at one of the issuer's subsidiaries. The firm did not evaluate (1) whether the control was appropriately designed to identify the impairment indicators that were present and (2) 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) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of finite-lived intangible assets 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 goodwill discussed above the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of long-lived assets. As discussed above 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.

In performing its substantive procedures related to the issuer's assessment of the possible impairment of this property plant and equipment the firm did not evaluate the issuer's determination that there were no indicators of potential impairment beyond inquiring of management. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting related to the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of finite-lived intangible assets 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 goodwill discussed above the issuer also reevaluated its controls over the identification of possible impairment indicators and evaluation of impairment of long-lived assets. As discussed above 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 issuer identified certain impairment indicators during the year and prepared an undiscounted cash flow analysis to evaluate its long-lived assets for impairment. The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for impairment beyond obtaining and reading the issuer's undiscounted cash flow analysis and a memorandum prepared by the issuer related to its impairment assessment. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate a significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not take into account the issuer's ability to carry out an action related to the assumption. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of the applicable financial reporting framework. (AS 1105.A8c)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data produced by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external data that was used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged a specialist to develop an accounting estimate that was used to determine the valuation of certain long-lived assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate certain other significant assumptions that were developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures beyond obtaining a memorandum to evaluate the issuer's conclusion that there were no impairment indicators related to certain other long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer capitalized expenditures related to the development of a long-lived asset. The firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry to determine whether the expenditures qualified for capitalization as a long-lived asset. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence of these long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain long-lived assets that were recorded at cost and reviewed by the issuer for indicators of potential impairment. The firm did not sufficiently test the valuation of certain of these long-lived assets because the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of information used in the issuer's impairment assessment. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of asset summary models including the underlying inputs and assumptions used to value certain long-lived assets. 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. Further the firm did not test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain information used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The principal auditor identified certain long-lived assets as a significant account and the existence and valuation of those assets as relevant assertions. The following deficiency was identified: • The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the existence and valuation of these long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over the (1) recording of additions and disposals of long-lived assets including whether these were recorded in the correct period (2) classification of long-lived assets and whether these were depreciated over the appropriate useful lives and (3) configuration of the system responsible for the calculation of depreciation expense. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test long-lived assets were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not test whether (1) long-lived assets were appropriately classified to ensure that these assets were depreciated over the appropriate useful lives and (2) all disposals of long-lived assets were recorded by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of (1) additions to property plant and equipment (PP&E) and whether those costs were allocated to the appropriate project within the issuer's accounting system and (2) PP&E write-offs and whether those write-offs were appropriately supported and approved. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test additions to and write-offs of PP&E were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's use of (1) post-tax future cash flows and a post-tax discount rate (2) future cash flows that included cash flows of certain forecasted divestments and (3) for the cash-generating units ('CGUs') of one segment estimated future cash flows occurring subsequent to the expiration of lease contracts that were not reasonably certain of being renewed to estimate the value-in-use ('VIU') of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment which was not in conformity with International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of certain issuer-produced data and assumptions used by a (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain reports and the accuracy and completeness of certain other reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the (1) accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data (2) reasonableness of certain assumptions and (3) appropriateness of the methods used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the appropriateness of an input including taking into consideration the issuer's ability to carry out its stated intentions. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs. (AS 2501.16; AS 1105.A8b)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the inputs methods and assumptions used in the issuer's VIU and depreciation and amortization rate calculations for one of its segments the following additional deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods used by the (1) company-employed specialist to develop certain inputs and (2) company-engaged specialist to evaluate certain of those inputs were appropriate under the circumstances taking into consideration the requirements of IFRS. (AS 1105.A8c)

For certain CGUs the firm also did not perform procedures to evaluate whether: - The estimated future cash outflows related to corporate expenses the issuer allocated to the CGUs and used to estimate their VIU could be attributed directly or were appropriately allocated on a reasonable and consistent basis to the use of the CGUs' assets in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

For certain CGUs the firm also did not perform procedures to evaluate whether: - The estimated future cash outflows related to certain duties should be included in the issuer's estimation of the CGUs' VIU in conformity with IAS 36 (AS 2810.30).

For certain CGUs the firm did not sufficiently test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the issuer to estimate the CGUs' VIU because its procedures were limited to agreeing the data to certain systems for which the firm did not test information technology general controls. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by company-employed specialists to develop certain inputs used in the D&A and VIU calculations. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify the significant assumptions used by the issuer in its VIU calculations of certain CGUs. (AS 2501.15)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions included in the VIU calculations including taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its stated intentions regarding the assumptions because its procedures were limited to comparing those assumptions to historical information. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer calculated depreciation and amortization ('D&A') of its long-lived assets based on their economic lives without consideration of any legal or other limits on the use of the assets. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's use of the economic life of certain long-lived assets to calculate D&A rather than using the contractual terms of the assets which for certain properties were shorter in duration than their respective economic lives in conformity with IAS 16 Property Plant and Equipment. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer estimated the VIU of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. For certain CGUs the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's: - Exclusion of the valuation of land associated with the CGUs in the determination of their carrying amounts rather than including such amounts in the determination in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer estimated the VIU of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. For certain CGUs the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's: - Exclusion of the estimated net cash flows if any to be received (or paid) from the disposal of the CGUs at the end of their useful life when estimating their VIU rather than including such amounts in the VIU calculations in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer estimated the VIU of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. For certain CGUs the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's: - Use of a 25-year remaining life of the assets of the CGUs in estimating their future cash flows for purposes of estimating their VIU rather than using the shorter of the economic life or contractual term of the assets in the VIU calculations in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer estimated the VIU of its CGUs to evaluate long-lived assets for impairment. For certain CGUs the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's: - Inclusion in its estimation of the CGUs' VIU of estimated future cash flows related to planned major maintenance that would result in improvements or enhancements to the CGUs' performance rather than excluding such cash flows from the VIU calculations in conformity with IAS 36. (AS 2810.30)

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 firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of an assessment of long-lived assets for potential impairment including the underlying cash-flow forecasts. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions underlying these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

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 firm selected for testing certain other IT-dependent manual controls over long-lived assets. The firm tested these controls through an interim date but did not perform any procedures to update the results of its testing from that interim date to year end. (AS 2201.55)

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 firm's approach for substantively testing the impairment of certain long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the method the issuer used to perform its impairment analyses was in conformity with the applicable financial reporting framework including the requirements of International Accounting Standard 36 Impairment of Assets because the firm did not evaluate evidence that indicated whether the recoverable amount of the individual assets was estimable and available. (AS 2501.10; AS 2810.03)

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 selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of depreciation expense. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owner performed to assess the appropriateness of the methods the issuer used to calculate depreciation. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of depreciation expense. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of fixed assets not being depreciated per the issuer's fixed asset register to identify any assets that should be depreciated. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data included within the fixed asset register used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used the issuer's fixed asset register in its substantive testing of depreciation expense and accumulated depreciation. The firm did not test or (as discussed above) test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the information included in the fixed asset register. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of an authorization for expenditure form for the acquisition of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether long-lived assets were appropriately capitalized. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing another control that consisted of the issuer's review of manual recalculations of depreciation expense and a comparison of those amounts to the depreciation expense calculated by the issuer's fixed asset register. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged external engineering consultants (“company's specialists”) to review and evaluate the mineral reserves and resources estimates prepared by management which were then used in the development of a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each site. The company's specialists evaluated the estimated mineral reserves and resources using various methods which included the use of financial and non-financial information data and assumptions that were provided by or obtained from the issuer other specialists and/or external sources. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the evaluation of the LOM plans and reserves estimates by the company's specialists which were then used in the issuer's depreciation expense calculations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the (1) accuracy and completeness of the non-financial data prepared by the issuer (2) relevance and reliability of the non-financial information obtained by the company's specialists (3) reasonableness of the non-financial assumptions and (4) appropriateness of the methods used by the company's specialists. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer engaged external engineering consultants (“company's specialists”) to review and evaluate the mineral reserves and resources estimates prepared by management which were then used in the development of a life-of-mine (LOM) plan for each site. The company's specialists evaluated the estimated mineral reserves and resources using various methods which included the use of financial and non-financial information data and assumptions that were provided by or obtained from the issuer other specialists and/or external sources. The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of long-lived assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to the evaluation of the LOM plans and reserves estimates by the company's specialists which were then used in the issuer's depreciation expense calculations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of the non-financial data prepared by the Issuer and evaluate the relevance and reliability of the non-financial information obtained and used by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8a)