Explorer

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 and FASB ASC Topic 360 performed its assessments of long-lived assets for possible impairment prior to performing an impairment assessment of goodwill. (AS 2301.08)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer concluded that the carrying amount of one asset group was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of these assets. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a second asset group was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for its selection of a significant assumption from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a third asset group was to develop independent expectations of the fair values of these assets. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain significant assumptions it developed because it did not (1) take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions and (2) demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for its selection of these assumptions from a range of potential assumptions. (AS 2501.22)

During the year events or changes in circumstances existed indicating that the carrying value of the issuer's long-lived assets may not be recoverable and the issuer performed assessments of its long-lived assets for possible impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment for a third asset group was to develop independent expectations of the fair values of these assets. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information used in developing its independent expectations. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the issuer's method to estimate depreciation expense for certain assets was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 because it did not evaluate whether the issuer's method of when to start depreciating an asset represented when the asset was placed in service. (AS 2501.10)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate a difference it identified in its testing of long-lived assets. (AS 2301.08)

For long-lived assets at one business unit which was affected by the ITGC audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls related to the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

For long-lived assets at one business unit which was affected by the ITGC audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the ITGCs area and also identified the deficiency below. The firm selected for testing a control which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above that included the issuer's review of certain long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess certain indicators of possible impairment. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed the ITGCs area and also identified the deficiency below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test these long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end and concluded that the carrying value of these assets was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of these assets. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessments of long-lived assets for possible impairment. For the first business unit the firm did not test the operating effectiveness of this control. (AS 2201.44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reviews of its assessments of long-lived assets for possible impairment. For the second business unit the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of historical sales data used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

For the first business unit the firm did not sufficiently test the issuer's assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment because the firm's procedures were limited to reading the consolidated operating results for this business unit. (AS 2501.07)

For the second business unit the firm used historical sales data in its evaluation of the issuer's assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy of these data. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and test any controls related to the issuer's evaluation of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to long-lived assets and revenue including two instances of its enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets and revenue the firm tested various automated controls over long-lived assets and IT-dependent manual controls over revenue that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to long-lived assets and revenue including two instances of its enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets and revenue the firm tested various automated controls over long-lived assets and IT-dependent manual controls over revenue that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. • With respect to change management the firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's testing and approval of application changes before their migration into the production environment. The firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of this control over one of the instances of the issuer's ERP system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions related to long-lived assets and revenue including two instances of its enterprise resource planning (“ERP”) system. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets and revenue the firm tested various automated controls over long-lived assets and IT-dependent manual controls over revenue that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. • With respect to logical access the firm selected for testing controls that consisted of password configurations and the periodic review of user access. The firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of these controls over one of the instances of the issuer's ERP system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

For long-lived assets which were affected by the audit deficiency discussed above related to change management the following additional deficiency was identified: The firm selected for testing certain automated controls over the purchase of long-lived assets that consisted of the (1) matching of invoices approved purchase orders and receiving/inspection reports related to acquired long-lived assets (2) recording of liabilities through unbilled payables for all goods and services received through the system and (3) approval of purchase orders in accordance with an approved authorization matrix. The firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of these controls over one of the instances of the issuer's ERP system. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether certain assets met the definition of property plant and equipment in accordance with IAS 16 Property Plant and Equipment because the firm did not evaluate the business purpose of the assets beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information from external sources that the issuer used in an impairment calculation. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer engaged an external specialist to estimate the impairment for certain other long-lived assets. The firm did not perform any procedures to (i) test the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced information and (ii) evaluate the relevance and reliability of information from external sources that were both used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the useful lives for certain long-lived assets because it did not evaluate the significant differences between this assumption the significant assumption used by the issuer in an impairment calculation and industry information. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain data included in certain system-generated reports that it used in its substantive procedures over depreciation expense. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the impairment of certain long-lived assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other long-lived assets the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used in the impairment calculations. Specifically it did not evaluate significant differences between the assumptions and (i) similar significant assumptions used by the issuer in another estimate (ii) industry information and/or (iii) information from an external source. Further the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and/or reliability of the industry information and information from the external source. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded impairments related to certain long-lived assets during the year. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test another portion of an impairment including whether it was appropriate to record the impairment. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not test or test the controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports used in its testing of long-lived assets for impairment. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm did not test the fair value of the purchase price allocations to one asset category. (AS 2502.15)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for 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. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing controls over the review of the issuer's roll-forward for long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and schedules that were used in the performance these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of 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. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over various reviews of long-lived assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data and reports that were used in the performance of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test transfers of the long-lived assets between asset categories because it tested transfers for one quarter which did not constitute audit sampling and therefore the testing results could not be projected to the population of transfers during the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of documents used in testing the transfer of long-lived assets. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of property and equipment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to evaluate the reasonableness of depreciation expense. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of management's review of the long-lived assets impairment analysis. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the significant assumptions used in the impairment analysis. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that included management's review of financial statement disclosures related to long-lived assets that were based on a report prepared by an external specialist engaged by the issuer. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-provided data that the external specialist used to prepare this report. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to change management: · The firm selected for testing a change management control over one of the IT systems. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections to test this control. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to change management: · The firm selected for testing a change management control over one of the IT systems. The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain configuration changes to the system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record long-lived assets and related transactions including certain systems maintained by external service organizations. In its testing of controls over long-lived assets the firm tested various automated and IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by these IT systems. With respect to change management: · The firm did not identify and test any change management controls over one of the other IT systems. (AS 2201.39)

The firm obtained service organization reports on internal controls related to certain of the issuer's IT systems. The firm did not sufficiently test the relevant complementary user entity controls given the deficiencies identified above in testing ITGCs. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B22)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over impairment testing the firm used the results of its substantive testing as evidence that this control was operating effectively. The firm's procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not directly test the review procedures that the control owner performed. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · For a control over the allocation of purchase price for long-lived assets acquired as a group the firm used the results of its substantive audit procedures as evidence of the effectiveness of the control. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures performed by the control owner to evaluate the methods and assumptions used by the issuer-engaged specialist in the purchase price allocation. (AS 2201.42 .44 and .B9)

The firm also selected for testing certain review controls over long-lived assets and related transactions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of a certain issuer listing used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)