Explorer

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified accounted for and disclosed its related party transactions because the firm did not evaluate whether there were any transactions with certain related parties. (AS 2410.14)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified accounted for and disclosed its related party relationships and transactions because the firm did not take into account information gathered during the audit that could indicate that related party relationships or transactions previously undisclosed to the firm might exist. (AS 2410.14 .15 and .16)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test related party transactions. (AS 2410.12)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test a related party payable beyond inquiry and confirming the amount with the related party who was an executive officer of the issuer. (AS 2410.12)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties. Further the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether related party transactions were properly accounted for and disclosed in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2410.14 and .17)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified accounted for and disclosed its related party relationships and transactions. Specifically the firm did not evaluate whether certain transactions (communicated by the firm to the audit committee as significant unusual transactions) with a company for which (i) a shareholder of the issuer was a director and (ii) an immediate family member of the issuer's majority shareholders was the chief executive officer were related party transactions that the issuer should have identified and disclosed and whether such transactions were accounted for appropriately. (AS 2410.14 .15 and .17)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified accounted for and disclosed its related party relationships and transactions. Specifically the firm did not perform procedures to obtain an understanding of the business purpose (or the lack thereof) of the transactions. (AS 2401.66A .67 and .67A)

The firm did not evaluate the relevance of certain evidence it used in its assessment of the recoverability of amounts due from related parties. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer disclosed that it had no related party transactions or balances. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties because the firm did not evaluate information gathered during the audit to determine whether certain entities were related parties. (AS 2410.14)

During the year the issuer entered into several transactions with a related party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the presentation and disclosure of one of these transactions because it did not evaluate audit evidence that indicated that the nature of the transaction was contradictory to the issuer's presentation and disclosure in its financial statements. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform procedures to test an amount due to a related party beyond reviewing minutes from the Board of Directors meetings. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test a related party transaction because it did not (1) read the underlying documentation and evaluate whether the terms and other information about the transaction were consistent with explanations from inquiries and other audit evidence about the business purpose (or the lack thereof) of the transaction (2) determine whether the transaction had been authorized and approved in accordance with the issuer's established policies and procedures and (3) determine whether any exceptions to the issuer's established policies and procedures were granted. (AS 2410.12)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the disclosures related to the conversion terms of this preferred stock. (AS 2410.17)

The issuer had certain loans that were due to a related party. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform any procedures to test the activity and year-end amounts of certain accounts associated with these loans. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties because the firm did not take into account information gathered during the audit. (AS 2410.14)

During the year the issuer entered into a settlement agreement ('Settlement Agreement') with a related party ('Related Party A') in which the issuer returned rights related to software to Related Party A and Related Party A cancelled the issuer's remaining debt for the issuer's initial purchase of the software. Subsequent to this Settlement Agreement and after the issuer returned its rights to the software the issuer sold the software to another related party ('Related Party B') in exchange for other assets and a loan receivable. Subsequent to this transaction the issuer engaged in another transaction with Related Party A ('Subsequent Transaction') in which the issuer paid Related Party A other assets in exchange for cancellation of debt. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether the issuer had ownership of or other rights to sell the software to Related Party B. (AS 2301.08; AS 2410.11)

During the year the issuer entered into a settlement agreement ('Settlement Agreement') with a related party ('Related Party A') in which the issuer returned rights related to software to Related Party A and Related Party A cancelled the issuer's remaining debt for the issuer's initial purchase of the software. Subsequent to this Settlement Agreement and after the issuer returned its rights to the software the issuer sold the software to another related party ('Related Party B') in exchange for other assets and a loan receivable. Subsequent to this transaction the issuer engaged in another transaction with Related Party A ('Subsequent Transaction') in which the issuer paid Related Party A other assets in exchange for cancellation of debt. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to determine whether the debt cancellation in the Subsequent Transaction had been previously cancelled under the Settlement Agreement. (AS 2301.08; AS 2410.11)