Explorer

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers (“ASC Topic 606”) because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether revenue was recognized as the issuer's performance obligation was satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with ASC Topic 606 because it did not perform any procedures to test whether the revenue was recognized when the issuer's performance obligation was satisfied. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition policy (1) each party's rights regarding the goods or services to be transferred and (2) the payment terms for the goods or services to be transferred. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer recognized revenue from contracts that included multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price to the separate performance obligations based on relative SSPs. The firm's approach for testing the allocation of revenue to the separate performance obligations was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether the residual method that the issuer used to allocate the transaction price to the separate performance obligations was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate whether the SSPs of certain performance obligations were highly variable. (AS 2501.10)

In addition the firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to (1) the nature of and reason for the change in accounting principle and (2) the transition method used by the issuer as required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the accounting policies for revenue recognition that were required by FASB ASC Topic 235. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to the amount of revenue recognized in the current year from performance obligations satisfied (or partially satisfied) in previous years that were required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's inaccurate disclosure of its revenue recognition policy. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to disaggregated revenue and significant payment terms required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized several types of revenue. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because it did not evaluate whether there were any terms and conditions outside of the sales orders that created enforceable rights and obligations which could affect the recognition of revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

During the audit the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of misstatements in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized certain revenue over time based on estimates of the goods and services it would provide to customers and the payments it would receive for those goods and services. The following deficiencies were identified: · To facilitate the issuer's fulfillment of its contracts for certain of this revenue the issuer's customers contributed certain goods and services that the issuer recognized as revenue. The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether this revenue was recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because it did not evaluate certain contractual terms and conditions that could affect revenue recognition. (AS 2810.30)

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling price. The issuer disclosed that it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for certain performance obligations in these arrangements. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's determination and disclosure of whether it used observable prices to determine the standalone selling prices for these performance obligations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer's contractual arrangements offered certain discounts primarily consisting of rebates and other deductions. For one type of revenue the issuer recorded these discounts as an expense. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for these discounts was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 related to the disaggregation of revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and determined that an error existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this error in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosure.

For two types of revenue one of which was affected by other audit deficiencies certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's methods maximized the use of observable inputs. (AS 2501.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recognized several types of revenue. With respect to two types of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods the issuer used to recognize this revenue were in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risks that the performance obligations and transaction prices were not properly identified and that revenue was not properly recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39) Unrelated and subsequent to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from customer contracts and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's inclusion of unexercised and non-binding customer purchase options in its determination of revenue recognized from customer contracts which was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated and subsequent to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from customer contracts and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected these material weaknesses in a revision of its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on ICFR to include these additional material weaknesses.

The issuer recognized revenue from finance leases. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's exclusion of the present value of the exercise price of purchase options in determining the lease payments as required by IFRS 16 Leases. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for revenue from finance leases and determined a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this misstatement in a subsequent filing by revising the prior-period financial statements.

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's incorrect disclosure that all proceeds from government grants were included in vehicle sales revenue when certain of those proceeds were included in finance lease revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures regarding government grants and determined that misstatements existed in disclosures that had not been previously identified. The issuer did not file an amended Form 20-F or Form 6-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the disclosures.

The issuer disclosed the amount of unsatisfied performance obligations. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in this required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether certain transactions were appropriately presented as revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's recognition of revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to revenue required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

Deficiency evaluating the economic substance and accounting treatment of certain revenue.

The issuer entered into arrangements with its customers for cooperative promotion allowances that the issuer recorded as an operating expense. The firm did not evaluate whether recording these allowances as an operating expense was appropriate because it did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate whether these allowances were a distinct good or service in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for cooperative promotion allowances and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the review of the issuer's accounting for certain revenue arrangements for conformity with GAAP. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain information that the control owners used in the performance of this control. (AS 2201.39)

During the audit the firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's accounting for certain transactions as revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 840 Leases. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these transactions and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's omission of the disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers separately from its other sources of revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosure of revenue recognized from contracts with customers and determined a disclosure was omitted. The issuer did not file an amended Form 10-K or Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on. Instead the issuer corrected this omission in a subsequent filing.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report. The issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

Certain of the issuer's revenue arrangements included multiple performance obligations. The issuer allocated the total transaction price for each of these arrangements to the separate performance obligations based on the relative standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the methods that the issuer used to estimate the standalone selling prices were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2501.10) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the methods it used to estimate standalone selling prices and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report. The issuer also reevaluated its disclosures related to standalone selling prices and determined that a disclosure was misstated. The issuer corrected this misstatement in an amended Form 10-K.

During the year the issuer received a one-time payment in connection with a contract modification that it recognized as revenue. The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's accounting for this revenue was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this revenue and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over revenue and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised and reissued its report on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to include this additional material weakness.

Certain of the issuer's contracts provided for the reimbursement of costs for services performed on behalf of its customers and the issuer did not recognize revenue from these services. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether these services were part of the issuer's performance obligation under its customer contracts that should have been recognized as revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain revenue was recognized in conformity with IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers as it did not evaluate whether: · certain provisions in customer contracts represented distinct performance obligations and if so whether such performance obligations should be recognized at a point in time or over the relevant service period in accordance with IFRS 15; and · the issuer's allocation of transaction price to a series of performance obligations was in conformity with IFRS 15. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate contract modifications variable consideration and equity-based incentives included in certain customer contracts when evaluating whether the issuer recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate (1) whether the issuer's custom products had an alternative use to the issuer and (2) whether the issuer had an enforceable right to payment for performance completed to date when evaluating whether the issuer recognized revenue for custom products in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate the issuer's identification of performance obligations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 because it did not identify and evaluate certain relevant terms and conditions in the distributor and dealer arrangements that could affect revenue recognition. (AS 2810.30)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the estimated transaction prices for certain types of contracts included in this disclosure were determined in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2201.39)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of misstatements in this disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of this disclosure. The firm did not test the aspects of these controls that addressed the issuer's assessment of whether certain contractual terms and estimated transaction prices for contracts that were included in this disclosure were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

With respect to the issuer's disclosure of transaction prices allocated to unsatisfied performance obligations the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether certain contractual terms and estimated transaction prices for contracts that were included in this disclosure were disclosed in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of a disclosure that was required under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

With respect to the issuer's disclosures related to revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain revenue disclosures that were required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

With respect to the issuer's disclosures related to revenue the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the significance of the issuer's omission of another required revenue disclosure that the firm identified through its substantive procedures. (AS 2810.30 and .31)