Explorer

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the fraud risk of improper recognition of certain revenue at year end. (AS 2201.39)

For one of the issuer's reporting units: · The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the procedures were designed based on a level of control reliance that was not supported due to the deficiencies in the firm's testing of change management and management's review of customer invoices controls discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and 23A)

The firm selected revenue transactions for substantive testing. For certain transactions the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the performance obligation had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from product sales to customers. For certain customers the firm did not evaluate if it was probable that the issuer would collect substantially all of the consideration to which it believes it is entitled in order to recognize revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. Further the firm did not evaluate whether the timing of customer payments indicated the existence of implicit payment terms that would affect the recognition of revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognizes revenues from product sales. The firm did not test whether the issuer had evaluated if the issuer and customers had approved the contracts and were committed to perform their respective obligations in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognizes revenues from product sales. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer satisfied its performance obligations. (AS 2810.30)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one category of revenue that was generally earned upon product shipment the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate differences identified for certain revenue transactions selected for testing between the shipping dates and dates in which revenue was recognized to determine whether revenue was recognized in the proper period. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of a review of all changes made to customer data including sales prices within the subsidiary's system. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of customer data included in a report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · For another category of revenue the firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test a portion of revenue because it did not select its sample in a manner that was representative of the entire population and as such the results of testing performed could not be projected to the entire population. (AS 2315.24)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · In addition for certain sales transactions selected for testing related to sales arrangements in which the firm concluded had a single performance obligation the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the component's recognition of revenue in different periods for the respective arrangements. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.03)

The component reported revenue from multiple revenue types and for purposes of the audit the firm grouped revenue into three categories. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the effect of the (1) differences identified between the shipping dates and dates in which revenue was recognized and (2) inconsistencies in the component's revenue recognition practices for sales arrangements with a single performance obligation both as described above on the effectiveness of the component's ICFR or report such matters to the principal auditor for its evaluation. (AS 2201.B8)

The component entered into long-term contractual arrangements with customers for products and services and management represented that contracts generally contained one performance obligation. The firm did not evaluate whether contracts contained multiple performance obligations and if they did whether revenue was appropriately allocated to each distinct performance obligation and recognized only when the related performance obligations were satisfied. (AS 2810.33)

The firm selected for testing two controls over revenue that consisted of (1) management's review of information related to order entry shipping invoicing and accounts receivable and (2) the issuer's performance of a gross to net revenue analysis. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing two controls over revenue that consisted of (1) management's review of information related to order entry shipping invoicing and accounts receivable and (2) the issuer's performance of a gross to net revenue analysis. 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)

For certain revenue the customer purchase order information is transferred from customers to the issuer's enterprise resource planning system (ERPS) through a service organization. For certain other revenue customer purchase order and shipment information are aggregated by other service organizations and transferred to the issuer's ERPS. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing certain controls over revenue that consisted of the issuer's (1) review of certain information transmitted from one of the service organizations to its ERPS and (2) reconciliation of information transmitted from another service organization to its ERPS. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and/or completeness of certain information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

For certain revenue the customer purchase order information is transferred from customers to the issuer's enterprise resource planning system (ERPS) through a service organization. For certain other revenue customer purchase order and shipment information are aggregated by other service organizations and transferred to the issuer's ERPS. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain information provided by the service organizations used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 2301.08)

For certain revenue the issuer received customer orders electronically that were processed through its sales system. The firm selected for testing various automated controls over the processing of orders generation of invoices and recording of revenue. The firm obtained an understanding of the system's configuration settings but did not test whether these automated controls were designed and operating effectively. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

Customer-shipment information which was manually entered into the issuer's shipping system was transferred from the shipping system to the sales system to record certain revenue and generate customer invoices. The firm selected for testing a control that included the issuer's review of the customer-shipment information to determine whether revenue was appropriately recorded. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the customer-shipment information that was entered into the shipping system and used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

For certain revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of sales order prices manually entered into the sales system and quantities shipped and/or invoiced to customers. (AS 2201.39)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue 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 deficiency in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer manually entered sales order quantities into the issuer's revenue system. This system was programmed to convert the quantities entered into weight sold to determine the customer invoice amount. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of sales quantities manually entered into the system. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer manually entered sales order quantities into the issuer's revenue system. This system was programmed to convert the quantities entered into weight sold to determine the customer invoice amount. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of comparisons of the total weight of inventory shipped to (1) the weight of the products ordered by customers and (2) the weight information the issuer used to generate customer invoices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the weight information used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer manually entered sales order quantities into the issuer's revenue system. This system was programmed to convert the quantities entered into weight sold to determine the customer invoice amount. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the accuracy of sales prices that consisted of a review of sales order prices below a minimum price and above certain maximum prices. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of prices that did not meet these criteria. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer manually entered sales order quantities into the issuer's revenue system. This system was programmed to convert the quantities entered into weight sold to determine the customer invoice amount. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other revenue the firm identified a control deficiency related to a lack of controls over the accuracy of quantities shipped to customers and recorded as revenue. The firm identified various controls that it believed would compensate for this deficiency but its conclusion that these controls had a mitigating effect was inappropriate because these controls did not address the risk of potential misstatement related to inaccurate quantities. (AS 2201.68) As a result of our inspection procedures the firm reevaluated the issuer's controls over this revenue and concluded along with the issuer that certain control deficiencies existed that constituted a material weakness that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K and disclosed that the firm's opinion related to the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR should no longer be relied upon due to this material weakness and the material weakness discussed above.

The firm identified control deficiencies in the issuer's sales process related to segregation of duties conflicts and individuals having inappropriate access to the issuer's revenue system that provided these users with the ability to create and modify customer accounts enter sales orders and record adjustments to accounts receivable. The firm identified and tested various compensating controls including controls that the issuer implemented in response to these control deficiencies. The following audit deficiencies were identified: For the compensating controls the firm did not evaluate the implications of certain control owners having segregation of duties conflicts and/or inappropriate access to the revenue system. (AS 2201.68).

The firm identified control deficiencies in the issuer's sales process related to segregation of duties conflicts and individuals having inappropriate access to the issuer's revenue system that provided these users with the ability to create and modify customer accounts enter sales orders and record adjustments to accounts receivable. The firm identified and tested various compensating controls including controls that the issuer implemented in response to these control deficiencies. The following audit deficiencies were identified: · One of the controls that the issuer implemented consisted of the review of a report of all users who created or modified sales orders during the year. In testing this control the firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to identify users with inappropriate access and assess whether the sales orders these users created or modified were appropriate. (AS 2201.68) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over segregation of duties and access to the revenue system and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect these material weaknesses 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 identified control deficiencies in the issuer's sales process related to segregation of duties conflicts and individuals having inappropriate access to the issuer's revenue system that provided these users with the ability to create and modify customer accounts enter sales orders and record adjustments to accounts receivable. The firm identified and tested various compensating controls including controls that the issuer implemented in response to these control deficiencies. The following audit deficiencies were identified: · One of the controls that the issuer implemented consisted of the review of a report of all users who created or modified sales orders during the year. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.68) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over segregation of duties and access to the revenue system and concluded that material weaknesses existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect these material weaknesses and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue was 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)

For one of its business units the issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price for each arrangement to the separate performance obligations on a relative standalone selling price basis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the issuer's allocation of revenue to separate performance obligations was based on relative standalone selling prices in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2201.39)

For one of its business units the issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price for each arrangement to the separate performance obligations on a relative standalone selling price basis. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain revenue recorded from these arrangements the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the individual prices for goods sold were agreed to by customers prior to recording revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2201.39)

For one of its business units the issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price for each arrangement to the separate performance obligations on a relative standalone selling price basis. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of these revenue transactions the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the quantities shipped and invoiced by the issuer represented quantities ordered by customers. (AS 2201.39)

For one of its business units the issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price for each arrangement to the separate performance obligations on a relative standalone selling price basis. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain other revenue recorded from these arrangements the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether certain of these revenue transactions were valid and accurate. (AS 2201.39)

For one of its business units the issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple performance obligations and allocated the total transaction price for each arrangement to the separate performance obligations on a relative standalone selling price basis. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's allocation of revenue to separate performance obligations was based on relative standalone selling prices in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

For another business unit the firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether the (1) quantities shipped and invoiced by the issuer represented quantities ordered by customers and (2) prices were agreed to by customers prior to recording revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to the prices maintained in the pricing master file. The firm did not evaluate 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)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review and approval of changes to the prices maintained in the pricing master file. The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed whether all approved price changes were made to the pricing master file. (AS 2201.39)

For a third business unit the firm identified control deficiencies related to the issuer's controls over the review and approval of sales orders and changes to prices maintained in the pricing master file. The firm identified and tested various controls that it believed would mitigate these deficiencies. The firm did not identify that these compensating controls did not address the risks of material misstatement related to fictitious sales orders and inaccurate prices. (AS 2201.68)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue at two of these business units was 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)

For revenue from fixed-price contracts the firm performed substantive procedures to test a portion of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test the remaining portion. (AS 2301.08)

For revenue from completed contracts the firm designed one of its substantive procedures as a dual-purpose test. The firm performed its substantive procedure using the same sample size it determined for its control testing. This sample size was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence for the substantive procedure because the firm did not use the larger of the samples that would otherwise have been designed for the two separate purposes. (AS 2315.44)

For certain revenue the issuer entered information related to the types and quantities of services provided into a source system; this information was transferred from the source system to the issuer's revenue system to record revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2201.39)

The firm tested a control that consisted of a quarterly comparison of financial results including this revenue to the results of the prior quarter. The firm did not sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of this control because it did not test an aspect of another control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of these data. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The sample size the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test this revenue was 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)

For another business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to address an identified fraud risk related to revenue cut-off. (AS 2301.13)

To test the occurrence of revenue throughout the year at certain of the issuer's business units the firm's procedures included testing revenue transactions based on a nonstatistical sampling approach that was designed assuming a certain level of substantive evidence the firm planned to obtain from its other substantive procedures. These other substantive procedures did not provide the planned level of substantive evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to the occurrence of this revenue because these procedures which included confirming accounts receivable at year end performing cut-off testing at year end and testing credit memoranda after year end were primarily focused on the occurrence of revenue at a point in time. As a result the nonstatistical samples were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence to address the risks of material misstatement related to occurrence of this revenue throughout the year. (AS 2301.37 and .42; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the prices and quantities that the issuer used to record revenue. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of the system-generated report that was used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the occurrence of certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)