Explorer

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test Revenue A. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · In selecting its sample of items to test Revenue B the firm did not determine whether it was appropriate to select items from accounts receivable activity reports that may not have included a complete population of revenue transactions for the year. Further in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account the relevant factors including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .23 .23A and .24)

The issuer generated two types of revenue ('Revenue A' and 'Revenue B'). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's financial statement presentation of revenue on a gross versus net basis. (AS 2810.30)

Certain of the issuer's recorded liabilities were due to a related party or entities controlled by that related party. The firm did not perform any procedures to test liabilities due to the related party or entities controlled by the related party. Further the firm did not test beyond comparing certain of these amounts to the general ledger the disclosures related to these related party transactions. (AS 2410.11 and .17; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recorded a derivative liability and determined the fair value of the derivative liability using an option pricing model. The firm did not consider the variability of a certain provision and the issuer's ability to settle the transactions in evaluating whether the use of this model was appropriate and consistent with GAAP and related SEC guidance. (AS 2502.18)

The firm did not determine whether certain other instruments should have been accounted for as paid-in capital in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 470-20 Debt with Conversion and Other Options. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer issued common stock for services and recognized stock-based compensation. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of a discount the issuer applied to the market price when valuing certain stock-based compensation. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer issued common stock for services and recognized stock-based compensation. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the valuation of certain other stock-based compensation because it limited its procedures to comparing the issuer's valuation to another public filing. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer data and reports it used to test these transactions. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The following deficiencies were identified: - The sample size the firm used in this procedure was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test a significant account during certain months of the year. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the issuer appropriately recognized the transactions related to this significant account for the remaining months during the year. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer concluded that a receivable from a related party was fully collectible at year end. The firm did not evaluate the financial capability of a related party with respect to the significant uncollected balance. (AS 2410.12)

The issuer concluded that a receivable from a related party was fully collectible at year end. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the classification and presentation of this receivable. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.58)

The firm identified journal entries and other adjustments for testing. The firm did not perform any procedures to test these journal entries and other adjustments. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer records multiple types of revenue. For one type of revenue the firm compared issuer revenue information to customer sales contracts. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether (1) the issuer met its performance obligations before revenue was recognized; and (2) the method used to recognize revenue for one contract was appropriate. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer records multiple types of revenue. For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to test the revenue beyond agreeing revenue from three selected locations to an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The firm identified unresolved differences related to revenue and intangible assets. The firm did not perform procedures to (1) address these identified differences and (2) accumulate these differences to evaluate whether they were material individually or in combination with other misstatements even though the firm had not designated an amount below which misstatements are clearly trivial and do not need to be accumulated. (AS 2810.10 and .17)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the valuation of certain significant accounts. (AS 2501.07) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements 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 these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform procedures to test the reliability of information used by the firm in its testing of the valuation of a significant account. (AS 1105.04 and .06) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements 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 these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's accounting for and presentation and disclosure of these accounts. (AS 2301.08 and .11) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements 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 these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform procedures to test the existence completeness and rights and obligations for these accounts beyond confirming certain information with external parties. (AS 2301.08 and .11) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for and disclosure of certain significant accounts and determined that misstatements 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 these misstatements in a subsequent filing by revising the accounting disclosure.

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The firm's approach to testing participant and employer contributions included the use of data from a service organization which processed employee and payroll data (collectively 'data') and reliance on controls at the service organization. The service auditor's report for the service organization contained a qualified opinion because controls were not operating effectively to achieve a control objective related to data quality management. The firm did not evaluate whether the service auditor's report provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support the firm's reliance on service organization's controls because of the qualified opinion. (AS 2601.16)

The firm's approach to testing participant and employer contributions included the use of data from a service organization which processed employee and payroll data (collectively 'data') and reliance on controls at the service organization. The service auditor's report for the service organization contained a qualified opinion because controls were not operating effectively to achieve a control objective related to data quality management. The firm did not test relevant complementary user entity controls identified in the service auditor's report associated with certain control objectives related to ensuring accurate and complete data. (AS 2601.14)

The issuer determined the ALL using qualitative factors and applied basis points in determining each of the qualitative factors. The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions related to the basis points because the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for the basis points that were applied to the qualitative factors. (AS 2501.16)

The firm took a controls reliance approach to test the existence of deposits. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the existence of deposits. (AS 2301.16)

The firm used negative confirmations to substantively test the existence of deposits. This procedure and sample size did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because they were 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 2310.20; AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the ALL was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the basis points that were applied to determine the qualitative component of the ALL because it limited its procedures to (1) reading the issuer's analysis (2) testing the economic and loan portfolio trends and (3) concluding that changes to the basis points applied to determine the qualitative component or lack thereof were reasonable. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11) [This citation refers to AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates which was in effect for this audit. This standard was replaced by AS 2501 Auditing Accounting Estimates Including Fair Value Measurements which became effective for audits of financial statements ending on or after December 15 2020.]

To test the valuation of investments the firm selected for testing specific investments. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of investments. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer held certain inventory at a public warehouse. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of this inventory because it limited its procedures to confirming the quantities of this inventory with the public warehouse. (AS 2510.14)

For revenue from engineering and construction contracts at two of the issuer's subsidiaries the firm selected for testing multiple management review controls over revenue. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the criteria that the control owners used to identify items for follow up and whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm identified multiple deficiencies in the issuer's controls over revenue that it had selected for testing. The firm did not evaluate the severity of each control deficiency to determine whether the deficiency individually or in combination with other deficiencies constituted a material weakness. (AS 2201.62)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the review of revenue but 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 did not evaluate the accuracy and completeness of the issuer-produced sales registry from which the firm made its selections for its substantive testing of revenue as the sales registry did not agree to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's recognition of revenue from contract modifications under IFRS 15 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer recognized revenue over time for certain construction projects and reported work in process for costs incurred that related to satisfied performance obligations of construction contracts. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's capitalizing these costs as assets instead of expensing them as incurred in accordance with IFRS 15. (AS 2810.30)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to customers for trade receivables. No response was received for one customer's confirmation. The firm did not perform sufficient alternative procedures because its procedures were limited to reviewing the invoice and related contract without considering adjustments made to the receivable balance based on contract adjustments. (AS 2310.31)

The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the risks associated with certain other receivables. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to the issuer not accounting for certain redeemable shares outside of permanent equity in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recognized certain other revenue pursuant to a contract with an external party through which it agreed to provide services in exchange for noncash consideration. The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer recognized this revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer derives revenue through consolidated VIEs and relies on contractual arrangements with the VIEs and their shareholders to control the business operations of the consolidated VIEs. The issuer engaged an external specialist to provide a legal opinion regarding the issuer's consolidated VIEs including the validity and enforceability of contractual arrangements with the VIEs and their shareholders and the firm used the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of the work performed by the company's specialist and whether the specialist's findings support or contradict the issuer's rights and obligations related to the consolidation of the VIEs because it did not evaluate the nature of uncertainties described in the legal opinion prepared by the company's specialist and perform additional procedures to address the risks associated with those uncertainties. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of revenue and deferred revenue. The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the system-generated reports from which it made its selections to test certain of these controls. (AS 1105.10)

The firm selected for testing certain controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of revenue and deferred revenue. For one of these controls 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 issuer reported real estate investment properties including properties under development and performed an annual assessment of the properties for impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of the annual assessment of real estate investment properties for potential impairment. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owner(s) 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 issuer reported real estate investment properties including properties under development and performed an annual assessment of the properties for impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing certain other controls that consisted of the issuer's recording and approval of transactions associated with the construction of real estate investment properties. For certain of the controls tested the firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of system-generated reports from which it made its selections to test these controls. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer reported real estate investment properties including properties under development and performed an annual assessment of the properties for impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm selected for testing certain other controls that consisted of the issuer's recording and approval of transactions associated with the construction of real estate investment properties. For one of these controls that included the issuer's review of construction in progress 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 issuer reported real estate investment properties including properties under development and performed an annual assessment of the properties for impairment. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether certain misstatements it identified related to real estate investment properties including properties under development should have had an effect on the firm's conclusions about the effectiveness of the issuer's controls over these assets. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's reconciliation of related party balances and transactions. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the completeness of a system-generated report used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)