Explorer

The firm selected for testing a control over the issuer's preparation and review of the financial statements that included an evaluation by the control owners of the issuer's disclosures related to its ability to continue as a going concern. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to evaluate these disclosures. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer recognized revenue at a point in time. In its evaluation of the issuer's revenue recognition the firm did not evaluate the specifications of the issuer's products and contracts in determining if there were practical limitations on whether the products had an alternative use in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its controls over the evaluation of the point in time method of revenue recognition and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently revised its report on ICFR to reflect this material weakness and the firm modified its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion and reissued its report.

The issuer experienced certain adverse market conditions and deteriorating financial results that arose before and after year end. The issuer developed a plan to mitigate the effect of these events and conditions. The firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to support certain assumptions used in the issuer's plan including the issuer's ability to carry out specific actions. (AS 2415.07 .08 and .09)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of an analysis of the valuation of deferred tax assets. The issuer adjusted its valuation of certain deferred tax assets based on a study prepared by the issuer's external specialist. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the aspect of this control or any other control that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the data and reasonableness of the assumptions used in this study. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the reasonableness of the fair value of certain assets or the tax basis of certain assets and liabilities used in the issuer's external specialist's study that the issuer used to adjust the valuation of certain deferred tax assets. (AS 2501.11)

The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the review of (1) journal entries to record revenue and (2) month-end reconciliations. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain revenue reports that the control owners used in the operation of these controls. (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 deficiencies in the firm's control testing discussed above. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37; AS 2315.19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer recognized revenue from custom products at a point in time. In its evaluation of the issuer's revenue recognition the firm did not evaluate (1) the specifications of the custom products in determining if there were practical limitations on whether the products had an alternative use and (2) whether the issuer's customary business practice of not enforcing its contractual right to payment on cancelled orders renders this right to be unenforceable in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The issuer used a service organization to process certain revenue. The firm selected for testing controls that consisted of the issuer's reviews of analyses supporting revenue deduction accruals for this revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owners performed to assess the accuracy of the sales deduction rates used in the analyses. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's quarterly review of the provision for income taxes. 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)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses. The firm selected for testing controls over the accounting for business combinations including the issuer's reviews of the valuation of certain acquired 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 identified and tested a compensating control to address deficiencies the issuer identified in controls over revenue recognition. This compensating control involved the issuer's review of a small sample of contracts for appropriate revenue recognition. The firm did not evaluate whether the small sample of revenue contracts subject to the issuer's review was sufficient to address the risk of material misstatement. (AS 2201.68)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses. The firm selected for testing controls over the accounting for business combinations including the issuer's reviews of the valuation of certain acquired assets. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the valuation of certain other assets that were also acquired in the business combinations. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included performing substantive analytical procedures which consisted of comparisons of monthly revenue to the prior-month revenue. These analytical procedures did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not (1) determine whether the prior-period amounts could be expected to be predictive of the current-period amounts and (2) include the first month of the year under audit in its analytical procedures. Further the firm used a threshold for investigation of differences that was inconsistent with the desired level of assurance because it did not consider the possibility that a combination of misstatements could aggregate to an unacceptable amount. (AS 2301.08; AS 2305.13 .14 and .20)

The issuer stored revenue data from its point-of-sale system in multiple databases including a primary database that was used to record data in the general ledger and a redundant database. The firm determined that certain change management and logical access information technology general controls over the primary database were ineffective. The firm identified a compensating control that consisted of a manual comparison of revenue data from the redundant database to the general ledger but the firm did not test beyond inquiry controls that addressed the accuracy and completeness of the revenue data in the redundant database. (AS 2201.68)

The firm selected for testing a control that consisted of the issuer's review of invoices for certain revenue. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures the control owners performed with respect to reviewing the accuracy and completeness of labor hours which were an input into the issuer's calculation of this revenue. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls that addressed the existence of accounts receivable. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to more extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · In determining the extent to which audit procedures should be performed at these business units the firm did not evaluate whether (1) specific risks of material misstatement existed at these business units and (2) the risks of material misstatement the firm identified for the business units subject to more extensive audit procedures also applied to these business units such that in combination these risks presented a reasonable possibility of material misstatement. (AS 2101.11 and .12; AS 2201.B10)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The relevant controls the firm selected for testing were two entity level controls that included monthly reviews of financial information including accounts receivable for these business units. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including the procedures to identify items for follow up and/or the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The issuer initiated and processed sales at numerous business units. The firm designated certain of the issuer's business units as (1) subject to more extensive audit procedures or (2) subject to less extensive audit procedures. With respect to business units subject to less extensive audit procedures the following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to address the risks of material misstatement related to existence of accounts receivable. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control over the review of qualitative factors which are inputs used in determining the general reserve component of the ALL. 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 used multiple information-technology (IT) systems to initiate process and record transactions. In its testing of controls over certain revenue and related accounts the firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data and reports generated or maintained by certain of these IT systems. As a result of the following deficiencies in the firm's testing of IT general controls (ITGCs) the firm's testing of these IT-dependent controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the review and approval of certain of this revenue. 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 recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of labor hours that were an input into the issuer's calculation of this revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue the firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy of certain data it used in its substantive testing. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For this revenue at one business unit the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated costs to complete open contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain of this revenue at another business unit the firm did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the accuracy of estimated total units to be completed. (AS1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The issuer recognized certain revenue from contracts using a measure of progress method. The following deficiencies were identified: · Fir certain other revenue at this business unit the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether revenue was recorded in the appropriate period. (AS 2301.08)

The sample sizes the firm used in certain of its substantive procedures to test revenue and related accounts were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because these procedures were designed based upon 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)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain items in its sample the responses were returned by email. The firm did not consider performing any procedures to verify the source of these responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm sent positive confirmation requests to the issuer's customers for a sample of accounts receivable. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain confirmations that were not returned the firm did not perform alternative procedures that provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence that these balances represented valid receivables as of the confirmation date. (AS 2310.31)

With respect to user access: · The firm selected for testing a control over the periodic review of user access for each of these IT systems. The firm did not evaluate whether items identified by the control owners for follow up were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the completeness of the system-generated reports that it used to select its sample for testing controls over change management for certain of these systems. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the segregation of duties related to the ability to develop and implement changes to these IT systems. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control for certain of these systems the firm did not test whether users with the ability to implement changes also had the ability to develop changes. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the approval of new or modified user access to these IT systems. In its testing of the operating effectiveness of this control the firm (1) excluded certain types of new users from its testing population and (2) did not test the aspect of this control related to the modification of access for existing users. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the removal of access to these systems for terminated users. The firm identified an exception in the operation of this control but did not evaluate the effect of this exception on the operating effectiveness of this control. (AS 2201.48)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a control over the periodic review of user access. For certain of these systems the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the reports that the control owners used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer used multiple IT systems to initiate process and record transactions related to certain revenue and derivatives. The firm tested ITGCs for these IT systems. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm tested various automated controls over this revenue and derivatives that used data from certain of these IT systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of ITGCs discussed above the firm's testing of these automated controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

The issuer calculated certain revenue and recorded the fair value of its derivatives based on security prices it obtained from external pricing services. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the reliability of the prices obtained from the external pricing services. (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 upon 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)

The firm identified a deficiency in ITGCs for certain of the issuer's systems related to individuals having inappropriate administrative rights to these systems. The firm identified a compensating control related to the issuer's monthly reviews of financial information. 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. Further the firm did not identify that the control owners used data in the performance of this control that were produced by the systems that were subject to the inappropriate access deficiency. (AS 2201.68)

The firm tested various IT-dependent manual controls that used data generated or maintained by these systems. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's compensating control testing discussed above the firm's testing of these IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2201.46)

With respect to user access: · The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain reports used in the operation of this control. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing a test of details for the first 11 months of the issuer's fiscal year and a substantive analytical procedure for the remaining month. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm limited its test of details to a smaller number of selections than the sample size it calculated. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of performing a test of details for the first 11 months of the issuer's fiscal year and a substantive analytical procedure for the remaining month. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain historical data used in its substantive analytical procedure. (AS 2305.16)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses. The firm performed certain substantive procedures but did not obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence regarding the reasonableness of the projected financial information used by the issuer to determine the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets and contingent consideration. (AS 2502.26 .28 .31 and .36)

During the year the issuer created a subsidiary to purchase certain assets from a counterparty. The firm did not evaluate whether due to the terms in the agreement the subsidiary was a variable interest entity under FASB ASC Topic 810 Consolidation. (AS 2810.30)