Explorer

The firm selected for testing certain controls over a significant account. For another control the firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the system-generated reports used in the operation of the control. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer's ALL included a general reserve and a specific reserve for loans that are individually evaluated for impairment. The firm did not sufficiently test the reasonableness of the general reserve because it limited its procedures to reading an issuer-prepared memo and testing the mathematical accuracy of the reserve calculation. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer's ALL included a general reserve and a specific reserve for loans that are individually evaluated for impairment. The issuer assigned risk ratings to certain of its loans. The risk ratings were an important input in determining whether a loan would be individually evaluated for impairment as part of the specific reserve or considered as part of the general reserve. To test loans rated as pass the firm selected certain loans for testing from one loan portfolio. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the risk ratings for the remaining population of pass-rated loans in other portfolios. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

The issuer's ALL included a general reserve and a specific reserve for loans that are individually evaluated for impairment. The issuer assigned risk ratings to certain of its loans. The risk ratings were an important input in determining whether a loan would be individually evaluated for impairment as part of the specific reserve or considered as part of the general reserve. To test loans not rated as pass the firm performed certain of its procedures as of an interim date. The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to extend its conclusions on the risk ratings of these loans for the period between the interim testing date and year end. (AS 2301.45)

The issuer generated revenue through two types of transactions: Method A and Method B. The issuer calculated Method B revenue by multiplying the number of products delivered by the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue which was provided to the issuer by an unrelated party. The firm did not evaluate (1) the relevance of quarterly average prices for Method A revenue to the actual prices for Method B revenue and (2) the reliability of the quarterly average prices provided by the unrelated party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer generated revenue through two types of transactions: Method A and Method B. The issuer calculated Method B revenue by multiplying the number of products delivered by the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue which was provided to the issuer by an unrelated party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance of the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue used to calculate Method B revenue as the Method A price was inconsistent with the stated Method B product pricing terms defined by an agreement between the issuer and the unrelated party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer generated revenue through two types of transactions: Method A and Method B. The issuer calculated Method B revenue by multiplying the number of products delivered by the quarterly average price per product for Method A revenue which was provided to the issuer by an unrelated party. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of Method B revenue was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers because the firm did not evaluate whether Method B revenue which was substantially derived from nonmonetary exchanges had commercial substance. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test an equity method investment's unaudited financial statements and capital account for the last four months of the year which was used by the issuer to determine the carrying value of its investment beyond comparing the equity method investment's net income for that period to the comparable period of the previous year and tracing distributions received during the period to bank statements. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information obtained from the issuer and used in the firm's testing of certain aspects of revenue recognition. (AS 1105.10)

In determining its sample size used to test revenue the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement for the population. As a result the sample size the firm used was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 2315.16 .23 and .23A)

The firm selected for testing one review control over the qualitative component of the ALL. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the operating effectiveness of this control because 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 2201.44)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether all performance obligations were appropriately identified because it did not (1) perform procedures to identify and review all customer agreements/contracts that may contain promises to provide distinct goods or services and (2) evaluate whether any such promises identified should be accounted for as separate performance obligations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data it used to substantively test revenue. (AS 1105.10)

To test rollover contributions the firm selected certain rollover contributions that met specific criteria to evaluate whether they were appropriately recognized in accordance with the terms of the plan document. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the remaining population of rollover contributions to address the assessed risk of material misstatement. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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 used a cash flow forecast to evaluate an intangible asset for possible impairment. The firm did not evaluate the period of the expected future cash flows the issuer used in its forecast which was significantly longer than the remaining useful life of the asset. (AS 2502.26 and .28; AS 2810.03)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test payroll and benefits expense because its procedures were limited to comparing the expense recorded in the general ledger to issuer-prepared tax forms and inspecting certain journal entries. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether all identifiable assets acquired and liabilities assumed were recognized in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's disclosures related to the acquired intangible assets were in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value the issuer assigned to the acquired intangible assets. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the useful life the issuer assigned to these intangible assets because its procedures were limited to comparing this useful life to the useful life the issuer had assigned in a prior year to another type of intangible assets without evaluating the reasonableness of the difference between these two useful lives. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of certain consideration the issuer transferred to the sellers was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption that the issuer used to determine the fair value of this consideration. (AS 2501.16)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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.

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform any procedures to evaluate certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer and (2) evaluate whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop another significant assumption were relevant and reliable and whether that assumption was consistent with other relevant information. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201. C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these shares 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.

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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.

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate whether the significant assumptions were consistent with relevant information and whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop certain of these assumptions were relevant and reliable. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform any procedures to evaluate a significant assumption developed by the issuer and a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and (2) evaluate whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop another significant assumption were relevant and reliable and whether that assumption and other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist were consistent with other relevant information. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these shares 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.

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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.

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform any procedures to evaluate a significant assumption developed by the issuer and (2) evaluate whether certain significant assumptions that the company's specialist developed were consistent with relevant information. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants and another derivative instrument as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants and the derivative instrument 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.

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants and the derivative instrument as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants and the derivative instrument. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants and the derivative instrument was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not (1) perform any procedures to evaluate certain significant assumptions and (2) evaluate whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop other significant assumptions were relevant and reliable and whether those assumptions were consistent with other relevant information. (AS 1105.A8a and .A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these shares 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.

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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.

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for certain of these warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these certain warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the significant assumptions the company's specialist used. The firm did not sufficiently test the fair value of these warrants because it did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not evaluate whether the method the company's specialist used to value the warrants was appropriate and did not perform any procedures to evaluate a significant assumption that the company's specialist developed. (AS 1105.A8b and .A8c; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm did not perform sufficient substantive procedures to test certain of the issuer's revenue because its procedures were limited to comparing this revenue to system-generated reports and confirmations obtained from related parties. (AS 2301.08)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these warrants 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.

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these shares 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.

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain warrants as equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 815 Derivatives and Hedging. (AS 2810.30)

For certain types of revenue that the issuer recorded at two of its business units and deferred revenue that it recorded at one of these business units the firm used data or reports provided by the issuer in various substantive procedures it performed to test these accounts. The firm did not test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data and reports. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of a certain liability was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption the issuer used to determine the fair value of this liability because the firm's procedures were limited to inquiring of management and reading an issuer-prepared memorandum and analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of omissions from a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurements related to this liability. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the audit the firm did not identify and appropriately address that the issuer's accounting for certain redeemable shares as permanent equity was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 480 Distinguishing Liabilities from Equity. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these shares 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's substantive procedures to test revenue consisted of testing a sample of transactions. For certain of the transactions it selected for testing the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer entered into a transaction with multiple parties. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for this transaction as a business combination was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer recorded certain revenue at the time services were provided to its customers. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations for these services had been satisfied when revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used various data and assumptions to estimate certain deferred revenue. The firm's approach for substantively testing this deferred revenue was to develop an independent expectation. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the assumptions it used to develop its independent expectation were appropriate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .12) [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.]

The issuer used various data and assumptions to estimate certain deferred revenue. The firm's approach for substantively testing this deferred revenue was to develop an independent expectation. The firm did not test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the accuracy of the issuer-prepared data it used to develop its independent expectation. (AS 1105.10)