Explorer

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment and used information from various internal and external sources in concluding not to perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. The firm did not perform any procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions the issuer used in this qualitative assessment. (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.]

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of goodwill impairment and used information from various internal and external sources in concluding not to perform a quantitative goodwill impairment test. The firm did not (1) test or in the alternative identify and test any controls over the issuer-prepared data and (2) evaluate whether external information the issuer used in its qualitative assessment was relevant and reliable. (AS 1105.04 .06 and .10)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to three of the acquired businesses the following deficiency identified: · The firm's procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasted revenue growth rates for the first two years of the forecast period consisted of comparing these rates to forecasted industry data and historical financial information of the acquired businesses. For two of the acquired businesses the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the historical financial information. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The issuer assumed a liability related to warrants as a result of this acquisition and engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of these warrants. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair values of the warrants beyond reading the specialist's report. (AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple other businesses. The issuer engaged specialists to determine the fair values of the acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows provided by the issuer and related assumptions developed by the specialists. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and certain significant assumptions that the company's specialists used. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer for periods beyond the first year of the forecasted cash flows. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple other businesses. The issuer engaged specialists to determine the fair values of the acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows provided by the issuer and related assumptions developed by the specialists. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and certain significant assumptions that the company's specialists used. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and reading an issuer-prepared memorandum and the valuation reports that were prepared by the company's specialists. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by a service organization. The firm used certain information produced by this service organization in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a list of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test those journal entries because it examined the underlying support for only certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of the acquired intangible assets for each acquisition. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and significant assumptions that the company's specialist used including the forecasted cash flows developed by the issuer. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasted cash flows. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. For two of the acquired businesses the firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining assets acquired and liabilities assumed. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's contracts with its customers included any terms that could have had an effect on revenue recognition. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm's sample for testing expenses related to share-based compensation was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because in determining the sample size the firm did not take into account tolerable misstatement the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to three of the acquired businesses the following deficiency identified: · The firm's procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the forecasted revenue growth rates for the first two years of the forecast period consisted of comparing these rates to forecasted industry data and historical financial information of the acquired businesses. For one of the acquired businesses the firm did not evaluate a significant difference between the industry data and the issuer's forecasted revenue growth rate for the second year of the forecast period. (AS 2501.16).

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed certain of these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any procedures to test certain other expenses beyond (1) comparing the current-year balance to the prior-year balance and (2) tracing certain balances in the general ledger to issuer-prepared reports. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for testing a control that included a review of the forecasted cash flows and related assumptions that the issuer used in its assessment of its intangible assets for impairment. The firm did not evaluate the specific review procedures that the control owner performed to assess the reasonableness of the cash flows and related assumptions. (AS 2201.42 and .44)

The firm's approach for substantively testing these intangible assets for possible impairment was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's forecasted cash flows beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum. (AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing controls over the existence of certain inventory held by external parties that the issuer used to manufacture its products. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the reports that the issuer obtained from the external parties and used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a list of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test those journal entries because it examined the underlying support for only certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of its warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and significant assumptions that 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 (1) sufficiently evaluate whether the methods that the company's specialist used were appropriate because it did not evaluate whether the data and significant assumptions used were appropriately applied (2) evaluate whether certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist were consistent with other relevant information and whether external data that the company's specialist used to develop one of these significant assumptions were relevant and reliable and (3) perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the company and used by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a .A8b and .A8c; AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.16)

The issuer recorded revenue based on data in an electronic environment that were tracked and provided by external parties. The firm used these data in its substantive testing of revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of these data. (AS 1105.04 and 06)

For certain revenue the issuer used third-party platforms to provide services to its customers. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain revenue recognition criteria to satisfy the performance obligation for these services before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of its warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of these warrants was to test the issuer's process and the firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate the methods and 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 (1) sufficiently evaluate whether certain methods that the company's specialist used were appropriate because it did not evaluate whether the data and significant assumptions used were appropriately applied and (2) perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions that the company's specialist developed. (AS 1105.A8b and .A8c; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

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

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to three of the acquired businesses the following deficiency identified: · For all three acquired businesses the firm did not perform any procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of the revenue growth rates for the remaining years of the forecasted period and another significant assumption. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in a disclosure required under FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The issuer assumed a liability related to certain warrants as a result of this acquisition and recorded a gain related to the change in the fair value of this liability between the acquisition date and year end. The firm did not sufficiently test this gain because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the fair value of the liability recorded at the acquisition date beyond reading the valuation report that was prepared by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to three of the acquired businesses the following deficiency identified: · For certain of the acquired businesses the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain other assets acquired and liabilities assumed. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to another acquired business the following deficiency was identified: · The issuer initially recorded a liability for contingent consideration related to this acquired business but reclassified this contingent consideration from a liability to equity prior to year end. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate whether this reclassification was appropriate because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management and reading a memorandum prepared by the issuer. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to another acquired business the following deficiency was identified: · The issuer assumed liabilities related to warrants as a result of this acquisition and recorded a gain related to the change in the fair values of these liabilities between the acquisition date and year end. The firm did not sufficiently test this gain because it did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the fair values of these liabilities recorded at the acquisition date. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using forecasted cash flows and related assumptions. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of the acquired intangible assets was to test the issuer's process. With respect to another acquired business the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in the issuer's disclosure related to the valuation of the acquired net assets that was required under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer used information it obtained from an external party to record revenue for services provided to its customers. The firm obtained this information from the issuer and used it in its substantive procedures to test this revenue but did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information beyond validating that the issuer had not made any changes to the information after obtaining it from the external party. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm identified fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a list of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test those journal entries because it examined the underlying support for only certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of a required disclosure under FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers related to significant payment terms. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and concluded that a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements.

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of possible impairment for one intangible asset and a quantitative assessment of possible impairment for another intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's quantitative assessment beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum and inquiring of issuer personnel. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and determined the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions that the issuer used in these cash-flow forecasts. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and determined the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions that the issuer used in these cash-flow forecasts including not sufficiently taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these cash-flow forecasts because its procedures were limited to comparing these assumptions to historical financial information and reading a purchase commitment agreement for one customer. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of the acquired assets including certain intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of the external data that the company's specialist used to determine the fair values of these intangible assets. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of the acquired assets including certain intangible assets. The following deficiencies were identified:

The issuer recognized revenue from certain contracts over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the estimated costs to complete the contracts that the firm selected for testing. (AS 2501.16)

The firm's substantive procedures to test certain revenue consisted of performing substantive analytical procedures. The firm used data produced by the issuer to develop its expectations but did not test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain of these data. (AS 2305.16)

For one type of revenue the issuer determined that it was the agent in the arrangements with its customers and recognized revenue on a net basis. The firm did not identify and evaluate a misstatement in the issuer's disclosures related to this revenue in which the issuer disclosed it was the principal and recognized revenue on a gross basis. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated this disclosure and concluded that a misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected this misstatement in a restatement of its financial statements.

For another type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate whether the issuer's recognition of this revenue and related disclosure was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For both types of revenue at one of the issuer's business units the firm did not perform any procedures to test whether the performance obligation had been satisfied when revenue was recognized for certain transactions that the firm selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. For one business combination the issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets and contingent consideration. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these intangible assets and the contingent consideration was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or the issuer and used by the company's specialist including not sufficiently taking into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out the cash-flow forecasts that assumed significant revenue growth because its procedures were limited to inquiring of management comparing these assumptions to historical financial information and for the first year of the cash-flow forecasts using historical financial information to corroborate management's explanations for certain differences between these assumptions and actual results. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16 and .17)

During the year the issuer acquired two businesses and determined the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using cash-flow forecasts. For one business combination the issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets and contingent consideration. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these intangible assets and the contingent consideration was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of the historical financial information that (1) it used in evaluating the reasonableness of the significant assumptions discussed above and (2) the company's specialist used in determining the fair value of the contingent consideration. (AS 1105.10 and .A8a)

For both business combinations the firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations and FASB ASC Topic 820 Fair Value Measurement. (AS 2810.30 and .31) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its disclosures related to these business combinations and determined that certain disclosures were 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 these omissions in a subsequent filing.

The issuer recognized revenue from a contract over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions that the issuer used to develop the estimated costs to complete this contract beyond inquiring of project managers. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer performed a qualitative assessment of possible impairment for one intangible asset and a quantitative assessment of possible impairment for another intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test the issuer's quantitative assessment beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum and inquiring of issuer personnel. (AS 2501.07)