Explorer

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test any adjustments made in the fourth quarter. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer recognized certain revenue at the time risk of loss was transferred to the customer and also recorded subsequent adjustments to revenue based on information related to quality issues and the final sales price. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected a sample of sales transactions to test cut-off. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer disclosed that inventory was subject to the risk of asset misappropriation by both internal and external parties. The firm did not identify this risk or perform any procedures to address this risk. (AS 2301.08)

The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls ('ITGCs') over the issuer's general ledger and other systems ('applications') in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of data produced by the applications that was used in performing the firm's substantive testing of long-lived assets depreciation and amortization and revenue. The firm selected for testing ITGCs over logical access including privileged access. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not sufficiently test the operating effectiveness of change management controls because the firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the population of modifications to applications. (AS 2301.21)

The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls ('ITGCs') over the issuer's general ledger and other systems ('applications') in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of data produced by the applications that was used in performing the firm's substantive testing of long-lived assets depreciation and amortization and revenue. The firm selected for testing ITGCs over logical access including privileged access. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test any controls related to segregation of duties over modifications to applications. (AS 2301.16)

In performing its substantive testing the firm used data produced by the issuer and planned to test the accuracy and completeness of the data by testing relevant controls. The firm did not sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of the data given these deficiencies in its testing of ITGCs. (AS 2301.16 .18 and .37)

For certain inputs used in the issuer's value in use ('VIU') calculations for one of the issuer's segments the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of a departure from applicable accounting standards related to the use of certain assumptions by the issuer to develop the inputs. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of estimated operating costs and certain other data that the issuer provided to issuer-engaged specialists for their use in developing certain inputs. (AS 1210.12)

For another segment's VIU calculations the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance of a departure from applicable accounting standards related to the issuer excluding an estimate of net cash flows if any to be received (or paid) for the disposal of that segment's long-lived assets at the end of their useful lives. (AS 2810.30)

The firm selected a sample of additions to long-lived assets. The firm did not test certain transactions selected for testing. In addition with respect to assets under construction the firm did not test the existence of these assets and the status of the projects including whether the construction had been delayed or suspended which could indicate potential impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test disposals because it limited its procedures to testing the authorization of each disposal selected for testing. (AS 2301.08 .16 .18 and .37)

The firm did not test whether all criteria for recognition were met. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls that address whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria were met prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over journal entries and other adjustments made in the period-end financial reporting process. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to examine material adjustments made during the course of preparing the financial statements. (AS 2301.41)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm identified fraud criteria to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing and obtained a listing of journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the completeness of the listing of journal entries it used to identify journal entries that met the criteria. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not sufficiently test the journal entries that met the identified fraud risk criteria for evidence of possible material misstatement due to fraud because it limited its procedures to certain entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its testing to those journal entries. Further the firm did not examine the underlying support for those entries it selected for testing. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm identified deficiencies related to ITGCs for several of the issuer's information systems but did not evaluate the severity of these deficiencies to determine whether the deficiencies individually or in combination were material weaknesses. (AS 2201.62)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer recognized several types of revenue. With respect to two types of revenue the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods the issuer used to recognize this revenue were in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had satisfied its performance obligations prior to recognizing these two types of revenue because it limited its procedures to reviewing certain external information and/or testing that the issuer had received cash. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. With respect to these two types of revenue and another type of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met certain other revenue recognition criteria prior to recognizing revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of data the company's specialist obtained from external sources and used to develop the fair values. (AS 1105.A8a)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions developed by the issuer and the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not (1) perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the relevant revenue recognition criteria had been met prior to recognizing revenue and (2) perform any substantive procedures to address certain fraud risks. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialist to develop the fair values were appropriate under the circumstances taking into account the requirements of GAAP. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to determine the fair values of certain long-lived assets. The firm used an auditor-engaged specialist to perform reviews of the company's specialist's valuation reports. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the disclaimers and limitations included in the auditor-engaged specialist's reports that affected the firm's use of the reports. (AS 1210.09 and .12)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm used an external digital confirmation platform to confirm certain cash but did not perform any procedures to support its reliance on this digital platform's ability to maintain control over the confirmation requests and responses. (AS 2310.28)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm identified characteristics of potentially fraudulent entries or adjustments for testing but did not determine whether any journal entries met those characteristics and instead limited its testing to haphazardly selected journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the completeness of the population of journal entries it used to select journal entries for testing because it did not identify unexplained differences between the general ledger balances it used to test the completeness and the general ledger balances that were included in the financial statements. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform auditing procedures beyond reviewing disbursements for certain components with respect to the period after the balance-sheet date for purpose of ascertaining the occurrence of subsequent events that may require adjustment or disclosure. (AS 2801.12)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm identified uncorrected misstatements but did not evaluate whether the uncorrected misstatements were material individually or in combination with other misstatements including the effects of the uncorrected misstatements on the specific accounts and disclosures involved and the effects of the misstatements identified related to the prior year on the current year financial statements. (AS 2810.17 and .18)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures beyond obtaining information about the source's reputation and regulatory compliance. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of other information it obtained from external sources and used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to establish that the issuer had control over these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the issuer's (1) identification of related parties and relationships and (2) accounting for and disclosure of related party transactions. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer reported certain assets. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's classification of these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and evaluate departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to revenue. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not 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 internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties. Further the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to evaluate whether related party transactions were properly accounted for and disclosed in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2410.14 and .17)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer engaged an external specialist to develop an estimate related to this significant account. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the assumptions used by the company's specialist. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from GAAP related to an aspect of the issuer's methodology that was used to develop the estimate. (AS 2501.10)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the issuer and by the company's specialist including evaluating a significant difference between one of the assumptions and a significant assumption used by the issuer in another estimate tested. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's approach for substantively testing this estimate was to test the issuer's process and the firm engaged another external specialist to perform a review of the company's specialist's report. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the auditor-engaged specialist's work provided sufficient appropriate audit evidence because it did not perform additional procedures or request the auditor-engaged specialist perform additional procedures to address the disclaimer in the auditor-engaged specialist's report. (AS 1210.09 and .12)

The firm's internal inspection program inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain attributes related to this significant account. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair values of certain of the issuer's investments. (AS 2502.15)

The issuer disclosed that a prepayment for land was refundable even though the deadline for the rights to receive the refund expired prior to year end. The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately disclosed this prepayment as refundable. (AS 2810.03 .30 and .31)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of preferred stock issued during the year by the issuer in certain transactions was to develop an independent expectation. The firm used certain of the issuer's assumptions in developing its expectation. The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining the issuer's analyses to evaluate these significant assumptions. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over accrued liabilities. (AS 2201.39)

The issuer estimated the fair value of stock options and warrants based on certain data and assumptions. The firm did not test the operating effectiveness of controls over the input of data and assumptions into the calculation of the fair value of stock options and stock compensation expense. (AS 2201.44)

The issuer estimated the fair value of stock options and warrants based on certain data and assumptions. The firm did not test the design and operating effectiveness of controls over the assumptions that were used in the calculation of the fair value of warrants. (AS 2201.42 and .44)