Explorer

The issuer also held an investment in an entity for which it had a majority ownership but the entity was not consolidated due to certain qualitative considerations. The firm did not evaluate these qualitative considerations in assessing whether the issuer's accounting was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 323 Investments — Equity Method and Joint Ventures. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer also held an investment in an entity for which it had a majority ownership but the entity was not consolidated due to certain qualitative considerations. The issuer identified impairment indicators related to this investment and engaged an external specialist to estimate its fair value. The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to determine the fair value. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer also held an investment in an entity for which it had a majority ownership but the entity was not consolidated due to certain qualitative considerations. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the external specialist to estimate the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer indicated its intention to phase out components of its business. The firm did not evaluate whether these components should have been reported as discontinued operations in conformity with FASB ASC Subtopic 205-20 Presentation of Financial Statements — Discontinued Operations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to value the acquired property. (AS 1210.12)

The issuer adopted FASB Topic ASC 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers during the year under audit. The firm did not perform procedures beyond reading an issuer-prepared memorandum to evaluate the significant judgments made by the issuer in the application of FASB ASC Topic 606 including the appropriateness of the issuer's determination that consideration did not need to be allocated to certain performance obligations. (AS 2301.08)

In addition the firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of disclosures related to (1) the nature of and reason for the change in accounting principle and (2) the transition method used by the issuer as required by FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

To substantively test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests for a selection of accounts receivable that met certain criteria. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable. (AS 1105.27)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses and engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets. The firm did not test the data used by the external specialist to estimate the fair value. (AS 1210.12)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses and engaged an external specialist to estimate the fair value of certain acquired intangible assets. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used by the external specialist to estimate the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

For certain other business combinations the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the estimated useful lives of the acquired intangible assets. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported an equity-method investment in an investee whose fiscal year end was six months earlier than the issuer's. The firm did not test any transactions or the investee's financial information for the six-month period between the investee's and the issuer's fiscal year ends. (AS 2503.28)

The issuer reported an equity-method investment in an investee whose fiscal year end was six months earlier than the issuer's. The firm did not test the percentage of ownership in the investee at year end. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer had properly identified its related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties including testing the accuracy and completeness of the related parties and relationships and transactions with related parties identified by the issuer. Further the firm did not evaluate whether related party transactions were properly accounted for and disclosed in the issuer's financial statements. (AS 2410.14 and .17)

During the year under audit the firm identified conditions and events that caused it to believe there could be substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time and concluded that the substantial doubt was alleviated. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate management's plans because it did not test the prospective financial information including the issuer's ability to carry out a significant planned reduction in operating expenditures which was significant to overcoming the adverse conditions and events. (AS 2415.03 .08 and .09)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions developed by the external specialist to value the acquired property. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm's approach to testing revenue included testing selected revenue transactions for one type of revenue and contracts for another type of revenue. For the selected transactions and one of the contracts selected for testing the firm did not evaluate the appropriateness of revenue recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected for confirmation key items related to certain revenue and accounts receivable transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm received electronic responses to its confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

The firm selected for confirmation key items related to certain revenue and accounts receivable transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform alternative procedures for positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response. (AS 2310.31)

The firm selected for confirmation key items related to certain revenue and accounts receivable transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the nature of exceptions in returned confirmations. (AS 2310.33)

The firm selected for confirmation key items related to certain revenue and accounts receivable transactions. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable that was not included in the confirmation selections. (AS 1105.27)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because the firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of data the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses. The firm did not perform audit procedures beyond reading the issuer-prepared memoranda merger agreements and related acquisition documents to understand the issuer's process in determining fair value measurements and disclosures including the data and assumptions that were used in the analyses in order to plan the nature timing and extent of the audit procedures. (AS 2502.11)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses. The firm did not test the fair values of the acquired intangible assets and test the measurement of goodwill. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses. The firm did not test the presentation and disclosure of certain acquisitions in the notes to the financial statements. (AS 2502.43)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate whether the assumed liabilities recorded by the issuer represented a reasonable estimate of their fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

During the prior year the issuer acquired a business and recorded both goodwill and intangible assets. During the year under audit the issuer performed an impairment analysis as a result of the discovery of misrepresentations the seller made and recorded an impairment loss for that goodwill. The firm did not identify that certain of these misrepresentations existed at the date of the audit report for the prior year and evaluate whether appropriate revisions to the prior year's financial statements should have been disclosed in the financial statements of the year under audit. (AS 2905.04 .05 and .06)

The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of assumptions used in the issuer's goodwill impairment analysis. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the issuer's conclusion that its other intangible assets related to this reporting unit were not also impaired. (AS 2501.07; AS 2810.03)

During the year under audit the issuer disclosed that it corrected certain immaterial errors contained in its prior year financial statements. The firm did not evaluate the issuer's conclusion that these errors were immaterial to each affected year and whether the comparability of the financial statements between periods was materially affected by the adjustments that were made to previously issued financial statements. (AS 2820.02)

In its annual goodwill impairment test the issuer compared the fair value of a reporting unit to the recorded amount of goodwill. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statements of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's failure to compare the fair value of the reporting unit to its carrying amount including goodwill in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions used by the issuer to estimate the fair value of the reporting unit. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm received electronic responses to certain of its confirmation requests. The firm did not consider performing procedures to address the risks associated with electronic responses such as verifying the source and contents of the confirmation responses. (AS 2310.29)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform alternative procedures for positive confirmation requests for which it did not receive a response. (AS 2310.31)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the nature of exceptions in returned confirmations. (AS 2310.33)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent confirmation requests either by mail or electronic mail to a selection of the issuer's customers that met certain criteria. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of accounts receivable that was not included in the confirmation selections. (AS 1105.27)

The issuer purchased land and buildings (the 'acquired property') and assumed certain legal obligations ('assumed liabilities'). The issuer engaged an external specialist to value the acquired property. The issuer valued the assumed liabilities based on the seller's estimate of costs to satisfy the obligation and certain performance guarantees. The firm did not evaluate whether the presentation of the assumed liabilities as a non-current liability was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 210 Balance Sheet. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of the allowance because the firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the allowance for doubtful accounts was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of data the issuer used to determine the allowance. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

During the year under audit the firm identified conditions and events that caused it to believe there could be substantial doubt about the issuer's ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time and concluded that the substantial doubt was alleviated. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate management's plans because it did not assess the likelihood that the issuer could obtain additional funding. (AS 2415.03 and .08)

The issuer recognized revenue using certain inputs and assumptions to measure its progress toward the completion of its performance obligations. The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate of progress toward completion was to review and test management's process. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of this estimate because the firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of the inputs the issuer used to determine the estimate. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The issuer recognized revenue using certain inputs and assumptions to measure its progress toward the completion of its performance obligations. The firm's approach for substantively testing the estimate of progress toward completion was to review and test management's process. The firm did not perform procedures to test the assumptions the issuer used to determine the estimate. (AS 2501.09 .10 and .11)

The issuer reported goodwill and/or intangible assets in certain reporting units. The issuer estimated the fair value of certain of these reporting units to assess whether there was a potential impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: • With respect to one reporting unit the firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the issuer's financial statement of a departure from GAAP related to the issuer combining indefinite-lived intangible assets with goodwill and finite-lived assets when performing its impairment testing which is not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350. (AS 2810.30)

The issuer reported goodwill and/or intangible assets in certain reporting units. The issuer estimated the fair value of certain of these reporting units to assess whether there was a potential impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: • The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of significant assumptions used by the issuer in its estimate of fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer reported goodwill and/or intangible assets in certain reporting units. The issuer estimated the fair value of certain of these reporting units to assess whether there was a potential impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: • With respect to another reporting unit the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the assumptions used by the issuer in its estimate of the fair value. (AS 2502.26 and .28)

The issuer reported goodwill and/or intangible assets in certain reporting units. The issuer estimated the fair value of certain of these reporting units to assess whether there was a potential impairment. The following deficiencies were identified: • With respect to a third reporting unit the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer tested goodwill for impairment. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected certain revenue contracts for testing. The firm did not identify and test whether all relevant performance obligations for revenue recognition had been met for those contracts selected for testing. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify or appropriately address departures from GAAP related to (1) inaccuracies in the amount of assets allocated to the issuer's segments and (2) the issuer's omission of a disclosure related to the total amount of revenue from a customer that represented more than ten percent of revenue as required by FASB ASC Topic 280 Segment Reporting. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For one type of revenue the firm used a sampling tool to determine the sample size for testing but only tested a subset of the sample. (AS 2315.25)