Explorer

The firm identified characteristics of potentially fraudulent entries or adjustments for testing. However the firm did not determine whether any journal entries met those characteristics and instead limited its testing to haphazardly selected journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

During the year the issuer issued common shares with warrants. The firm did not perform procedures to test the number of shares issued and the gross proceeds received beyond confirming the number of shares issued and outstanding at year end with the transfer agent. (AS 2301.08)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of the work performed by the company's specialists and whether the specialists' findings support or contradict the recoverability of the asset because it did not (1) identify that the report compiled by the company's specialists was a year old and (2) evaluate whether the specialists' findings continued to be relevant and reliable. (AS 1105.A9 and .A10)

The firm's approach for testing an income statement account included performing tests of details for a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the population of transactions in the remaining months of the year. (AS 2315.24)

The firm's approach for testing an income statement account included performing tests of details for a sample of transactions from certain months during the year. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain data and reports it used to test an income statement account. (AS 1105.10)

The firm performed substantive analytical procedures as part of its testing of an income statement account and used certain external data to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate whether the external data used to develop its expectation was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objectives. (AS 2305.16)

The firm performed substantive analytical procedures as part of its testing of an income statement account and used certain external data to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate differences between its expectation and the actual amounts recorded beyond inquiry of management. (AS 2305.21)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain income statement account transactions were recognized in conformity with the applicable accounting standard. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer engaged an external valuation specialist to perform an impairment analysis of an asset within a balance sheet account at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer that the company's specialist used because it did not take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out its intended course of action. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The issuer engaged an external valuation specialist to perform an impairment analysis of an asset within a balance sheet account at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information it used to test the reasonableness of this significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer engaged an external valuation specialist to perform an impairment analysis of an asset within a balance sheet account at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information the company's specialist used to develop another significant assumption (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer engaged an external valuation specialist to perform an impairment analysis of an asset within a balance sheet account at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information used in its substantive procedures to test the reasonableness of the significant assumption. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether certain transactions were appropriately capitalized in accordance with the applicable accounting standard. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer engaged an external valuation specialist to perform an impairment analysis of an asset within a balance sheet account at year end. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of this asset was to test the issuer's process and the firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the company's specialist and used in the impairment analysis. (AS 1105.A8b)

For another asset within the balance sheet account the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed and used by the issuer to calculate the amortization for the asset. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the appropriateness of the issuer's recognition of certain income statement account transactions because it did not evaluate certain contradictory evidence. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2810.03)

The issuer performed an assessment of certain assets within a balance sheet account for impairment at year end and concluded that they were recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of these assets. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

For one asset the issuer performed an assessment of this asset for possible impairment and concluded that it was recoverable. The firm did not identify that the issuer did not consider certain indicators of possible impairment in its assessment of this asset. (AS 2301.08 and .11; AS 2810.03)

For a second asset the issuer estimated the recoverable amount of the asset and determined that it exceeded the asset's carrying value. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the issuer's estimated recoverability of this asset. (AS 2501.07)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate (1) the knowledge skill and ability of one company specialist and (2) the relationship of the issuer to this specialist. (AS 1105.A3 and .A4)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialists or the issuer that were used by the specialists to develop the estimate. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the relevance and reliability of external information the issuer used to determine the recoverability of the asset. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of company-produced data and evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain other data from sources external to the issuer that the company's specialists used to develop the estimate considered by the issuer in determining the recoverability of the asset. (AS 1105.A8a)

For a third asset the firm's approach to evaluate the recoverability of this asset was to test the issuer's process. The issuer engaged two external specialists to develop an estimate that the issuer considered along with other assumptions and information in determining the recoverability of the asset. The firm used the work of the company's specialists as audit evidence. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the methods used by the company's specialists were appropriate under the circumstances. (AS 1105.A8c)

The firm's approach for testing an estimate consisted of reviewing and testing management's process. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test or in the alternative identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of data used by the issuer in developing the estimate. (AS 1105.10; AS 2501.11)

The firm's approach for testing an estimate consisted of reviewing and testing management's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of the estimate and whether the issuer's related disclosures were supported. (AS 2501.11; AS 2810.30 and .31)

The sample size used to test a significant account was too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample size including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population including the expected size and frequency of misstatements. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer completed a quantitative assessment that indicated that goodwill was not impaired but recorded an impairment of goodwill based solely on qualitative information. The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer recording an impairment solely on qualitative information which is not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles — Goodwill and Other. (AS 2502.15; AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for the goodwill impairment 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 did not perform any substantive procedures to test or in the alternative test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain information the firm obtained from the issuer and used to test certain revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not perform procedures to test whether performance obligations were satisfied prior to the recognition of certain other revenue. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing. (AS 2401.58)

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

The firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test certain revenue. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

To test certain debt the firm selected transactions exceeding a monetary threshold. The firm did not perform procedures to test the remaining population of transactions. (AS 1105.27; AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not perform procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the accuracy of certain issuer-produced data it used in its substantive procedures. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of its derivative liabilities. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to test the fair value of the derivative liabilities beyond obtaining and reading the valuation report prepared by the company's specialist inquiry of the issuer and performing a sensitivity analysis. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6 -.A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not consider the characteristics of potentially fraudulent journal entries when identifying and selecting journal entries for testing. Further the firm did not examine the underlying support for the journal entries selected for testing. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer reported intangible assets at several reporting units and evaluated them for impairment using undiscounted cash flow analyses. The firm's approach to test the issuer's impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows for each reporting unit. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions used by the issuer to develop its undiscounted cash flows because it limited its procedures to evaluating the consistency of the assumptions with historical experience. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer reported intangible assets at several reporting units and evaluated them for impairment using undiscounted cash flow analyses. The firm's approach to test the issuer's impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows for each reporting unit. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to demonstrate it had a reasonable basis for certain assumptions it developed and used to determine its independent expectations. (AS 2501.22)

The issuer reported intangible assets at several reporting units and evaluated them for impairment using undiscounted cash flow analyses. The firm's approach to test the issuer's impairment analyses was to test the issuer's process and develop an independent expectation of the undiscounted cash flows for each reporting unit. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to develop the impairment analyses was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment because it did not evaluate whether the carrying values of the reporting unit used by the issuer in its impairment analyses were consistent with the carrying values of the asset group as defined in FASB ASC Topic 360. (AS 2501.10)

The firm did not consider the characteristics of potentially fraudulent journal2501 entries when identifying and selecting journal entries for testing. Further the firm did not examine the underlying support for the journal entries selected for testing. (AS 2401.61)

Deficiency testing the year-end valuation of certain assets beyond their inception amounts.

Deficiency testing the accuracy of system-generated reports used for the allowance for doubtful accounts.

Deficiency evaluating a significant assumption used to estimate the fair value of stock options.

In its testing of revenue the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer appropriately recognized revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30)

In addition the firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's (i) disclosure that it recognized revenue under FASB ASC Topic 605 Revenue Recognition when in fact it recognized revenue under FASB ASC Topic 606 and (ii) omission of certain disclosures related to FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the existence of an asset because its procedures were limited to inspecting supporting documentation dated approximately five months prior to the issuer's year end. (AS 2503.21)

For other certain assets the firm did not evaluate if the assets were appropriately accounted for in conformity with GAAP and did not identify and appropriately address departures from GAAP related to the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

In addition the firm did not evaluate the effects of a related party relationship on whether these assets were appropriately accounted for in conformity with GAAP. (AS 2810.30)

The firm did not evaluate whether the cost of inventory was determined in accordance with the issuer's stated policy. (AS 2301.08)