Explorer

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to invoices related to contracts that were open at year end the firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain aspects of schedules used by the issuer to determine the estimated cost for the project or the completeness of reports used to track total cost incurred for the project. (AS 1105.10)

In its restated financial statements the issuer recorded these warrants as liabilities and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value for the warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these warrants was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the relevance and reliability of data the company's specialist obtained from an external source and used to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the estimated costs to complete for contracts open at year end because the firm limited its procedures to comparing total actual costs for one contract that was completed subsequent to year end to estimated costs at year end. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into contracts with certain customers that required revenue to be recognized over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete these contracts. To substantively test revenue the firm selected a sample of invoices and performed procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: - With respect to testing revenue recognition the firm drew its sample from the population of the issuer's invoices that were not necessarily representative of the revenue recorded during the year. (AS 2315.17)

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)

The issuer engaged a manufacturer to produce and distribute certain of its products. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate whether the issuer was acting as a principal or as the agent for this revenue in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. Specifically in its evaluation the firm did not evaluate (1) the insurable risk of inventory (2) the manufacturer's discretion to set minimum prices for inventory sold to the issuer's customers and (3) the manufacturer's responsibility for honoring the limited warranty extended to the issuer's customers. (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 the warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these warrants was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of this significant assumption including whether it was consistent with relevant information. (AS 1105.A8b)

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 the warrants. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair values of these warrants was to test the issuer's process. The firm also did not evaluate the reasonableness of an assumption that was developed by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

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 year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - Beyond comparing certain forecasted assumptions to actual results for the period subsequent to the acquisition the firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions provided by the issuer and used by the company's specialist. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate the reasonableness of certain assumptions developed by the company's specialist including the consistency of these assumptions with relevant information. (AS 1105.A8b)

During the year the issuer acquired a controlling interest in a business and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of both an acquired intangible asset and the acquired business. The firm's approach for substantively testing the fair value of each was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain data from sources external to the issuer that were used by the company's specialist in developing certain assumptions because it limited its procedures to inquiry of the company's specialist and obtaining information from the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A8a)

The issuer used the fair value of the acquired business at the acquisition date to record a goodwill impairment at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: - The firm did not evaluate whether the impairment of goodwill was the result of an error in the initial valuation at the acquisition date. (AS 2810.30)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls (ITGCs) and certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over the review and approval of program changes but did not evaluate whether the controls were designed to address the risk that developers have the ability to develop and promote changes to production environments. (AS 2301.19)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain disclosures related to the nature of restrictions for restricted cash beyond reading the issuer's prior year financial statements. (AS 2301.08)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The firm did not perform procedures other than reviewing certain information on selected invoices to test whether the delivery of services had occurred prior to the issuer's recognition of revenue for certain sampled transactions. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm selected a sample of transactions to test revenue. The firm selected its sample of transactions from three of the four types of revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fourth type of revenue. (AS 2315.24)

During the year the issuer acquired a business that resulted in an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test controls over the accuracy and completeness of issuer-produced data it used to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer acquired a business that resulted in an acquired intangible asset. The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures related to this business combination that were required by FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumptions to industry information. Further the firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of the industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of another significant assumption developed by the issuer because it limited its procedures to comparing the assumption to industry information without evaluating the significant difference between the assumption and the industry information. Further the firm did not evaluate the reliability of the industry information. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced data used by the company's specialist to develop a significant assumption. (AS 1105.A8a)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to determine the fair value of an acquired intangible asset. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reliability of industry information it used to evaluate the reasonableness of an assumption developed by the company's specialist. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of certain ITGCs over the issuer's general ledger and other systems in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of underlying data produced by the issuer that was used in the firm's substantive testing of certain revenue. The firm identified deficiencies in its testing of certain ITGCs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm identified compensating controls but did not perform any procedures to test the design and operating effectiveness of those controls during the entire period of reliance. (AS 2301.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls (ITGCs) and certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing controls over change management but did not perform procedures to determine whether the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing represented the complete population of changes made to this application. (AS 1105.10)

The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of certain ITGCs over the issuer's general ledger and other systems in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of underlying data produced by the issuer that was used in the firm's substantive testing of certain revenue. The firm identified deficiencies in its testing of certain ITGCs. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this revenue. The firm's approach to testing these controls depended on effective IT general controls (ITGCs). As a result of the deficiency in the firm's testing of the controls discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2301.18)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required by FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer's customer determined the amount of consideration for the performance obligations at the time the issuer satisfied its obligations. The firm did not perform procedures to assess whether (1) the issuer's determination of transaction price used to recognize revenue was appropriate and (2) the issuer satisfied its performance obligations prior to the recognition of revenue beyond reading the issuer's revenue recognition memo and confirming with the issuer's customer the payments made to the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data and data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate whether the external data was sufficiently reliable for purposes of achieving its audit objective beyond obtaining an understanding of the source of the data. (AS 2305.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm's substantive procedures to test revenue included substantive analytical procedures. The firm used external data and data derived from the recorded amounts of revenue to develop its expectation. The firm did not evaluate whether the data derived from recorded amounts of revenue was sufficiently relevant and reliable for the purpose of achieving its audit objective. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2305.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls (ITGCs) and certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this revenue. The firm's approach to testing these controls depended on effective ITGCs including controls over change management. As a result of the deficiencies in the firm's testing of the controls discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2301.18)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of information technology general controls (ITGCs) and certain automated and IT-dependent manual controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and test controls that addressed the issuer's evaluation of the reliability of external information used in the operation of certain controls the firm selected for testing. (AS 2301.16)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform procedures to test the issuer's segment reporting disclosures related to revenue beyond obtaining an issuer-prepared schedule. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm used certain information produced by the issuer's service organization to test digital assets but did not perform procedures that addressed the accuracy and completeness of this data. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed this area but did not identify the deficiencies below. The firm used certain other external information to test digital assets but did not perform procedures to evaluate the reliability of the information beyond obtaining an understanding of the source of the data. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of ITGCs and certain automated controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures over certain revenue. The firm determined that certain ITGCs were not effective at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate the severity of the ITGC deficiencies and the effect on its control risk assessment. (AS 2301.34)

The issuer used a customized application for processing and recording transactions related to revenue. The firm tested the design and operating effectiveness of ITGCs and certain automated controls over this application in order to rely on the completeness and accuracy of data and reports produced by the application and used by the firm in its substantive procedures over certain revenue. The firm determined that certain ITGCs were not effective at year end. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm's approach to testing certain automated controls depended on effective ITGCs. As a result of the control deficiencies that the firm identified as discussed above the firm's testing of these automated and IT-dependent manual controls was not sufficient. (AS 2301.18)

The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from GAAP related to the issuer's inaccurate disclosure that it recognized revenue in accordance with FASB ASC Topic 606 Revenue from Contracts with Customers when it had not early adopted the new standard and was still recognizing revenue in accordance with FASB Topic ASC 605 Revenue Recognition. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm's testing of revenue was not sufficient as the firm did not test whether the applicable revenue recognition criteria had been met. In addition the firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's revenue recognition was in compliance with all applicable GAAP. (AS 2301.08; AS 2810.30)

To test the existence of inventory at a certain location the firm performed test counts on a sample of items. The firm was unable to count certain items. For certain other items the firm identified differences. The firm did not evaluate whether the inability to count certain items represented a misstatement and if so the potential effect on the evaluation of its sample. Further the firm did not (1) evaluate the nature and cause of the differences identified in its sample; (2) project the differences to the remaining inventory population; and (3) evaluate whether the projected differences were material to the financial statements. (AS 2315.25 .26 and .27)

To test the existence of inventory at another location the firm performed a virtual observation of inventory but did not perform any test counts. (AS 2510.09)

To test the existence of inventory at another location the firm did not perform substantive procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate whether an inventory reserve was warranted. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer reported a certain receivable that was due from a counterparty. The firm did not perform substantive procedures to evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for concluding that the receivable was fully collectible beyond inspecting email communications between the issuer and the counterparty and inquiring with the counterparty. (AS 2501.16)

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review and approval of adjustments to debt. The firm did not evaluate the review procedures that the control owners performed including procedures to identify items for follow up and the procedures to determine whether those items were appropriately resolved. (AS 2201.42 and .44) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for certain debt 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 issued an audit report on the issuer's restated financial statements. Our procedures did not include review of any additional audit work related to the restatement. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over debt and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion. Our procedures did not include review of any additional audit work related to this material weakness.

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 selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review and approval of adjustments to debt. The firm did not identify and evaluate a departure from IFRS related to the issuer's accounting for and presentation of certain debt in conformity with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. (AS 2810.30 and .31) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for certain debt 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 issued an audit report on the issuer's restated financial statements. Our procedures did not include review of any additional audit work related to the restatement. The issuer also reevaluated its controls over debt and concluded that a material weakness existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently reflected this material weakness in a revision to its report on ICFR and the firm revised its opinion on the effectiveness of the issuer's ICFR to express an adverse opinion. Our procedures did not include review of any additional audit work related to this material weakness.

The firm selected for testing certain controls over the issuer's review of accounts receivables and the allowance for credit losses. The firm did not identify and test any controls over the accuracy of reports used in the operation of these controls. (AS 2201.39)

For certain of the issuer's subsidiaries the firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing without having an appropriate basis for excluding those subsidiaries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm did not test or test any controls over the accuracy of certain system-generated reports used to substantively test revenue. (AS 1105.10)

To test accounts receivable the firm sent positive confirmation requests to a sample of customer accounts. 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)