Explorer

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer entered into a reverse merger agreement. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for this transaction was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 Business Combinations. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence completeness and valuation of the tangible assets acquired and the liabilities assumed at the acquisition date. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate whether the issuer appropriately (1) identified the performance obligations for these arrangements; (2) determined the standalone selling prices; and (3) allocated the transaction price to each separate performance obligation based on the standalone selling price. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test this revenue beyond obtaining invoices bank statements purchase orders and/or contracts. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The issuer recognized one type of revenue over time based on costs incurred to date relative to total estimated costs to complete the contract. The firm did not perform procedures to test the related contract receivables and liabilities. (AS 2501.07)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · For two types of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions for testing. The sample sizes the firm used in these substantive procedures were too small to provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not take into account the relevant factors in determining its sample sizes including tolerable misstatement for the population the allowable risk of incorrect acceptance and the characteristics of the population. (AS 2315.16 .19 .23 and .23A)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · For one of the above two types of revenue the firm did not perform procedures to evaluate whether the issuer met its performance obligations prior to recognizing revenue beyond obtaining invoices contracts and/or cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · To test a fourth type of revenue the firm selected a sample of transactions from one month. The firm did not perform any procedures to test the remaining population of revenue transactions. (AS 2315.24)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to test the disclosures related to revenue beyond comparing total revenues in the disclosures to the statement of operations. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond obtaining the subledgers to test accounts receivable and customer deposits. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer entered into revenue arrangements with multiple elements and asserted that it allocated the total consideration from these arrangements between the different types of revenue based on the standalone selling prices. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the allowance for doubtful accounts. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired a business. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the purchase price. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired certain businesses and engaged a specialist to estimate the fair value of the acquired intangible assets and contingent consideration. The firm did not perform procedures to test the fair value of the intangible assets and contingent consideration beyond obtaining and reading the company's specialist's valuation reports and the purchase price allocation for one of the business combinations. Further the firm did not perform any procedures with respect to its use of the work of the company's specialist as audit evidence. (AS 1105.A1 - .A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of disclosures related to these business combinations required by FASB ASC Topic 350 and FASB ASC Topic 805. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and select journal entries and other adjustments for testing to address the potential for material misstatement due to fraud. (AS 2401.58)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing a change management control over this IT system that consisted of the testing and approval of system changes prior to their migration into the production environment. The issuer documented system changes in tickets that were entered into a change ticket tracking system. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test or test any controls over the completeness of the population of changes from which it made its selections for testing this control because it limited its procedures to obtaining a list of change tickets from the change ticket tracking system without performing procedures to determine if there were changes that were not captured in that system. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not identify and test any controls over certain inventory. (AS 2201.39)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this inventory as it limited its procedures to (1) confirming the balance with the principal auditor and (2) reconciling the balance to the general ledger. (AS 2301.08)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to test any unusual cost of sales journal entries. The firm did not perform any procedures to identify and test any unusual cost of sales journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The firm identified a fraud risk related to users of the issuer's accounting system having the ability to create and approve manual journal entries. The firm did not identify and select journal entries for testing or perform other audit procedures to address this risk. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2401.61)

For one component the firm did not identify and select manual journal entries for testing or perform other audit procedures to specifically address the identified risk related to expenses being recorded in the incorrect accounting period. (AS 2301.08 and .13; AS 2401.61)

For another component the firm identified certain fraud criteria for journal entries and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test those journal entries because it limited its procedures to certain journal entries without having an appropriate rationale for limiting its procedures to those journal entries. Further the firm did not examine the underlying support for certain of the selected journal entries. (AS 2401.61)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm selected for testing another change management control over this IT system that consisted of the restriction of access to migrate system changes from the development environment into the production environment. The firm did not identify and evaluate a control design deficiency related to certain IT users that had the ability to develop system changes and migrate system changes from the development environment into the production environment. (AS 2301.19)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test this revenue because it did not test (1) whether this IT system appropriately processed this revenue under each of the revenue recognition scenarios and (2) the inputs used in determining the revenue recognized. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer used an information technology (IT) system to process certain revenue transactions under multiple revenue recognition scenarios. To reduce the extent of its substantive procedures for this revenue the firm tested and placed reliance on certain IT general controls (ITGCs). The firm did not perform procedures to test or sufficiently test controls over the accuracy and completeness of certain system-generated data that it used to substantively test this revenue and certain other revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer evaluated goodwill and intangible assets for impairment for one reporting unit using a discounted cash flow model (“DCF model”) which was developed using various assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to forecasted operating expenses used by the issuer in its goodwill and intangible assets impairment analysis. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer evaluated goodwill and intangible assets for impairment for one reporting unit using a discounted cash flow model (“DCF model”) which was developed using various assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of the significant assumptions related to forecasted revenue used by the issuer in its goodwill and intangible assets impairment analysis as it limited its procedures to recalculating the compounded annual growth rate (CAGR) for revenue based on projected financial information and comparing it to the CAGR for the industry without evaluating the projected financial information. Further the firm did not evaluate the difference between the recalculated CAGR and the CAGR for the industry. (AS 2501.16)

Certain users of the issuer's accounting system were identified as having the ability to create and approve manual journal entries. The firm did not identify and select journal entries for testing or perform other audit procedures to specifically address this risk. (AS 2301.08; AS 2401.61)

The firm identified certain fraud criteria and obtained a listing of all journal entries that met the criteria. The firm did not examine the underlying support for the entries and instead limited its procedures to reading the journal entry descriptions. (AS 2401.61)

The firm's internal inspection program had inspected this audit and reviewed these areas but did not identify certain of the deficiencies below. The firm was instructed by the principal auditor to perform certain procedures to test revenue including (1) analyzing the amount of inventory held by distributors at year-end (2) testing cash disbursements to distributors and (3) agreeing revenue transactions to cash receipts. The firm did not perform procedures (1) and (3) and for (2) limited its testing of cash disbursements to distributors to those made subsequent to year-end. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

Deficiencies testing automated and manual IT-dependent controls over revenue transactions across systems.

Deficiencies evaluating control review procedures and an undersized substantive sample for inventory valuation.

Deficiency in the basis for limiting journal entry testing to a subset of identified entries.

The firm's selected a sample of transactions to test certain revenue. The firm did not perform any procedures to test whether certain of these transactions were appropriately recognized as revenue. Further for certain other transactions the firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the related revenue because it limited its procedures to vouching to cash receipts. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The firm's approach for substantively testing a significant estimate was to test the issuer's process. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption used by the issuer to develop this estimate beyond testing the mathematical accuracy of the calculation. (AS 2501.16)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test or identify and test any controls over the completeness of certain issuer-prepared information used in its substantive testing of revenue. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer performed inventory counts prior to year end. The firm obtained issuer-prepared roll-forward analyses but did not perform procedures to test the completeness of the intervening transactions. (AS 2510.12)

The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of certain inventory. (AS 2510.09)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to test the inventory unit costs because its procedures were limited to recalculating the unit costs based on inventory quantity and costing information provided by the issuer and/or comparing certain unit costs to those provided by the issuer. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not test whether the variances between the issuer's unit cost calculations and the actual costs incurred during the year were appropriately capitalized to inventory or expensed to cost of sales. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm's approach for testing inventory reserve was to review and test management's process. The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of certain data used by the issuer to estimate the inventory reserve. (AS 1105.10)

The firm's approach for substantively testing the valuation of a significant transaction was to test the issuer's process which included the use of projected financial information developed by the issuer using significant assumptions related to sales volume for the forecasted period. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these assumptions because it limited its procedures to inquiry of management and review of internal plans without taking into account the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

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

During the prior year the issuer entered into a licensing arrangement in which the licensee purchased the issuer's common shares and warrants. The arrangement also included an option ('put option') that required the issuer to repurchase certain of the common shares under specific conditions for cash. The issuer did not record the put option. The firm did not identify and appropriately address a departure from International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS) related to the issuer not recording the put option as a financial liability at the present value of the redemption amount in conformity with IAS 32 Financial Instruments: Presentation. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated the prior year and current year accounting for the arrangement 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 reports on the 2018 and 2019 financial statements.

During the year the issuer sold preferred stock to related parties. The firm did not identify and evaluate the significance to the financial statements of the issuer's omission of required disclosures of these related party transactions in conformity with IAS 24 Related Party Disclosures. (AS 2410.17; AS 2810.30 and 31)

The issuer's manual journal entry procedures allowed the control owner to prepare the journal entry and support and then review and post the journal entry after it is created in the system by a subordinate. The firm did not identify and test any controls to address the risk that an individual could prepare review and post a journal entry. (AS 2201.39)

The firm did not identify and test any controls over right of use assets and lease obligations. (AS 2201.39)

The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to assist it in testing the fair value of certain non-current assets. The auditor-employed specialist's approach consisted of developing an independent expectation as a range of fair value outcomes using comparable publicly traded companies and precedent transactions in the sector. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the work of the auditor-employed specialist and identify that the auditor-employed specialist's work did not provide sufficient appropriate audit evidence because the firm did not evaluate whether the auditor-employed specialist's independent expectation of the fair value as a range encompassed only reasonable outcomes and was supported by sufficient appropriate audit evidence. (AS 1201.C6 and .C7; AS 2501.25)