Explorer

For one of these types of revenue and another type the issuer recognized revenue based on electronic activity. The firm used activity information produced by certain of the issuer's service organizations in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

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 by management's plans. The firm did not sufficiently test the reliability of the issuer's operating forecast that the firm used in its evaluation of management's plans. The firm compared the forecast to the issuer's results for the two months subsequent to year end and an issuer-prepared sensitivity analysis but did not evaluate the significant differences it identified. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2415.03 .08 and .09)

During the year the issuer granted stock options to certain employees. The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions the issuer used to estimate the fair value of these stock options. (AS 2501.16)

For one type of revenue the firm did not perform any substantive procedures to test whether the performance obligations had been satisfied before revenue was recognized. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

For this same type of revenue the firm did not identify and evaluate misstatements related to contract assets under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

For another type of revenue the firm selected for testing an automated control over the initiation processing and recording of revenue transactions in order to rely on the accuracy and completeness of certain issuer-produced information that the firm used in its substantive testing. The firm did not sufficiently test the configuration of this control as it limited its testing to only certain scenarios without addressing the risks of material misstatement associated with the untested scenarios. (AS 2301.19 and .21)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. For one business combination the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the fair value of assets acquired and liabilities assumed. (AS 2501.07)

During the year the issuer acquired several businesses. For one business combination the following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures to (1) evaluate the issuer's accounting for certain warrants issued in connection with the acquisition as equity; (2) test beyond recalculation the conversion ratio of equity instruments of the acquired company to equity instruments of the acquiror; and (3) test transaction costs incurred. (AS 2301.08)

For two business combinations the firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 820 related to certain assets acquired and a liability assumed. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer invested in an entity. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's accounting for this investment was in conformity with certain requirements of GAAP. (AS 2301.08) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this investment and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this misstatement in a subsequent filing.

The issuer recorded certain revenue based on information provided by its customers. In the firm's substantive testing of this revenue the firm used this information but did not evaluate its reliability. (AS 1105.04 and .06)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs associated with the development of an asset. The firm used labor hours in its substantive testing of this asset but did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these labor hours. (AS 1105.10)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's (1) misstatement in and (2) omission of certain disclosures related to the disaggregation of revenue that are required under FASB ASC Topic 606. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm used reports produced by the issuer in its substantive procedures to test (1) the reserve for excess and obsolete inventory and (2) whether finished goods inventory was recorded at the lower of cost or net realizable value. The firm did not perform any procedures to test or test any controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate this assumption. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The firm did not evaluate whether in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 a separately identifiable intangible asset existed related to the retail customer base of the acquired business. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain required disclosures under FASB ASC Topic 820 related to certain assets acquired. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer because it did not (1) evaluate the relevance and reliability of certain market information it used and (2) take into account whether these assumptions were consistent with the issuer's intent and ability to carry out its plans. (AS 1105.04 and .06; AS 2501.16 and .17)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. (AS 1105. A8b; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer invested in an entity. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer's presentation of this investment within the statement of cash flows was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 230 Statement of Cash Flows. (AS 2810.30 and .31) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for this investment and concluded that a material misstatement existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer corrected this misstatement in a subsequent filing.

The firm did not evaluate whether in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 805 separately identifiable intangible assets existed related to the existing customer base and trade names of the acquired business. (AS 2301.08)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 805 and FASB ASC Topic 820 related to certain assets acquired. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of a significant assumption developed by the issuer because it did not evaluate a significant difference between this assumption and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate a significant assumption developed by the company's specialist. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate this assumption. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired intangible assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's omission of certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 805 and FASB ASC Topic 820 related to certain assets acquired. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · For certain acquired intangible assets the firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiring of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · In its testing of the fair values of certain acquired assets the firm used the company's specialist's valuation report as audit evidence without performing procedures to evaluate the work of the company's specialist. (AS 1105.A6-.A10; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not perform procedures to test certain other assets acquired and liabilities assumed beyond tracing these amounts to the general ledger of the acquired business. (AS 2301.08; AS 2501.07)

The firm did not identify and evaluate the issuer's (1) omission of and (2) misstatements in certain disclosures required under FASB ASC Topic 805 and/or FASB ASC Topic 820. (AS 2810.30 and .31)

The firm did not perform sufficient procedures to evaluate the issuer's presentation of an investment and certain intangible assets as current assets because it did not evaluate the issuer's intent to consume all or a portion of these assets within one year from the balance sheet date. (AS 2301.08)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer because it did not (1) take into account the issuer's intent and ability to carry out these assumptions (2) take into account changes in conditions or events affecting the issuer and/or (3) evaluate significant differences between the assumptions and the issuer's historical financial information. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of certain other significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist or developed by the issuer. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired a business and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair value of an acquired intangible asset using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not test the accuracy and completeness of historical financial information produced by the issuer that (1) the firm used in evaluating the reasonableness of certain of these assumptions developed by the issuer and (2) was used by the company's specialist to develop another of these assumptions. (AS 1105.10 and .A8a)

The issuer recognized certain revenue based on electronic activity. The firm used activity information produced by certain of the issuer's service organizations in its substantive testing of this revenue but did not perform any procedures to test the accuracy and completeness of this information. (AS 2301.08 and .13)

The issuer evaluated its intangible assets for possible impairment using various significant assumptions it developed based on the issuer's planned course of action. The firm did not sufficiently evaluate the reasonableness of these significant assumptions because it did not (1) evaluate whether the issuer had a reasonable basis for these assumptions and (2) take into account changes in conditions or events affecting the issuer. Further when evaluating the issuer's ability to carry out its planned course of action the firm performed a sensitivity analysis for these assumptions but did not evaluate the significant differences between the alternative assumptions it used in this analysis and the issuer's recent experience. (AS 2501.16 and .17)

The firm did not identify and evaluate that the method the issuer used to estimate the impairment of certain intangible assets was not in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangible Assets Goodwill and Other. (AS 2810.30) Unrelated to our review the issuer reevaluated its accounting for these assets and concluded that material misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently filed a Form 8-K indicating that its previously issued financial statements should not be relied on and corrected these misstatements in a subsequent filing.

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm did not perform procedures beyond inquiry of management to evaluate the reasonableness of certain significant assumptions developed by the issuer. (AS 2501.16)

During the year the issuer acquired multiple businesses and engaged a specialist to assist it in determining the fair values of certain acquired assets using various significant assumptions. The following deficiency was identified: · The firm used an auditor-employed specialist to evaluate certain significant assumptions developed by the company's specialist and used in the measurement of certain acquired intangible assets. The firm did not identify that the auditor-employed specialist did not perform any procedures to evaluate these assumptions. (AS 1105.A8b; AS 1201.C6 and .C7)

The issuer performed an assessment of its long-lived assets for possible impairment at year end using various significant assumptions it developed based on its planned course of action. The firm's approach for substantively testing the issuer's impairment assessment was to test the issuer's process. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not identify and evaluate that the issuer did not comply with FASB ASC Topic 350 Intangibles – Goodwill and Other and FASB ASC Topic 360 Property Plant and Equipment because the issuer performed its impairment assessment of goodwill prior to performing its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment. (AS 2810.30) In connection with our review the issuer reevaluated its assessment of long-lived assets for possible impairment and concluded that misstatements existed that had not been previously identified. The issuer subsequently corrected these misstatements in a restatement of its financial statements and the firm revised and reissued its report on the financial statements.

For revenue at three business units one of which was affected by the audit deficiencies discussed above the following additional deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not test whether revenue was recognized according to the contractual pricing. (AS 2301.08)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to evaluate the reasonableness of this significant assumption. (AS 2501.16)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm used certain issuer-produced reports in its substantive testing of this asset but did not perform any procedures to test or test controls over the accuracy and completeness of these reports. (AS 1105.10)

The issuer capitalized certain labor costs and external costs associated with the development of this asset. Capitalized labor costs were estimated using a significant assumption. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not evaluate whether the issuer's capitalization of external costs was in conformity with FASB ASC Topic 350. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The firm did not evaluate whether the method used by the issuer to estimate amortization expense for capitalized external costs was in conformity with certain requirements of FASB ASC Topic 350. (AS 2501.10)

The issuer performed an assessment of this long-lived 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)

The issuer performed full physical counts of inventory at various locations before year end. For certain locations the firm observed the issuer's physical counts and performed independent test counts. The following deficiencies were identified: · The firm did not perform any procedures to test the existence of a type of work-in-process inventory at the locations observed. (AS 2301.08 and .11)

The issuer performed full physical counts of inventory at various locations before year end. For certain locations the firm observed the issuer's physical counts and performed independent test counts. The following deficiencies were identified: · For certain inventory the firm did not apply appropriate tests of intervening transactions between the date of the issuer's counts and year end. (AS 2510.12)

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