CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices
The FRC publishes, on a quarterly basis, summaries of its findings from recently closed reviews that resulted in a substantive question to a company (‘Case Summaries’). In addition, it publishes the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter without the need for a substantive question. No Case Summary is prepared for such reviews.
Case Summaries, which are available for cases closed in the quarter ending March 2021 onwards, are included in the table below. As, currently, the FRC is subject to existing legal restrictions on disclosing confidential information received from a company, the Case Summaries can only be disclosed with the company's consent. Where consent has been withheld by the company, that fact is disclosed in the table.
From March 2018 until March 2021, the FRC published the names of companies whose reviews were closed in the previous quarter but did not prepare Case Summaries. However, on an exceptional basis, specific cases may be publicised through entity-specific Press Notices, which can also be found in the table below.
The FRC’s reviews are based solely on the company’s annual report and accounts (or interim reports) and do not benefit from detailed knowledge of the company’s business or an understanding of the underlying transactions entered into. They are, however, conducted by staff of the FRC who have an understanding of the relevant legal and accounting framework. The FRC’s correspondence with the company provides no assurance that the annual report and accounts (or interim reports) are correct in all material respects; the FRC’s role is not to verify the information provided but to consider compliance with reporting requirements. The FRC’s correspondence is written on the basis that the FRC (which includes the FRC’s officers, employees and agents) accepts no liability for reliance on its letters or Case Summaries by the company or any third party, including but not limited to investors and shareholders.
Key
- Only a certain number of CRR’s reviews result in substantive questioning of the Board. Matters raised may cover questions of recognition, measurement and/or disclosure.
- CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ annual reports and accounts generally cover all parts over which the FRC has statutory powers (that is, strategic reports, directors’ reports and financial statements). Similarly, CRR’s routine reviews of companies’ interim reports will generally cover all information in that document. Limited scope reviews arise for a number of reasons, including those conducted when a company’s annual report and accounts or interim report are selected for thematic review or reviews that have been prompted by a complaint. In accordance with the FRC's Operating Procedures, for Corporate Reporting Review, CRR does not identify those companies whose reviews were prompted by a complaint.
- The FRC may ask a company to refer to its exchanges with CRR when the company makes a change to a significant aspect of its annual report and accounts or interim report in response to a review.
- Case closed after 1 January 2021 but performed under operating procedures that did not allow for the publication of Case Summaries.
- From the quarter ended June 2023, the FRC started identifying the auditor of the annual report and accounts, or the audit firm that issued a review report on the interim report, that was the subject of the CRR review. This information was also back-dated for closed cases publicised from the quarter ended September 2022. Cases marked N/A relate to those published prior to September 2022 or interim reviews that did not have a review opinion.’
Case Summaries
CRR Case Summaries and Entity-specific Press Notices (Excel version)
| Entity | Fresnillo plc |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Recoverability of Soledad-Dipolos assets We asked for information about the company’s conclusion that the carrying value of property, plant and equipment, and inventory related to the Soledad-Dipolos mine was recoverable. The company provided a satisfactory explanation of the factors it considered and the basis for its conclusion. Claims from the El Bajio agrarian community We asked for information about any liabilities or contingent liabilities arising from litigation and claims from the El Bajio agrarian community. The company provided a satisfactory explanation of the basis on which the disclosures were made. |
| Entity | Glencore plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Reclassification of comparative amounts We asked the company to provide more details about several reclassifications of comparative amounts that were disclosed in the notes to the financial statements. The company explained that the reclassifications related to the correction of errors in the prior year and agreed to provide more detailed explanations of the nature of any future restatements of comparative amounts. Accounting policy for physical advances and prepayments We noted some changes to the wording of the accounting policy for physical advances and prepayments compared with the prior year policy and requested further information in relation to these changes and how the policy had been applied. The company’s response was satisfactory; it included an explanation that the changes did not represent a change in accounting policy but were disclosure enhancements to the existing policy. The company agreed to further enhance the description of this policy in its next set of accounts by referring to applicable accounting policies and eliminating potentially unclear language |
| Entity | H&T Group Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Impellam Group Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 5 January 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | IQE plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Ithaca Energy plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Commodity price assumptions in impairment testing We asked the company to provide more details about the process for deriving its oil price assumptions used in impairment tests. The company provided further details about this process. The company also satisfactorily explained why the commodity price assumptions used for impairment testing were different from those used in the going concern assessment / viability statement and agreed to explain the reason for this difference in its next annual accounts. On the basis of these explanations, we were able to close our enquiries. Accounting treatment of wholly owned fields We requested that the company explain the rationale for applying joint operation accounting to several wholly owned fields. The company explained that certain wholly owned fields had been incorrectly disclosed as joint operations but, notwithstanding this misdescription, they had been correctly accounted for as wholly owned assets. The company agreed to amend its disclosures accordingly in its next set of accounts and to include an explanation of the basis for applying joint operation accounting to those wholly owned fields that are joint operations. The company also satisfactorily explained why acquisitions of the remaining interests in certain fields during the year were not considered business combinations |
| Entity | Johnson Matthey Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Johnson Service Group PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Grant Thornton UK LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment testing of goodwill We requested further information about the treatment of lease liabilities and deferred tax liabilities in goodwill impairment testing and were satisfied with the response received. The company agreed to provide additional disclosure in its 2024 annual report and accounts, to clarify why lease liabilities and certain deferred tax liabilities are included within the carrying value for each cash-generating unit (CGU). |
| Entity | JSA Newco Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 28 September 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Cooper Parry Group Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Kistos Holdings plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Measurement of hybrid bond financial liability We asked the company to explain the basis for measuring the hybrid bond financial liability at amortised cost, rather than at fair value through profit or loss, given the apparent existence of an embedded derivative in the contract in the form of contingently issuable warrants. We closed the matter after the company explained that the potential alternative accounting treatment they had adopted would not result in a material difference. We also asked why the hybrid bond financial liability had been remeasured at year-end with the assumption that the entire face value would not be repaid, despite the base case going concern scenario assuming that such an outflow would take place. The company provided a satisfactory explanation. Mime Petroleum AS (‘Mime’) acquisition accounting We asked the company to provide further information about the circumstances surrounding Mime’s bond debt restructure which took place at the time of the acquisition, and any association between the parties involved in these transactions. The company provided further background and clarified that the bondholders and the vendors of Mime were separate, unrelated parties and, as such, amounts due to the bondholders were not considered contingent consideration. We also asked the company why an equity, rather than liability, classification was considered appropriate for the warrants issued as consideration. The company explained the basis on which they concluded that the fixed-for-fixed criterion referred to in IAS 32 ‘Financial Instruments: Presentation’ was satisfied, which justified the equity classification. Provisional pricing arrangements We asked the company to explain the basis for their accounting policy for provisional pricing arrangements, where adjustments to sales pricing on settlement of the arrangements were recognised within revenue rather than treated as an embedded derivative. We closed the matter after the company explained that the typical adjustment period was short-term and the adjustments were not material. |
| Entity | Laing O'Rourke Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Magical Cruise Company, Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Marks and Spencer Group Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Matalan Retail Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 24 February 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Metals Exploration Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment of property, plant and equipment We requested information about the impairment review performed for the company’s Runruno project. The company explained that its policy for determining impairment charges or reversals is for the carrying amount of the property, plant and equipment to be within the net present value range determined by applying sensitivities to the life of mine model. We observed that this policy is not in line with IAS 36, ‘Impairment of Assets’, which requires companies to determine a single estimate of the recoverable amount. The company provided an undertaking to perform future assessments on this basis and to enhance the relevant disclosures in the next annual accounts by providing additional information about all the key assumptions made and their sensitivity to changes or a range of reasonably possible outcomes. We requested details of the specific events and circumstances that led to the reversal of the impairment loss relating to the Runruno project. The company provided a satisfactory response. We sought clarification of the basis on which the impairment reversal was allocated to individual assets within the CGU. The company acknowledged that it had not considered the requirements of paragraphs 122 and 123 of IAS 36 in determining the allocation basis, and confirmed that it would do so in the future. We closed this matter on this basis, noting that the remaining impairment charge had been reversed in the company’s interim report for the six months ended 30 June 2024. Consolidated cash flow statement We asked the company to explain how the opening and closing balance sheet positions for trade and other receivables reconciled to the increase in receivables amount shown in the consolidated cash flow statement. The company satisfactorily responded to our enquiry. |