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 | The Very Group Limited |
---|---|
Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | The Weir Group PLC |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Tritax Big Box REIT Plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Vistry Group PLC |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Vivo Energy plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Wates Group Limited |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Xaar PLC |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice |
This company was selected as part of our thematic review of companies’ disclosure of alternative performance measures (‘APMs’); as such, only the disclosures in relation to APMs were reviewed. Adjusted EBITDA We asked the company to explain the difference between the amount of depreciation of property plant and equipment disclosed within the reconciliation of adjusted EBITDA, and the depreciation charge disclosed elsewhere in the notes to the accounts. The company provided a satisfactory analysis and clarified that the main difference related to an impairment charge. The company also stated that the depreciation of right of use assets was not added back when arriving at the adjusted EBITDA. In closing this matter, we observed that we would expect the nature of the reconciling items, and the reasons for their selection, to be clarified in future. |
Entity | XP Power Limited |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Young & Co’s Brewery P.L.C. |
Balance Sheet Date | 29 March 2021 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | December 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Anexo Group Plc (3) |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2019 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice |
This company was part of our thematic review of cash flow and liquidity disclosures and, as such, only the disclosures relating to the cash flow statement and liquidity were reviewed. Invoice discounting facility in the cash flow statement We asked the company why an invoice discounting facility was included within cash and cash equivalents in the cash flow statement as the balance did not appear to fluctuate between negative and positive. The company acknowledged that the invoice discounting facility did not meet the criteria for classification as cash and cash equivalents, and agreed to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts to present the cash flows from the facility within financing activities. New lease arrangements The statement of cash flows presented a cash inflow within financing activities, in relation to new leases. We asked the company to explain this presentation because cash flows would not usually arise on the inception of a lease. The company acknowledged that the cash flow statement had been incorrectly grossed up for a non-cash transaction. The company agreed to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts to remove the gross up associated with leases. The company also agreed to present cash flows associated with hire purchase leases and other leases within a single line in the statement of cash flows. As the changes to both the composition of cash and cash equivalents, and the presentation of cash flows from leases affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as result of our enquiry. |
Entity | Anglo American plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | ASOS Plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 August 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition We asked the company to provide further details in respect of the revenue recognition accounting policy applied to brand and collaboration sales and delivery receipts. In particular, we enquired about the basis on which the company acted as principal in these arrangements. The company provided satisfactory explanations and undertook to enhance the revenue recognition disclosures in its 2021 report and accounts. We also requested details of the way in which sales returns are recognised and measured. The company provided these details and agreed to expand the disclosures in this area in its 2021 reports and accounts. Significant estimates and judgements We queried whether all the accounting estimates identified in the 2020 report and accounts gave rise to a significant risk of material adjustment to the carrying value of an asset or liability in the next financial year. We also asked the company to explain how it considered the accounts met the requirements of IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’ paragraphs 125 and 129. The company confirmed that all the accounting estimates identified in the 2020 annual report and accounts gave rise to a significant risk of material adjustment in the next financial year. The company also agreed to enhance the estimation uncertainty disclosures in future reports and accounts. |
Entity | Aviva plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | Beazley plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
Entity | BlackRock World Mining Trust plc |
Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
Scope of Review (2) | Full |
Quarter Published | September 2021 |
Auditor (5) | N/A |
Case Summary / Press Notice |
Disclosure of significant unobservable inputs used in Level 3 fair value measurements We asked the company why quantitative information about the significant unobservable inputs used in Level 3 fair value measurements, as required by IFRS 13 ‘Fair Value Measurement’, had not been disclosed. The company agreed to provide the disclosure in its future accounts. |