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 | Global Media & Entertainment Limited |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Parent company accounts: impairment of investment in subsidiaries We asked for further details of the impairment review undertaken in accordance with IAS 36, ‘Impairment of Assets’, to support the carrying value of the parent company’s investments in subsidiaries. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to clarify its disclosures in this area. |
| Entity | Grainger Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Imperial Brands PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | John Graham Holdings Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Joint venture We asked the company to explain the accounting treatment adopted for an interest in a joint venture. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to enhance the disclosure of the nature of the relationship with the joint venture, including the basis on which turnover is recognised under subcontract agreements. Turnover analysis We asked the company to clarify the basis on which disclosure of turnover by class of business was considered to be seriously prejudicial to the interests of the company. In response, the company agreed to include an analysis of turnover by class of business in future annual reports and accounts. |
| Entity | JPMorgan Global Emerging Markets Income Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 July 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Mace Finance Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Joint venture We sought and received clarification of the basis for concluding that the company had joint control over its joint venture. The company agreed to provide additional disclosures in relation to its investment in the joint venture. Offsetting of bank overdrafts We asked the company about the basis for offsetting cash and bank overdrafts for its cash pooling arrangements in the consolidated statement of financial position with reference to the requirements in IAS 32 ‘Financial Instruments: Presentation’. The company explained that it viewed the arrangements as a single unit of account. Therefore, it did not consider these requirements to be relevant. However, following a review of the arrangements, we were not persuaded that it was appropriate to treat these balances as a single unit of account. In addition, although there was a legal right to set off the company could not demonstrate, in the period under review, the intention to settle the year-end balances on a net basis, as required by IAS 32. The company agreed to restate the comparatives in its 2024 accounts, presenting the balances on a gross basis. As this related to a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Pantheon International Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 May 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Fair value measurement of level 3 financial assets We asked the company to provide more details about the valuation techniques and assumptions used to value its direct investments in unquoted companies, including a breakdown of the total investment balance by valuation technique. The company explained that the investments were held through fund vehicles and were measured at fair value based on fund net asset values received from third-party private equity managers. It agreed to enhance the definition of direct investments and to clarify the valuation techniques and assumptions used to value these investments in its next annual report and accounts. |
| Entity | Pantheon Resources plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Pennon Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Pensana Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Pladis Foods Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Control of Ülker Group We asked the company to explain the basis on which it controls a subsidiary despite the reduction in shareholding from 51% to 47.3%. The company provided satisfactory explanations and agreed to include additional disclosure in future annual reports. Revaluation of land and buildings Revaluation surplus We asked the company to explain the difference between the revaluation of fixed assets presented in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income and the amount disclosed in the note to the accounts. We closed our query after it explained that the difference was due to the presentation of amounts relating to a hyperinflationary subsidiary. The company agreed to clarify the impact of IAS 29, ‘Financial Reporting in Hyperinflationary Economies’, and to explain the difference in its future annual report and accounts. We also asked the company to provide explanations to help us understand other disclosures in relation to revaluation of freehold land and buildings. The company provided us with satisfactory explanations. We observed that it would be helpful if the company included this information in future accounts. Fair value hierarchy We challenged the company’s categorisation of its freehold land and buildings within level 2 of the fair value hierarchy, as set out in IFRS 13, ‘Fair Value Measurement’. The company explained that certain land parcels and buildings should have been classified as level 3 valuations. The company agreed to disclose the appropriate hierarchy levels for land and buildings, and to include the more detailed disclosure required for level 3 valuations, in its future annual report and accounts. Defined benefit plan We sought clarification of an adjustment to the defined benefit plan surplus described as ‘minimum funding requirement/asset ceiling’, as the asset ceiling test and minimum funding requirements each have different bases for calculation. The company confirmed that the amount relates entirely to the asset ceiling and the liability recognised in respect of minimum funding requirements at year end was nil. The company agreed to clarify this disclosure in its future annual report and accounts. We also queried an amount disclosed as contributions designed to eliminate funding deficits in its defined benefit plans because no minimum funding adjustment was recognised in the current year consolidated statement of comprehensive income as required by IFRIC 14, ‘IAS 19 - The Limit on a Defined Benefit Asset, Minimum Funding Requirements and their Interaction’. The company clarified that this amount relates to administration expenses and deficit contributions paid into one of its defined benefit plan schemes. The company agreed that future disclosures will clarify which scheme has the minimum funding requirements, and that this is not the scheme with the asset ceiling. External loan repayments We asked the company to explain the difference between the external loan repayments presented within the consolidated cash flow statement and the amount disclosed in the note to the accounts. We closed our enquiry after it explained that the difference was due to a hyperinflationary subsidiary. The company agreed to clarify the impact of IAS 29 and to explain the difference in its future annual report and accounts. Climate-related scenario analysis We asked the company to include, in its future annual report and accounts, an analysis of the resilience of the company’s business model and strategy under different climate-related scenarios as required by the Companies Act 2006. The company agreed to provide this information. |
| Entity | Renishaw plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Saga Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 January 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Three-year fixed price policies We asked the company why the customer option to fix insurance premiums at the first and second renewal points, under the three-year fixed price policies, is accounted for as a separate performance obligation, and not as being within the boundary of the underlying insurance contract. The company explained that the three-year fixed price policies operated under a price guarantee to the customer issued by the broker, and placed no obligation on the underwriting business to provide insurance coverage, and was therefore measured separately from insurance contracts underwritten by the company. Revenue recognition We asked for further details concerning the judgement that, where insurance contracts are also underwritten by the company, the arrangement of the insurance contract was a distinct and separate service from the insurance underwriting service. The company provided a satisfactory response, noting that the arrangement service provided was identical irrespective of which insurer underwrites the policy, and that the broking and underwriting businesses are operationally independent. |
| Entity | Sequoia Economic Infrastructure Income Fund Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Grant Thornton Limited |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Net gains on non-derivative financial assets During the year ended 31 March 2024, the company changed the presentation of investment in subsidiaries to incorporate the balance of interest receivable/payable in respect of variable funding notes issued by the subsidiaries into the fair value of the investment, so as to present it as a single instrument. We asked the company about an apparent inconsistency in the determination of the unrealised gains/losses on revaluation of the subsidiaries between the years ended 31 March 2024 and 31 March 2023, which arose following the change in presentation. The company explained that it had arisen because the opening balances at 31 March 2022 were not restated as the company concluded that there would be no material or misleading impact on NAV or profit for the year. As there were no implications for subsequent annual reports and accounts, we closed our enquiry. |
| Entity | Severn Trent Water Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Accounting for transactions involving Severn Trent Draycote Limited, Severn Trent Trimpley Limited and Severn Trent Water Limited We asked the company to explain the rationale behind a series of transactions that had been entered into by a number of group companies, how the balances arising from the transactions had been assessed for impairment and how Severn Trent Water Limited had determined the fair value of its investment in Severn Trent Trimpley Limited. The company explained the rationale for the transactions and provided a satisfactory explanation of how the balances had been assessed for impairment. The company explained how the fair value of Severn Trent Water Limited’s investment in Severn Trent Trimpley Limited had been determined. Having reconsidered whether its choice of valuation methodology was a significant accounting judgement, the company concluded it was, and agreed to include disclosure of this judgement in its next annual report and accounts. |