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 | RIT Capital Partners plc |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Rothschild & Co Continuation Finance PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Forvis Mazars LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Senior plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Thames Water Utilities Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition in respect of Thames Tideway Tunnel (TTT) charges We asked the company to give a more detailed explanation of its accounting policy for recognising revenue relating to amounts received from TTT charges. The company provided a satisfactory response and confirmed that it considered the profits arising from TTT charges to be unrealised. The company agreed to enhance its future disclosures, to explain further the reasoning for revenue in respect of TTT charges being recognised in the current period, and to clarify the distinction between water and wastewater charges (within which TTT charges are billed) and infrastructure charges. Capitalisation of impairment loss on property We sought clarification of the treatment of an impairment loss on property, which had been capitalised into the cost of infrastructure assets under construction. The company agreed to enhance its disclosures relating to land and buildings purchased to facilitate the construction of the wider TTT asset and costs capitalised into the cost of construction. We observed that, where a decline in value arises from consuming the economic benefits of the property through its intended use, it is likely to represent depreciation, under the cost model in IAS 16, ‘Property, Plant and Equipment’, rather than impairment. We encouraged the company to review its accounting policy for these assets, to ensure that depreciation is recognised on a systematic basis by reference to the pattern of consumption. Cash flow statement presentation of dividends and payment for surrender of tax losses We enquired about the company’s presentation of an operating cash inflow for group relief and a financing cash outflow for a dividend, in the light of disclosure indicating that these amounts had been settled without the use of cash or cash equivalents. The company explained how it had entered into a settlement deed with other group companies, and that additional disclosures had been provided in the notes enabling users to understand the nature of the transactions. Having considered the company’s explanation, we did not agree that the arrangement provided sufficient grounds for presenting these transactions in the cash flow statement, because there was no actual movement of cash or cash equivalents. The company agreed to restate the comparative figures in its 2024/25 statement of cash flows, to exclude the non-cash amounts. In disclosing the restatement, the company noted that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | The Bankers Investment Trust PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 October 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash and cash equivalents We queried why the closing balance of cash and cash equivalents included in the cash flow statement was not consistent with the equivalent amount included in the balance sheet. The company acknowledged that there had been an error in the cash flow statement, which they had previously identified, primarily due to an omission of a line item relating to the movement in ‘securities sold for future settlement’ and a classification error in relation to ‘interest paid’. The company confirmed that it will restate the comparatives in its next Annual Report and provide the appropriate disclosures in relation to the misstatement. Calculation of alternative performance measures (‘APMs’) We asked the company to explain how it had calculated net asset value (‘NAV’) per share total return as we were not able to recalculate it from the balances included in the Annual Report. The company explained that the method of calculating NAV had changed during the year to include debt at fair value, which had previously been included at book value, which had led to a 2.8% increase in the NAV per share total return reported in the year. We reminded the company that the European Securities and Markets Authority Guidelines on APMs require that APMs should be consistent over time and, if redefined, the change should be explained and restated comparative figures should be provided. The company agreed to include a reconciliation of the current and prior year calculations in its next Annual Report. |
| Entity | T J Morris Group Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Malthouse & Company |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Fair value of investment properties We asked the company to explain its accounting policy of holding investment properties at cost, in a departure from the fair value measurement requirements of FRS 102, ‘The Financial Reporting Standard applicable in the UK and Republic of Ireland’. The company acknowledged that it had been unable to complete a valuation as at 30 June 2024 on a timely basis when preparing the accounts for that period. The company undertook to include within its next set of filed accounts a revised accounting policy for investment properties, and the outcome of its revaluation assessment as at 30 June 2025. Reorganisation transactions and distributions We sought clarification of the transactions giving effect to the group’s reorganisation and distributions. The company gave a satisfactory response and agreed to include the relevant disclosures regarding the application of merger accounting within the accounts for the year ended 30 June 2025, to explain movements in the comparative period. We questioned whether the parent company’s profit for the period to 30 June 2024 wholly represented realised profits. The company provided an analysis of the distributions and other income received by the company, from which it appeared that certain amounts consisted of non-qualifying consideration. The company agreed to ensure that only realised gains and losses will be recognised in its future accounts for profit or loss in any period, other than where a specific exception applies. We did not consider it proportionate to pursue this matter in respect of the period to 30 June 2024. |
| Entity | Treatt Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Vedanta Resources Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | MacIntyre Hudson |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Athena Chhattisgarh Power Limited (ACPL) We sought clarification of the accounting treatment applied to the acquisition of ACPL in the parent company and consolidated annual report and accounts, including the rationale for the prior year restatement in the consolidated annual report and accounts and the basis on which group tax balances were affected. The company provided a satisfactory explanation and confirmed that the accounting treatment applied did not result in a departure from IFRSs. Rajasthan production sharing contract (PSC) The company recognised revenue relating to the outcome of a tribunal concerning the Rajasthan PSC. We asked the company to explain how the revenue recognised reconciled to the related movements in balances owed to and from the Government of India and the joint operation partner. The company provided a satisfactory response. Sale of a non-controlling interest in a subsidiary We queried why a cash flow arising from the sale of a non-controlling interest was classified within investing activities, rather than within financing activities as required by IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’. The company acknowledged that the amount should have been included within financing activities and agreed to revise the presentation and restate comparative figures in its 2025 annual report and accounts. As the change affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. We also asked the company to explain how a balance included in the cash flow statement for proceeds from sale of subsidiaries related to corresponding amounts recognised in the statement of changes in equity. The company provided us with a satisfactory explanation, including a reconciliation of the amounts |
| Entity | Wates Group Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | YOUGOV plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 July 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Grant Thornton UK LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Share-based payments We asked the company to explain the basis for classifying all its share-based payment arrangements as equity-settled, in the light of certain amounts being settled in cash in the period under review. The company provided satisfactory explanations and agreed to clarify the relevant disclosures in its 2025 financial statements. Impairment testing We requested further information about the revenue growth rates assumed for each cash generating unit and how these were consistent with external information and past performance. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to review the clarity and extent of these disclosures and enhance them for future periods. Amounts owed by Group undertakings We sought clarification on how the expected credit loss provision for amounts owed by Group undertakings was determined, as the policy disclosed did not appear to reflect the requirements of IFRS 9, ‘Financial Instruments’. The company confirmed that the provision had been calculated in accordance with the relevant requirements, and agreed to clarify its accounting policy and assess the need for additional disclosures on management estimates in its 2025 financial statements. |
| Entity | A.G. BARR p.l.c |
| Balance Sheet Date | 28 January 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Recognition of retirement benefit asset and associated deferred tax liability We sought clarification of the basis of recognition of the defined benefit pension scheme asset. The company satisfactorily explained its unconditional right to a refund of the pension surplus and agreed to enhance the relevant accounting policy in future annual reports and accounts. We also asked the company to explain the basis for the measurement of the deferred tax liability associated with the retirement benefit asset. It explained how the values were determined in both the group and company accounts, including providing details of tax deductions that were received under the related asset-backed funding arrangements. The company agreed to enhance the disclosure of the deferred tax liability to explain more clearly the basis for recognising and measuring this balance in future annual reports and accounts. Rio acquisition We asked the company to explain the basis on which it concluded that the acquisition of Rio Tropical Limited constituted a business, as defined in IFRS 3, ‘Business Combinations’. The company provided a satisfactory response and agreed to enhance the disclosure of the inputs and processes acquired on acquisitions in future annual reports and accounts. |
| Entity | Associated British Foods plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 14 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 | BT Group plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Defined benefit pension scheme We requested further information about the company’s control assessment related to its interest in a co-investment vehicle held with the BT Pension Scheme (BTPS). The company satisfactorily explained that it does not have control of the vehicle as it is unable to use its power to affect the variable returns from it. The company agreed to clarify the related significant judgement disclosure in its 2025 annual report and accounts. We also asked the company to explain the basis on which it concluded that BTPS’s interest in the vehicle meets the definition of a plan asset, as set out in IAS 19, 'Employee Benefits’. The company provided an adequate response. |
| Entity | CEF Holdings Ltd |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 April 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Crowe U.K. LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Distributable profits and dividends paid We observed that the company had paid a dividend in the year ended 30 April 2024 which was in excess of the company’s opening and closing retained earnings position. We asked the company how it had complied with the requirements of section 836(2)(a) of the Companies Act 2006 to prepare interim accounts to support the dividend and what level of distributable profits were available to the company at the time the dividend was paid. The company provided interim accounts which supported the payment of the dividend. We also asked for further details of how the company had transferred its assets and liabilities to its parent subsequent to the year end, as referred to in its note of events after the reporting date, and if this had involved a distribution. The company provided the additional information requested and confirmed the transfer had not involved a distribution. |
| Entity | Central Asia Metals plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Silver streaming arrangement We questioned why silver purchases made in relation to a silver streaming arrangement were presented as a reduction in revenue rather than a cost of sale. As a result of our further inquiries, the company reconsidered its presentation and agreed to reclassify the silver purchases from revenue to cost of sales, and to restate the 2023 comparative amounts in the 2024 annual report and accounts. As the reclassification affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. We asked how a statement referring to satisfying the silver streaming arrangement through own production related to the silver purchases referred to above. We also sought further explanation to support the company’s conclusion that the silver streaming agreement should not be accounted for as a derivative. The company explained its conclusion that the silver streaming arrangement meets the criteria for the ‘own use’ exemption to financial instrument accounting. The company agreed to enhance the disclosures around the silver streaming arrangement, including the basis on which it is fulfilled through third party purchases, and the significant judgements disclosure about the ’own use’ exemption in its 2024 annual report and accounts. Share-based payments’ classification We asked the company to clarify the basis for its conclusion that its share-based payment arrangements should be accounted for as equity-settled, in the light of recent cash settlements. After further inquiries, the company agreed to account for share-based payments as cash-settled from 1 January 2023, which the company considers to be the date at which it established a practice of cash settlement. It agreed to restate the 2023 comparative amounts in the 2024 annual report and accounts accordingly. As this change also affected the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that this matter had also come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Earnings per share We requested further information about the calculation of the weighted average number of shares used to calculate basic and diluted EPS, and whether this was adjusted for shares held in an employee benefit trust (‘EBT’). We also observed an apparent inconsistency in the number of share options adjusted in the diluted EPS calculation. The company agreed to adjust the number of shares used to calculate basic EPS for shares held in the EBT. It will do this prospectively as it concluded the effect on comparative amounts was not material. The company satisfactorily explained the reason for the apparent inconsistency in the number of share options adjusted in the diluted EPS calculation. |