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 | Civitas Social Housing PLC |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Lease incentives We requested some further information about lease incentives recognised in the accounts and for an explanation of the basis for classifying certain payments as lease incentives. The company provided the information and explanations requested to our satisfaction. Related party transactions We asked the company about their relationship with certain other parties, and asked them to explain whether any of these parties met the definition of related parties as set out in IAS 24 ‘Related Party Disclosures.’ The company explained the nature of their relationships with the parties, and why these were not considered to meet the definition of related parties. Operating segments We asked the company about how they intended to disclose information about major customers, as required by IFRS 8 ‘Operating Segments’, in relation to certain customers under common control. The company confirmed that they intend to disclose aggregated information for customers under common control in their next annual report and accounts. |
| Entity | Craneware plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | DFS Furniture plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 27 June 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | easyJet plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Edinburgh Worldwide Trust plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 October 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Energean plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Income taxes We requested further information about deferred tax assets arising from losses. The company satisfactorily explained the evidence supporting the recognition of these deferred tax assets, and other factors associated with the losses, including the locations in which these losses arose and, where relevant, their expiry date. The company agreed to provide additional disclosures associated with these deferred tax assets in the future. Leases We asked the company to explain their accounting policy for certain leases referred to in the annual report. The company explained their accounting policy for these leases, which related to oil and gas concessions, and agreed to include disclosure of the accounting policy for leases outside the scope of IFRS 16 in its next annual reports and accounts. Trade and other payables We requested an explanation for certain balances presented within trade and other payables. We questioned the nature of a liability described as a long term prepayment. The company explained this arose from amounts paid by Israel Natural Gas Lines for the transfer of the near shore and onshore segment of the Karish and Tanin infrastructure, which was expected to complete in Q4 2021/Q1 2022. We asked the company further questions about the classification of the associated asset as property, plant, and equipment, the timing of the expected derecognition, and the classification of cash flows in the cash flow statement. As a result of our enquiries, the company reconsidered the classification of the cash flows, and agreed that they should be classified as investing activities, rather than financing activities. The company agreed to reclassify the comparative amounts to reflect this change in its 2021 annual report and accounts. As the reclassification affects a primary statement, the company also agreed to disclose in its 2021 report and accounts that the matter came to its attention as a result of the Financial Reporting Council’s enquiry. Borrowing facilities We asked the company for an explanation of the difference between the carrying value of its borrowings, and the disclosures of the amounts drawn down under those facilities. The company explained these differences to our satisfaction. |
| Entity | Epwin Group Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Offset of bank overdrafts and cash and cash equivalents We questioned why the parent company accounts included an overdraft balance which was not included within the consolidated accounts. The company acknowledged that, in its consolidated accounts, it had offset positive cash balances and overdrafts that did not meet the offsetting criteria in paragraph 42 of IAS 32, ‘Financial Instruments: Presentation’. The company agreed to restate the comparative balance sheet in its next annual report and accounts by presenting the positive cash balances and overdrafts separately. 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. Share options We asked the company for more information about the terms of the share options exercised during the year and to explain the consequential reduction in equity. The company provided a satisfactory explanation of the terms of the options including a net settlement feature which supported the reduction. The company undertook to disclose details of the terms and conditions of the options, including the net settlement feature, in its next annual report and accounts. Movement in lease assets We asked for clarification of the reasons for the reduction in lease assets, held by the company as a lessor, and where this was disclosed in the annual report and accounts. The company explained that the asset had been reclassified to right-of-use assets as it is no longer sublet and is instead now expected to be used by the group. The company agreed to expand the disclosure in its next annual report and accounts to explain the recognition of the right-of-use asset. Gain on sale and leaseback We asked the company to explain where the gain on sale and leaseback of a property was presented in the income statement. The company provided this information noting that it was not separately presented in the income statement as, in the year under review, total gross gains were considered immaterial. |
| Entity | European Opportunities Trust PLC |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 May 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Frontier Developments plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 May 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Unrecognised tax losses We asked the company to explain the increase in its unrecognised tax losses and how the amounts relate to the tax rate reconciliation. We also asked it to explain the basis on which it concluded that the losses did not qualify for recognition as a deferred tax asset. We were satisfied with the company’s explanations and closed our enquiries. In closing the matter, we explained that we expect the company to provide sufficient information in its future accounts to enable users to understand how material movements in unrecognised tax losses are supported by amounts reflected in the effective tax rate reconciliation. Streamlined Energy and Carbon Reporting We asked the company to explain why its SECR disclosures did not include its energy consumption information. We closed our query after the company gave an undertaking to provide the information in its future reports. |
| Entity | GCP Infrastructure Investments Limited |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Hansard Global plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | No |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | N/A |
| Entity | Hargreaves Lansdown |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Potential Litigation We requested further information about the accounting implications for potential litigation against the company in respect of the LF Equity Income Fund (formerly Woodford Equity Income Fund) which had been reported in the media. The company explained that a pre-action letter had been received from a legal firm in March 2021. The company clarified that in June 2021, it had issued a letter in response which rejected all the claims made for lack of a substantive basis of claim. As at the time of the company’s clarification, it confirmed that there had been no response to the company’s letter since it was issued, and that no formal litigation or group legal action against the company had commenced as at the date of issuing the 2021 annual report and accounts, or since. The company explained with reference to the requirements of IAS 37 'Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets' that no provision had been recognised nor disclosure provided relating to the matter, as it had concluded that the possibility of a material outflow was remote. |
| Entity | Helical plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Amounts owed by subsidiary undertakings We asked the company to explain the rationale for classifying amounts due from subsidiary undertakings as current assets in the parent company balance sheet. The company acknowledged that it did not expect the amounts to be settled within 12 months and that the amounts should be classified as non-current assets. The company agreed to restate the comparatives in its next 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. |
| Entity | HSS Hire Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 26 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Identification of cash-generating units We requested more information on the identification of cash-generating units for the purpose of assessing impairment of property, plant and equipment and right of use assets. The company provided satisfactory responses to our enquiries. Onerous property cost and dilapidations provisions We asked the company to explain the reasons for a material change in the level of property-related provisions between the 2020 year-end and the 2021 interim reporting date, and hence the basis on which it was satisfied that the provisions were measured at the best estimate of the expenditure required to settle the present obligation under paragraph 36 of IAS 37, ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’. The company explained that this was due to the successful negotiation of the early surrender of property leases in the first half of 2021 that had not been anticipated at the time the 2020 year-end accounts were prepared. We questioned the extent of the sensitivity disclosures provided under paragraph 129 of IAS 1 ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’, in relation to property-related provisions, and the company undertook to include additional disclosure to the extent it is relevant and material in the future. We also encouraged the company to improve the clarity of the disclosure of material components of exceptional onerous property costs and credits in future financial statements. Impairment of financial assets We asked the company to explain its rationale for not presenting material impairment losses in relation to financial assets on the face of the consolidated income statement as required by paragraph 82(ba) of IAS 1. The company agreed to disclose this information in future financial statements to the extent material, and agreed to restate the 2020 comparatives to the 2021 income statement accordingly. As the restatement 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. |
| Entity | Ideagen Plc |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 April 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Income taxes We asked the company to provide further information about its disclosures in respect of current and deferred tax on share-based payments. The company acknowledged that a current tax credit posted through other comprehensive income should have been credited directly to equity and agreed to change its treatment of such amounts prospectively. The company also agreed to ensure that the deferred tax entries recorded in the income statement and equity, and the movements in the gross deferred tax asset and gross deferred tax liability, could be clearly identified. |