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 | NEXT plc (3) |
|---|---|
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 January 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash flow statement The Chief Executive’s review disclosed that, during the year, a gain was recognised on sale and leaseback transactions in relation to the ‘portion’ of the assets that were not leased back and which were, in effect, disposed of. In view of this, we questioned why all the proceeds from sale and leaseback transactions were classified as financing activities in the cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that the proceeds from the sale of the portion of assets that were not leased back should have been classified as investing activities in the cash flow statement included in its 2021 accounts. While the company did not consider this to be material to its 2021 report and accounts, it considered it appropriate to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts to reflect the requirements of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, and to be consistent with the presentation of any subsequent sale and leaseback transactions. The company agreed to provide an explanation of the change in accordance with the requirements of IAS 8, ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’. As the restatement 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 | Oxford Biomedica 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 |
Revenue recognition We asked the company to describe its accounting policy for the capacity reservation fee referred to in its strategic report. The company provided this information and undertook to disclose the policy in its future accounts. We noted an inconsistency in amounts disclosed for contract assets between the disclosures about critical judgements and estimates, and the trade and other receivables note to the accounts. The company explained the inconsistency and undertook to improve the clarity of its disclosures in this area in future accounts. Operating EBITDA We requested further information about certain items in the reconciliation of operating EBITDA to operating loss as we were unable to trace these items to figures disclosed elsewhere in the accounts. The company provided the information requested and undertook to ensure, in future annual reports, that figures reported in the finance review could be agreed to amounts in the notes to the accounts. The company also undertook to amend its definition of operating EBITDA to make clear that this measure excluded share-based payment charges, except those charges deemed to be “cash related”. In closing this matter, we observed that we expected the disclosures to make clear the basis on which the company considered certain share-based payment charges to be cash-related items, and thus included in operating EBITDA. Taxation We sought an explanation for the movement in current tax assets as this was not clear from the accounts. The company provided the explanation requested, which prompted a follow-up question on the composition of the other tax receivable balance included within trade and other receivables. The company acknowledged that it had offset VAT payable against the other tax receivable balance and undertook to ensure such balances were appropriately classified as liabilities within trade and other payables in future accounts. As the company did not consider the misclassification of VAT payable to be material we did not consider it proportionate to pursue the matter further. Company cash flow statement We questioned why cash flows from a loan to subsidiary were classified as arising from financing, rather than investing, activities in the parent company’s cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that the amount should have been classified as an investing cash flow and undertook to correct this in its 2021 report and accounts, and to restate the comparatives. 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 | R.E.A. Holdings 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 |
Inconsistencies in reported amounts in total comprehensive income We asked the company to explain several inconsistencies between certain amounts recognised in total comprehensive income and those disclosed elsewhere in the primary statements or in the notes. The company acknowledged that there were errors in the amounts presented for: the tax credit in the income statement; deferred tax, actuarial gains/losses and foreign exchange in the statement of other comprehensive income; and equity attributable to non-controlling interests. The company agreed to restate the comparatives in its next annual report and accounts. As the restatements affected primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Disclosure of covenants Although the company had disclosed the breach, and subsequent waiver of the breach, of certain loan covenants, it had not provided any explanation of the covenant terms or quantification of the headroom thresholds that were breached. The company agreed to our request that it should disclose more information about its loan covenant arrangements in future if there are instances of breaches or potential breaches of covenant terms. Obligations from tax disputes We asked the company to clarify the potential obligations to which it was exposed as a result of its ongoing tax disputes and how the obligations were reflected in the annual accounts. The company provided further explanation of the obligations and their accounting treatment, and agreed to provide clearer disclosures and quantification of the amounts in its 2021 annual report and accounts. Advance payment of taxation We requested further information about the balance reported as ‘Advance payment of taxation’ within trade and other receivables. The company provided further analysis of the balance and agreed to present the amount of the balance that related to corporate income tax as a separate line item in the balance sheet in the 2021 annual report, as required by IAS 1, ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’. It will also provide a clearer description of the amount remaining within trade and other receivables. Capitalisation of administrative expenses We asked for information about the type of costs that were included in the amounts described as capitalised from administrative expenses and how they met the criteria for capitalisation in accordance with IAS 16, ‘Property, plant and equipment’. The company satisfactorily explained that the costs involved were directly related to the supervision of its plantations and that the amount capitalised represented the proportion of those costs relating to its immature palm oil plantings. |
| Entity | 4imprint Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 2 January 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Parent company cash flow statement We asked the company to explain the extent of the cash and non-cash movements in the amounts due to and from subsidiaries in the parent company’s balance sheet. The company provided a satisfactory explanation of these movements in the year. We also questioned the classification of dividends received as financing cash inflows in the parent company cash flow statement. The company agreed to classify these amounts as investing cash inflows in accordance with paragraph 33 of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, in its 2021 financial statements and to restate the comparative amounts 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. Tax on defined benefit pension contributions We asked the company to clarify the basis of its allocation of tax on defined benefit pension contributions between the income statement and other comprehensive income. While we were not persuaded that the basis of allocation used best reflects the requirements of paragraph 63 of IAS 12, ‘Income Taxes’, the company clarified that the net effect on the income statement and other comprehensive income would not have been materially different had an alternative allocation policy been applied. The company undertook to reconsider certain aspects of the allocation and the related accounting policy note in future periods. We also asked the company for more information on the composition of deferred tax balances related to the pension scheme. The company satisfactorily responded to this enquiry. |
| Entity | 888 Holdings plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment of goodwill We requested information about the basis on which the company had allocated assets to the bingo cash generating units for the purpose of impairment testing. The company responded satisfactorily and explained the judgements it had made. Amounts due to and from subsidiaries We asked for clarification of the value of dividends received in cash during the year based on an inconsistency in the notes compared to the parent company cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that the parent company cash flow statement included an incorrect amount for the dividend cash inflow and 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. We asked the company to explain the rationale for classifying amounts due from subsidiaries as current assets and the loan payable to subsidiaries as a non-current liability. The company explained the judgements it had made and undertook to disclose details of the terms and conditions of the loan in future annual reports and accounts. The company classified cashflows with subsidiaries as operating activities and provided a net figure for the movement on amounts due to and from subsidiaries. We enquired about the nature of the underlying transactions and asked the company to explain the basis for showing a net movement on the balances with subsidiaries. The company provided a satisfactory explanation of the nature of the transactions to support the inclusion of the cashflows within operating activities. The company undertook to present separate line items for the movements in amounts due to and from subsidiaries in future annual reports and accounts. |
| Entity | Derwent London plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash flow statement We asked the company to explain its rationale for classifying the cash flows arising from the disposal of trading properties in investing activities in the cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that the cash flows did not arise from investing activities as defined in paragraph 6 of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, and that they should be classified as operating cash flows. The company agreed to re-present the comparative amounts in its 2021 annual report and accounts. As the re-presentation 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. |
| Entity | Hyve Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Assets and liabilities recognised in respect of acquisitions – leases We asked the company to explain why a right-of-use (‘ROU’) asset arising from a business combination in the period was significantly less than the related lease liability recognised. The company explained that the ROU asset had been reduced to reflect the fact that the company did not intend to use all the office space leased. The company acknowledged that the ROU asset had been adjusted to reflect company-specific circumstances rather than any differences between the lease terms and market terms, as required by paragraph 28B of IFRS 3 ‘Business Combinations’. It agreed that the ROU asset should instead have been measured at the same amount as the lease liability. The company agreed to restate the comparative amounts in the following year’s annual report and accounts, with consequential amendments to goodwill, deferred tax, impairment and depreciation. As the restatement affects the primary statements, the company agreed to disclose in its next report and accounts that the matter came to its attention as a result of the Financial Reporting Council’s enquiry. Assets and liabilities recognised in respect of acquisitions – deferred tax assets We sought clarification of how the deferred tax relating to the acquisitions was calculated. The company provided this information, noting that a deferred tax asset relating to deferred income and lease balances had been incorrectly described as relating to provisions and accruals. The company undertook to ensure that movements in deferred tax are more appropriately described in future annual reports and accounts. The company agreed to disclose the tax effects of future acquisitions, should this be relevant and material. We suggested considering whether the tax effect of acquisitions also needs to be discussed in future strategic reports in order to satisfy the requirement of section 414C of the Companies Act 2006, to provide a balanced and comprehensive analysis of its position at the year end. Assets and liabilities recognised in respect of acquisitions – deferred income We asked the company for details of the nature of the obligation relating to the acquired deferred income and the basis for which the fair value was determined. We were satisfied with the explanation provided and encouraged the company to disclose details of how the fair value of acquired deferred income is determined, should this be material, in future annual reports and accounts. Recoverability of intercompany receivables and investment in subsidiaries We requested information about the basis on which the company had determined that the intercompany receivables and investment in subsidiaries included in the company statement of financial position were recoverable. The company provided a satisfactory response. We explained that more granular disclosure about the impairment methodology applied would have helped users to understand the basis for the impairment charge recognised. We also noted that we would generally expect ‘investment in subsidiary’ balances to be impaired before intercompany debtors, given that equity holders typically bear losses before creditors. |
| Entity | Intermediate Capital Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Non-consolidation of carried interest partnerships Parent company accounts We asked for details about the line ‘Cash flow on behalf of subsidiary undertakings’ and the reasons for classifying these cash flows within investing activities in the parent company’s cash flow statement. We also asked for an explanation about the increase in investments in subsidiaries and how these were reported in the cash flow statement. The company explained that the line in question included cash outflows in respect of investment in subsidiaries. The line reported netted off aggregated cash flows of dissimilar nature and included some financing cash flows. The company agreed to disaggregate cash flows of a dissimilar nature, to ensure gross presentation, to reclassify items of a financing nature and to restate comparative period information as appropriate. In responding to our queries, the company also performed a review of intercompany receivables and identified that some amounts related to long-term investments. The company undertook to reclassify these balances from current to non-current assets and to restate comparative period information accordingly. Consolidated accounts We requested an explanation of the difference between the amounts in respect of the purchase of own shares reported in the statement of changes in equity (SOCE) and the consolidated cash flow statement. The company explained that the SOCE included an incorrect amount in respect of the shares retained by the employee benefit trust. The company agreed to restate the SOCE accordingly. As these restatements affected the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matters had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Intermediate Capital Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2021 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
The following matters arose as a result our limited scope review of how the undertakings the company gave during our review of its 2020 annual report and accounts were addressed in its 2021 report and accounts. Prior year restatements We queried a number of significant prior-year restatements of the group and parent company cash flow statements, which were not explained in the notes to the financial statements. The company provided us with adequate explanations for the restatements and agreed to include the missing disclosures in the forthcoming interim financial statements. As the disclosures related to prior-year restatements of the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matters had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Other matters in relation to the cash flow statements We asked for reconciliations of a number of items in the parent company and group cash flow statements to the corresponding movements in the statements of financial position. This highlighted that the dividends declared by subsidiary undertakings were aggregated within ‘Net investment returns’ line, rather than reported in the ‘Interest and dividend income’ line. The company agreed to report such amounts separately in the future and to restate the comparative amounts accordingly. In closing the case we noted that we expect material non-cash movements in the parent company investments in subsidiaries to be disclosed in the future. We also explained that we expect the captions used for financial line items to reflect their contents and items of dissimilar nature to be disaggregated. |
| Entity | Keller Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Limited |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
This company was selected as part of our thematic review related to the application of IAS 37, ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’; only the disclosures relating to those matters were reviewed. We sought further explanation of the company’s arrangements for insurance and self-insurance, in connection with its disclosure of ‘insurance and legal provisions’. The company provided a detailed response and acknowledged that it had presented these provisions net of insurance reimbursements which were virtually certain to be received. It also acknowledged that the reimbursement assets should have been presented separately, and agreed to restate the relevant balance sheet lines. As the change 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. The company also agreed to ensure that the recognition criteria for these provisions are more clearly described in its future disclosures. |
| Entity | National Express Group PLC (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Presentation of cash flows and payables balances in relation to factoring We asked the company for further information about its arrangements for the advance factoring of revenues and, in particular, for an explanation of why cash inflows had been presented within ‘operating activities’ in the Statement of Cash Flows. The arrangements did not result in the derecognition of a trade receivable and appeared to represent short-term borrowings which are required to be classified as ‘financing activities’ under paragraph 17(c) of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’. We also asked the company whether the advance factoring liability was included within the ‘net debt’ alternative performance measure (APM). The company agreed to classify the payables balance within borrowings in its 2021 accounts, with corresponding adjustments to the presentation of the associated cash flows and the net debt APM, and to restate these amounts in the comparative period. Under the revised policy, cash inflows from the bank and the subsequent outflows on repayment will be treated as financing activities, with receipts of cash from customers presented within operating activities. The company agreed to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as result of our enquiry. Presentation of Covid support grants We asked for clarification of whether Covid support grant or subsidy arrangements provided compensation for any of the Covid-related costs presented within separately disclosed items. The company satisfactorily explained that they did not. Revenue recognition policy – booking fees We asked the company to explain why booking fees were recognised at the point of sale and treated as a separate performance obligation to the corresponding ticket revenue. It was unclear what service was provided to the customer at the point of booking, and how this may be considered distinct from other promises in the contract in line with the criteria set out in IFRS 15, ‘Revenue from Contracts with Customers’, paragraphs 22(a) and 27. The company re-examined their view on this matter and concluded that the booking fee did not represent a distinct service and consequently would be recognised in the period in which the related travel occurred. The company confirmed that the amounts concerned were not material in the current reporting period and that the adjustment would be recognised prospectively. |
| Entity | Savills plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2022 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Payments on business acquisitions contingent upon continuing employment We asked the company for more information on its accounting policies for, and disclosure of, contingent payments that are linked to continuing employment, which under paragraph 52(b) of IFRS 3, ‘Business Combinations’, are required to be accounted for separately from the acquisition accounting. The company satisfactorily explained its accounting policies and undertook to enhance its future disclosures in respect of payments linked to continuing employment. The company also identified that certain payments linked to continuing employment had been incorrectly classified as investing cash flows in the consolidated statement of cash flows for the year ended 31 December 2020. The company undertook to restate the comparative amounts in the 2021 accounts accordingly. 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. Provisions for professional indemnity claims We asked the company to clarify its accounting treatment for provisions for professional indemnity claims in excess of the self-insured element. The company undertook to present reimbursement assets separately in the balance sheet from the related liability in future accounts, as required under paragraph 53 of IAS 37, ‘Provisions, Contingent Liabilities and Contingent Assets’. The company noted that the effect on the amounts reported at 31 December 2020 is not quantitatively material and that consequently these amounts will not be restated in the 2021 accounts. The company also clarified that the provision was not considered to be an estimate that has a significant risk of resulting in a material adjustment to the carrying amount within the next financial year under paragraph 125 of IAS 1, ‘Presentation of Financial Statements’, and that it will reconsider its future disclosures accordingly. |
| Entity | AB Dynamics plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 August 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2021 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Inventory write-down We requested further information about the write-down of inventories in the year including the specific circumstances giving rise to this adjustment. To the extent the write-down related to inventory brought forward from the prior year, we asked for the rationale for treating the adjustment as a change in accounting estimate rather than a prior period error in accordance with IAS 8 ‘Accounting Policies, Changes in Accounting Estimates and Errors’. We were satisfied by the company’s response. Acquisition of DRI In relation to the acquisition of Dynamic Research Incorporated (“DRI”) in 2019, we sought an explanation for the adjustment to the provisional fair value of goodwill following finalisation of the deferred tax position. We were satisfied with the company’s explanation and its undertaking to disclose, in the 2021 accounts, why no deferred tax liability arose on the assets acquired. Impairment testing of goodwill We asked the company to explain how the pre-tax discount of 6%, used to determine the value in use of the principal cash generating units, was calculated, including how it was derived from the company’s post-tax weighted average cost of capital, which was also 6%. The company provided the information requested, indicating in its response that there had been no adjustment to the post-tax weighted average cost of capital to reflect a pre-tax rate. In this instance, we considered that this issue was unlikely to have a significant impact on the company’s accounts. In closing the matter, we requested that the company apply paragraph A20 of IAS 36 ‘Impairment of Assets’ in the future, which states that when the basis used to estimate the discount rate is post-tax, that basis is adjusted to reflect a pre-tax rate. Policy for leases We asked the company to describe its accounting policy for leases which it provided together with an undertaking to disclose the policy in its next accounts. Short term deposits We queried whether the maturity threshold of short-term deposits included in cash and cash equivalents related to three months or less remaining from the date of acquisition or the reporting date and, where relevant, requested details of those deposits with a maturity greater than three months from the date of acquisition. The company clarified that short term deposits included an amount of £5m with a maturity date of more than three months from the date of acquisition. As, on reflection, the company did not consider the £5m deposit to meet the definition of cash equivalents in paragraph 7 of IAS 7 ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, it undertook to reclassify retrospectively those deposits from cash and cash equivalents to short term investments in its 2021 accounts. Other finance expense We asked for an explanation of other finance expense of £0.6m included in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income. The company provided the information requested and undertook to make clear the nature of this expense in the comparative information to the 2021 accounts. |
| Entity | Domino’s Pizza Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 27 December 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2021 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Classification of cash flows in relation to sub-lease receipts We asked the company to reconsider the classification of cash receipts in relation to sub-leases, which had been classified as inflows from financing activities in the group cash flow statement. They did not appear to meet the definition of financing activities in paragraph 6 of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, which are those that ‘result in changes in the size and composition of the contributed equity and borrowings of the entity’. The company agreed to classify sub-lease receipts as investing activities in the group cash flow statement in its accounts for the period ended 26 December 2021, and to restate comparative period information as appropriate. The company agreed to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |
| Entity | Kier Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2020 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2021 |
| Auditor (5) | N/A |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Cash flow statement We questioned why loan repayments from joint ventures were classified as financing, rather than investing, activities in the consolidated cash flow statement. The company acknowledged that this was incorrect and agreed to correct this in its next report and accounts and to restate the comparatives. As the change 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. Deferred taxation We asked for more information on the nature of the evidence supporting the recognition of the deferred tax asset included in the accounts and the basis on which the company determined that the disclosures complied with the requirements of IAS 12 ‘Income Taxes’. The company provided the information requested. It agreed to enhance the disclosures in its future reporting,including disclosure of the period over which the deferred tax asset is expected to be utilised, the forecasts used, and the methodology applied. We suggested that it would be helpful to disclose details of the sensitivity analysis performed. We also enquired about the company’s disclosures of estimation uncertainty relating to deferred taxation under IAS 1 'Presentation of Financial Statements'. The company explained that its disclosures of estimation uncertainty in relation to deferred taxation were not required by IAS 1. It agreed to clearly distinguish additional voluntary disclosures from those made to satisfy the requirements of IAS 1, paragraph 125 in its future reporting. Free cash flow and movements in net debt We asked for more information about the measures of free cash flow and movements in net debt included as alternative performance measures (APMs). We asked the company to explain how it concluded that the reconciliations, labelling and commentary on these measures were in line with the requirements of the ESMA Guidelines on APMs. We also asked whether the strategic report should have included more details about the Group’s cash flow performance. The company provided the information requested and agreed to provide clearer, more granular, reconciliations and labelling, and enhanced commentary on these APMs in its future reporting. The company also acknowledged that the commentary provided on cash flow performance in the strategic report could have been clearer. It agreed to provide a more comprehensive commentary in future reports. |