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 | 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. |
| Entity | Chapel Down Group 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) | Crowe U.K. LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Deferred tax in respect of share-based payments We asked the company to explain the basis on which the deferred tax on share-based payments had been calculated and presented. The company confirmed that the deferred tax credit in respect of share-based payments should have been directly recognised in equity rather than as a component of other comprehensive income. The company agreed to restate the 2023 comparative amounts in its 2024 report and accounts to reflect this, and to disclose the fact that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Alternative performance measures We asked the company to explain how adjusted EBITDA reconciled to the equivalent IFRS measure in the accounts, and to explain the rationale for the treatment of depreciation in determining adjusted EBITDA. The company responded satisfactorily and agreed to expand its future disclosures in this area. |
| Entity | Drilton 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) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Consolidated statement of cash flows We questioned the treatment of term deposits, loans granted to joint ventures and purchases of tangible assets in the company’s cash flow statement. As a result, the company agreed to make the following changes in its next annual report and accounts: To restate term deposits as cash equivalents; to restate the cash flows to the joint venture from operating to investing activities; and to include additional disclosure in its future annual report and accounts should the difference between fixed asset additions and the associated investing cash flows be considered material. Future contract losses We challenged the company’s recognition of future contract losses within both accruals and deferred income, and as a deduction to amounts recoverable on contracts. The company acknowledged that this treatment was inconsistent but explained that the contract losses deducted from amounts recoverable on contracts was immaterial. The company agreed to amend its accounting policy and to consistently disclose contract losses as provisions in its future annual report and accounts. The company also identified a number of other balances that had been misclassified as accruals and agreed to restate these, and the future contract losses, as provisions in its 2024 accounts. As the above restatements affected the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matters had come to its attention as result of our enquiries |
| Entity | Games Workshop Group PLC (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 2 June 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Parent company cash flow statement We asked the company for further information about the classification of cash flows relating to loans to group companies in the parent company’s statement of cash flows. The company confirmed that the loan payment should have been classified within cash flows arising from investing activities as opposed to operating activities. The company agreed to restate the comparative figures presented in the parent company cash flow statement in its next report and accounts. As the changes affected primary statements, we asked the company to disclose the fact that the matters had come to its attention as result of our enquiry. |
| 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 | Springfield Properties PLC (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 May 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Statement of cash flows We asked the company why the payment of deferred consideration relating to a business acquisition was classified as a financing activity in the consolidated statement of cash flows but as an investing activity in the parent company statement of cash flows. The company explained that this payment should have been classified as a financing activity in the parent company statement of cash flows as it relates to the settlement of a loan and agreed to restate the comparatives in its next report and accounts. 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 | TalkTalk Holdings Limited (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 29 February 2024 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | June 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | Deloitte LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Deferred consideration for prior year acquisitions We asked the company about the classification of cash outflows in relation to the deferred consideration for prior year acquisitions. The company explained that it erroneously classified the payment within operating activities, rather than investing activities, and agreed to restate the comparative amounts reported in the consolidated cash flow statement in its next annual report and accounts. As this matter resulted in a change to a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that it had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Investment in intangible assets and property, plant and equipment We queried the significant differences between the cash outflows in relation to investment in intangible assets and property, plant and equipment in the cash flow statement and the additions presented in the related notes. We closed the matter based on the company’s response and encouraged it to disclose an explanation should similar differences arise in future reports and accounts. |
| Entity | musicMagpie Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 November 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | March 2025 |
| Auditor (5) | RSM UK Audit LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Property, plant and equipment (PPE) and related cash flows We queried why cashflows arising from the acquisition of rental assets were classified as investing activities, rather than within operating activities as required by IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’. The company acknowledged that the amounts should be included within operating activities and agreed to revise the presentation and restate comparative figures in its 2024 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 balances included in the PPE note reconciled to amounts in the cash flow statement and in the calculation of an adjusted performance measure. The company provided us with reconciliations of the relevant amounts and agreed to amend its disclosure in future accounts to provide greater clarity on the presentation adopted. Impairment testing We asked the company to clarify which cash generating units (CGUs) goodwill had been allocated to for the purposes of impairment testing, and how these CGUs related to its operating segments. The company provided the requested information and agreed to update future disclosures to provide additional clarity. We asked the company for further details of the assumptions used in its calculations of value in use and the basis on which management had determined these assumptions. The company provided this information and agreed to expand the disclosures to quantify the values assigned to all key assumptions and to provide additional sensitivity disclosures in its next annual report. We requested further details of the company’s approach to valuing its investments in subsidiaries and amounts due from group companies in the parent company financial statements. The company provided a satisfactory response in respect of these matters. |
| Entity | Alpha Growth Plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2022 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | PKF Littlejohn LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Consolidation of insurance subsidiaries We asked the company for further information about how the assets and liabilities of insurance subsidiaries had been presented in the consolidated financial statements, and the basis for presenting all assets and liabilities of insurance subsidiaries within a single asset and single liability line item in the consolidated statement of financial position, as this appeared to aggregate items which were not similar in nature. We also questioned why the cash and cash equivalents balances held by insurance subsidiaries were not reflected in the consolidated statement of cash flows. The company explained that the financial assets held by the insurance subsidiaries are held solely to back the associated liabilities and that the presentation was adopted to clearly identify this. However, after further consideration the company agreed to restate the consolidated statement of financial position by providing appropriate disaggregation of the assets and liabilities of the insurance subsidiaries. The company also agreed to restate the consolidated statement of cash flows to include cash and cash equivalents held by insurance subsidiaries. Revenue of Alpha International Life Assurance Company (AILAC) We asked the company for further information about the terms of the acquisition of Alpha International Life Assurance Company (AILAC), and in particular the point at which income in relation to AILAC was recognised. The company explained that control of AILAC was achieved upon receiving regulatory approval in November 2022, but also noted that a fee was charged for management and advisory services performed from August 2022. Segmental reporting We asked the company for an explanation of the basis on which they concluded that the company has a single operating segment. The company provided a satisfactory explanation; however, we noted that this matter should be kept under review as the company grows. Future impact of IFRS 17, ‘Insurance Contracts’ We questioned the company’s assertion that IFRS 17 would not have a material impact on the group, given the nature of the company’s business, and asked for further information about the nature of the contracts issued by the insurance subsidiaries. The company explained that the majority of the contracts issued by the insurance subsidiaries do not contain significant insurance risk but that it was assessing the impact of IFRS 17 on those contracts that do contain significant insurance risk. Recoverability of Interval Fund Expenses We asked the company for further information about the recoverability of the interval fund expenses recognised as a receivable by the company. The company provided a satisfactory explanation. TCFD disclosures We noted the limited TCFD reporting and asked the company to explain what additional or improved disclosures it expected to make in its next annual report and accounts. The company agreed to consider our thematic reviews and expand the TCFD disclosures in the next annual report and accounts. Earnings per share We questioned the calculation of diluted earnings per share, as options and warrants were shown to be dilutive, despite having a weighted average exercise price which appeared to be above the average market price of ordinary shares in the period. The company agreed to restate the calculation of diluted earnings per share in the next annual report and accounts. Other disclosures We asked the company to enhance its disclosures in relation to (i) key performance indicators (KPIs) in the strategic report, (ii) the management of capital, (iii) fair value of financial instruments, and (iv) liquidity risk. The company agreed to make a number of disclosure enhancements in its next annual report and accounts in these areas. |
| Entity | Kier Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Impairment testing of intangible assets Offsetting of bank overdraft The company clarified that it considered all bank accounts within its cash pooling arrangement, where the legal right of set-off existed, to be a single unit of account. Therefore, although it could not demonstrate an intention to settle period end amounts on a net basis, it did not consider this requirement to be relevant. We were not persuaded, on the basis of the information and explanations provided, that it was appropriate in the company’s circumstances to treat these balances as a single unit of account. The company accepted that separate presentation of subsidiary company overdrafts and cash balances within the consolidated balance sheet would be more appropriate and agreed to change its accounting policy with the prior year comparative balances re-presented accordingly. 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 | Mattioli Woods plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 May 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Moore Kingston Smith LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Acquisition-related cash flows We asked the company to explain the basis on which contingent remuneration paid on acquisition of subsidiaries had been presented within investing activities rather than operating activities in the cash flow statement. The company recognised that the presentation of contingent remuneration in the cashflow statement was not in accordance with the requirements of IAS 7, ‘Statement of Cash Flows’, and agreed to restate the prior year cashflow statement to reflect this presentational change in its next annual report and accounts. As this affected a primary statement, the company also agreed to disclose that this matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. We also requested a reconciliation of the outflow from acquisition of subsidiaries, shown in the cash flow statement, to the amounts disclosed in the notes regarding individual acquisitions during the year. The company explained that the difference related to an amount relating to working capital adjustments that was included within accruals at the year end. Adjusted cash generated from operations In response to our questioning, the company agreed to amend some inconsistencies in the reconciliation of adjusted cash generated from operations to statutory cash generated from operations in its future reporting. Goodwill impairment review We asked the company to explain the change in approach to goodwill impairment reviews to include software and right-of-use assets in, and deduct deferred tax liabilities and lease liabilities from, cash generating units (CGUs). The company agreed to explain these matters more clearly in the 2024 financial statements, as well as clarifying that, where the lease liabilities have been incorporated in the carrying amounts of CGUs, the carrying amounts of the liabilities have also been deducted from the calculated value in use as required by IAS 36, ‘Impairment of Assets’. Revenue recognition We requested further details of the process used to allocate revenue between performance obligations both for investment and asset management and for pension consultancy and administration. Satisfactory explanations were provided. Provisions for client claims We asked the company to explain the reason for taking expected insurance recoveries into account in determining the value of provisions for client claims. The company explained that insurance recoveries were not material. |
| Entity | Ricardo plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 30 June 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | KPMG LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Derivatives We asked the company to clarify whether hedging accounting was applied. The company explained that hedge accounting was not applied in the current period and agreed to review the accounting policies to make this clear. We also asked for further information about a cash outflow of £4.2m in respect of settlement of derivatives shown as financing in the cash flow statement, as we were unable to reconcile the movement in derivatives in the year, and the basis for presenting this amount within financing activities was not clear. The company provided a reconciliation of the carrying value of derivatives and explained that the amount presented in the cash flow statement was actually a non-cash movement which had been incorrectly included as a financing cash outflow. The company agreed to restate the comparative figures included in its next annual report and accounts by removing the item from financing cash flows, with an offsetting adjustment to operating cash flows. As the restatements affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiries. Impairment of non-financial assets We asked the company for further information about an impairment of non-financial assets recognised in respect of buildings. The company provided a satisfactory answer to our question. |
| Entity | Smart Metering Systems plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2022 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | December 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Uninstalled meter assets We asked the company for further information in relation to the balance sheet classification of uninstalled meter assets and the presentation of related cash flows. After further enquiries, the company agreed to account for these assets and other significant meter components as property, plant and equipment rather than as inventories, and to classify the related cash flows as investing activities. The company agreed to restate the comparative amounts in its 2023 annual report and accounts, including consequential changes to the consolidated income statement. As the change affected the primary statements, we asked the company to disclose that the matter had come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. Other cash flow presentation matters We asked the company to explain certain differences between amounts shown in the consolidated statement of cash flows and amounts reported elsewhere in the accounts. The company provided satisfactory explanations. |
| Entity | Burford Capital PLC (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 December 2022 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | Ernst & Young LLP, Guernsey |
| Case Summary / Press Notice | Consent withheld |
| Entity | Marks Electrical Group plc (3) |
| Balance Sheet Date | 31 March 2023 |
| Exchange of Substantive Letters (1) | Yes |
| Scope of Review (2) | Full |
| Quarter Published | September 2024 |
| Auditor (5) | BDO LLP |
| Case Summary / Press Notice |
Revenue recognition We sought clarification of the accounting policies applied to revenue arising from installation services, credit arrangements, and extended warranties. The company satisfactorily responded to our enquiries and agreed to expand the policy disclosures in its next annual report to provide further detail on these transactions. Equity investment We requested details of the basis of the fair value measurement of an equity investment. The company explained that this represented an investment in a buying group and, having reconsidered the most appropriate accounting treatment, concluded that the amount due under the arrangement should be accounted for as a rebate receivable, with a corresponding reclassification from fair value gains to cost of sales in the consolidated statement of comprehensive income for the year ended 31 March 2023. 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. Impairment of parent company investment in subsidiary We asked for more information about the estimated recoverable amount of the parent company’s investment in its subsidiary. As a result of our enquiry, the company identified that a post-tax discount rate had been applied to pre-tax cash flows, resulting in an overstatement of the value in use. The company agreed to restate the carrying amount of its investment in its subsidiary as at 31 March 2022 to recognise a consequential impairment charge. As the restatement affected a primary statement, we asked the company to disclose the fact that this matter had also come to its attention as a result of our enquiry. |