The first one is standard.
Second one is also a standard statement, but not standard to actually see. Honestly I don't know that I have ever seen that statement out in the wild. It's like something you study about in school - but rarely see.
It could mean anything, with regards to discrepancies found in the financials. The main thing is that, what was found is material - and when you are talking about numbers this big - the discrepancy must have been significant.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522we%2520have%2520id...
If so, that cuts the results down from 684 to 205, of which many are from the same company, just at different times.
https://www.sec.gov/edgar/search/#/q=%2522may%2520identify%2...
Going from $600M to $1.9B in revenue in a year will stress any system.
IE, can the entire finance department sign off on checks? Or something along those lines.
But with the above example, say anyone can process process orders without any oversight (ie no sign off by 2 VPs or something like that) What is potentially stopping some AP clerk from setting up a fake company, and then paying them for services every month?
These are also the types of things that controls over financial reporting could mean.
Is it possible to have one without the other?
Just because an AP clerk could embezzle money that way, doesn't mean that they've identified evidence of that happening. But now they've reported that lapse in financial controls (which may or may not have been addressed), and warned that there may be others.