Legal Proceedings	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2014
Legal Proceedings	NOTE 13 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS: *Kayne Litigation —* As previously reported, since July 2011, Emerson Radio Corp. (the “Company”) has been a defendant in a lawsuit known as Fred Kayne, et al., vs. Christopher Ho, et al. (the “Kayne Litigation”) which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that the Company, certain of its present and former directors and other entities or individuals now or previously associated with The Grande Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) (“Grande”), intentionally interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs to collect on a judgment they had against Grande. As of November 2013, such judgment, with interest, totaled approximately $60 million. Grande is the ultimate corporate parent of the Company’s majority shareholder, S&T International Distribution Limited. The plaintiffs in the Kayne Litigation (the “Plaintiffs”) pursued their claims against the Company largely on the basis of their allegation that the Company was an “alter ego” of Grande because it was part of a “single enterprise” purportedly controlled by the Chairman of the Board of Grande, Christopher Ho. After the commencement of the Kayne Litigation trial, which began on December 3, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Plaintiffs, effective as of December 19, 2013, for reasons of economy and finality, the terms and facts of which may not be construed as an admission by any party as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses resolved therein, which fully resolves and settles all outstanding and potential claims against the Company in the Kayne Litigation without acknowledging or attributing fault or liability on the part of the Company. In deciding that it was in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to enter into the Settlement Agreement, the Company’s Board considered the contingent risk that in the event that an adverse judgment of as much as $60 million was issued against the defendants by the Court in the Kayne Litigation: (i) that judgment would be enforceable on a “joint and several” basis, such that the entire judgment against all defendants could be enforced, in its entirety, against a single defendant; (ii) that as the only U.S. based defendant in the Kayne Litigation, the Company faced a considerable risk that any such judgment would be enforced against it alone; (iii) that in that event, the Company would face significant legal and practical obstacles in seeking to pursue claims for contribution against the other defendants; and (iv) that the Company would also face significant obstacles in pursuing the appeal of such a judgment because an appeal would require the Company to post collateral sufficient to secure an appeal bond with a face amount in excess of $60 million. The Settlement Agreement provided for a cash payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”) to be paid by the Company to the Plaintiffs, which represents less than 7% of the potential liability the Company faced from an adverse judgment. The Board believed it was prudent to settle for this relatively small amount due to the factors discussed above as well as the uncertainty of the trial outcome in view of the judge’s previous denial of several motions by the Company to dismiss the “alter ego” claims and denial of the Company’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, payment of the Settlement Amount was made by the Company via wire transfer to the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s trust account on December 23, 2013, which payment shall remain in trust, and will not be released from trust to the Plaintiffs until such time as the Company makes an application to the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement as a “good faith” settlement under California law and such application is granted by the Court. On January 13, 2014, the Company filed such application seeking the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement as a “good faith” settlement and the Court issued its Order of “Good Faith” finding such on February 24, 2014. The Plaintiff’s attorney has informed the Company that he consequently released the Settlement Amount to the Plaintiffs on May 6, 2014 and May 7, 2014. The Company has retained special counsel to investigate the ability of the Company to pursue claims against the co-defendants or others with respect to the Settlement Amount paid by the Company to the Plaintiffs. The payment of the Settlement Amount by the Company resulted in the recognition of a $4.0 million non-operating expense in the quarter ended December 31, 2013. During the twelve months ending March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013, the Company incurred legal fees associated with the Kayne Litigation of approximately $1.8 million and $1.2 million, respectively. *Other —* Except for the litigation matter described above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than litigation matters, in most cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. Management cannot estimate with certainty the Company’s ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to such pending litigation matters. However, management believes, based on our examination of such matters, that the Company’s ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 13 — LEGAL PROCEEDINGS:

Kayne Litigation — As previously reported, since July 2011, Emerson Radio Corp. (the “Company”) has been a defendant in a lawsuit known as Fred Kayne, et al., vs. Christopher Ho, et al. (the “Kayne Litigation”) which was filed in the United States District Court for the Central District of California alleging, among other things, that the Company, certain of its present and former directors and other entities or individuals now or previously associated with The Grande Holdings Limited (In Liquidation) (“Grande”), intentionally interfered with the ability of the plaintiffs to collect on a judgment they had against Grande. As of November 2013, such judgment, with interest, totaled approximately $60 million. Grande is the ultimate corporate parent of the Company’s majority shareholder, S&T International Distribution Limited. The plaintiffs in the Kayne Litigation (the “Plaintiffs”) pursued their claims against the Company largely on the basis of their allegation that the Company was an “alter ego” of Grande because it was part of a “single enterprise” purportedly controlled by the Chairman of the Board of Grande, Christopher Ho.

After the commencement of the Kayne Litigation trial, which began on December 3, 2013, the Company entered into a settlement agreement (the “Settlement Agreement”) with the Plaintiffs, effective as of December 19, 2013, for reasons of economy and finality, the terms and facts of which may not be construed as an admission by any party as to the merits of any of the claims or defenses resolved therein, which fully resolves and settles all outstanding and potential claims against the Company in the Kayne Litigation without acknowledging or attributing fault or liability on the part of the Company.

In deciding that it was in the best interest of the Company and its stockholders to enter into the Settlement Agreement, the Company’s Board considered the contingent risk that in the event that an adverse judgment of as much as $60 million was issued against the defendants by the Court in the Kayne Litigation: (i) that judgment would be enforceable on a “joint and several” basis, such that the entire judgment against all defendants could be enforced, in its entirety, against a single defendant; (ii) that as the only U.S. based defendant in the Kayne Litigation, the Company faced a considerable risk that any such judgment would be enforced against it alone; (iii) that in that event, the Company would face significant legal and practical obstacles in seeking to pursue claims for contribution against the other defendants; and (iv) that the Company would also face significant obstacles in pursuing the appeal of such a judgment because an appeal would require the Company to post collateral sufficient to secure an appeal bond with a face amount in excess of $60 million.

The Settlement Agreement provided for a cash payment of $4.0 million (the “Settlement Amount”) to be paid by the Company to the Plaintiffs, which represents less than 7% of the potential liability the Company faced from an adverse judgment. The Board believed it was prudent to settle for this relatively small amount due to the factors discussed above as well as the uncertainty of the trial outcome in view of the judge’s previous denial of several motions by the Company to dismiss the “alter ego” claims and denial of the Company’s motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, payment of the Settlement Amount was made by the Company via wire transfer to the Plaintiffs’ attorney’s trust account on December 23, 2013, which payment shall remain in trust, and will not be released from trust to the Plaintiffs until such time as the Company makes an application to the Court to approve the Settlement Agreement as a “good faith” settlement under California law and such application is granted by the Court. On January 13, 2014, the Company filed such application seeking the Court’s approval of the Settlement Agreement as a “good faith” settlement and the Court issued its Order of “Good Faith” finding such on February 24, 2014. The Plaintiff’s attorney has informed the Company that he consequently released the Settlement Amount to the Plaintiffs on May 6, 2014 and May 7, 2014.

The Company has retained special counsel to investigate the ability of the Company to pursue claims against the co-defendants or others with respect to the Settlement Amount paid by the Company to the Plaintiffs.

The payment of the Settlement Amount by the Company resulted in the recognition of a $4.0 million non-operating expense in the quarter ended December 31, 2013. During the twelve months ending March 31, 2014 and March 31, 2013, the Company incurred legal fees associated with the Kayne Litigation of approximately $1.8 million and $1.2 million, respectively.

Other — Except for the litigation matter described above, the Company is not currently a party to any legal proceedings other than litigation matters, in most cases involving ordinary and routine claims incidental to our business. Management cannot estimate with certainty the Company’s ultimate legal and financial liability with respect to such pending litigation matters. However, management believes, based on our examination of such matters, that the Company’s ultimate liability will not have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.