COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch sought compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008, and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch had originally also sought a declaratory judgment and claims for damage to his reputation and a derivative claim on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch removed those claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020, which the Company and the Director Defendants opposed on July 10, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion sought an order that the Company was liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. On September 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Bloch’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted the Company and the Director Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, except for one claim for breach of contract against the Company. On October 23, 2020, the Company filed a brief with the Appellate Division, Second Department, seeking a reversal of the lower court’s order to the extent that it denied the Company’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. Mr. Bloch filed its responsive brief on November 20, 2020. In addition, Mr. Bloch sought to initiate two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration was brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statements of Claim in both arbitrations on May 4, 2020. In both proceedings, Mr. Bloch claimed that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He sought an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claimed that Mr. Bloch could not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The Court granted Mr. Bloch’s motion on September 8, 2020. The case was therefore transferred to the County of Nassau, and assigned to the same Judge hearing the other cases between the parties (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 611405/2020). In its order dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s petition for a stay of arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. On February 16, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of that order. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended (“Respondents”), for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch sought to initiate. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the motion on July 2, 2020. In its orders dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court granted Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss that petition, and denied a motion previously filed by the Company for an interim stay of arbitration. On February 16, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of those orders. The arbitration panel in the arbitrations initiated by Mr. Bloch was constituted in March 2021. The same panel served in both arbitrations. On May 6, 2021, Respondents submitted a motion to dismiss the arbitrations on the grounds that Mr. Bloch’s claims are not arbitrable. On August 25, 2021, the Company settled the aforementioned disputes with Mr. Bloch. Under the Agreement on Material Terms of Settlement (the “Settlement Terms”), dated August 25, 2021, between and among the Company, the Director Defendants, and the Compensation Committee, in its capacity as administrator under the deferred compensation agreements, and Mr. Bloch and certain members of Mr. Bloch’s family, in full and complete settlement of all claims asserted and all sums sought by Mr. Bloch in the litigation and arbitration proceedings, the Company has agreed to pay Mr. Bloch $6 million on or before September 24, 2021. Prior to the termination of Mr. Bloch’s employment and commencement of the litigation and arbitration proceedings, the Company had been regularly accruing amounts pertaining to Mr. Bloch’s post-employment deferred compensation retirement benefits. As of July 31, 2021, the Company had accrued $6 million for deferred compensation and contingent liability in connection with the settlement with Mr. Bloch. The settlement resulted in a net expense of $650,000 to the Company and will eliminate further legal expenses with respect to the dispute between Mr. Bloch and the Company. This net expense for financial statement purposes has been recognized in selling and administrative expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended July 31, 2021.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]

NOTE M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board of Directors (the “Board”), filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch sought compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008, and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch had originally also sought a declaratory judgment and claims for damage to his reputation and a derivative claim on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch removed those claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020, which the Company and the Director Defendants opposed on July 10, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion sought an order that the Company was liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. On September 23, 2020, the Court denied Mr. Bloch’s motion for summary judgment. It also granted the Company and the Director Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to all claims, except for one claim for breach of contract against the Company. On October 23, 2020, the Company filed a brief with the Appellate Division, Second Department, seeking a reversal of the lower court’s order to the extent that it denied the Company’s summary judgment motion on the breach of contract claim. Mr. Bloch filed its responsive brief on November 20, 2020.

In addition, Mr. Bloch sought to initiate two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration was brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statements of Claim in both arbitrations on May 4, 2020. In both proceedings, Mr. Bloch claimed that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He sought an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claimed that Mr. Bloch could not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The Court granted Mr. Bloch’s motion on September 8, 2020. The case was therefore transferred to the County of Nassau, and assigned to the same Judge hearing the other cases between the parties (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 611405/2020). In its order dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court denied the Company’s petition for a stay of arbitration and ordered the parties to proceed to arbitration. On February 16, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of that order.

On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended (“Respondents”), for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch sought to initiate. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, Respondents moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the motion on July 2, 2020. In its orders dated February 10, 2021 and entered on February 16, 2021, the Court granted Mr. Bloch’s petition for the appointment of an arbitrator, denied the Company’s motion to dismiss that petition, and denied a motion previously filed by the Company for an interim stay of arbitration. On February 16, 2021, the Company filed a Notice of Appeal of those orders.

The arbitration panel in the arbitrations initiated by Mr. Bloch was constituted in March 2021. The same panel served in both arbitrations. On May 6, 2021, Respondents submitted a motion to dismiss the arbitrations on the grounds that Mr. Bloch’s claims are not arbitrable.

On August 25, 2021, the Company settled the aforementioned disputes with Mr. Bloch. Under the Agreement on Material Terms of Settlement (the “Settlement Terms”), dated August 25, 2021, between and among the Company, the Director Defendants, and the Compensation Committee, in its capacity as administrator under the deferred compensation agreements, and Mr. Bloch and certain members of Mr. Bloch’s family, in full and complete settlement of all claims asserted and all sums sought by Mr. Bloch in the litigation and arbitration proceedings, the Company has agreed to pay Mr. Bloch $6 million on or before September 24, 2021. Prior to the termination of Mr. Bloch’s employment and commencement of the litigation and arbitration proceedings, the Company had been regularly accruing amounts pertaining to Mr. Bloch’s post-employment deferred compensation retirement benefits. As of July 31, 2021, the Company had accrued $6 million for deferred compensation and contingent liability in connection with the settlement with Mr. Bloch. The settlement resulted in a net expense of $650,000 to the Company and will eliminate further legal expenses with respect to the dispute between Mr. Bloch and the Company. This net expense for financial statement purposes has been recognized in selling and administrative expenses on the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations for the three months ended July 31, 2021.