10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	6 Months Ended
Oct. 31, 2016
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	In the ordinary course of business, we are at times subject to various legal proceedings and disputes. We make provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of any settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case. On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors (collectively, the “Defendants”). On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the Defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit. The Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on February 19, 2016. We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.

10. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

6 Months Ended

Oct. 31, 2016

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

In the ordinary course of business, we are at times subject to various legal proceedings and disputes. We make provisions for liabilities when it is both probable that a liability has been incurred and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Such provisions are reviewed at least quarterly and adjusted to reflect the impact of any settlement negotiations, judicial and administrative rulings, advice of legal counsel, and other information and events pertaining to a particular case.

On October 10, 2013, a derivative and class action complaint, captioned Michaeli v. Steven W. King, et al., C.A. No. 8994-VCL, was filed in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against certain of our executive officers and directors (collectively, the “Defendants”). On December 1, 2015, the plaintiffs filed an amended and supplemental derivative and class action complaint (the “Amended Complaint”). The Amended Complaint alleges that the Defendants breached their respective fiduciary duties in connection with certain purportedly improper compensation decisions made by our Board of Directors during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, including: (i) the grant of a stock option to Mr. King on May 4, 2012; (ii) the non-routine broad-based stock option grant to our directors, executives, all other employees and certain consultants on December 27, 2012; and (iii) the payment, during the past four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015, of compensation to our non-employee directors. In addition, the complaint alleges that our directors breached their fiduciary duty of candor by filing and seeking stockholder action on the basis of an allegedly materially false and misleading proxy statement for our 2013 annual meeting of stockholders. The plaintiffs are seeking, among other things, rescission of a portion of the stock option grant to Mr. King on May 4, 2012 and the stock options granted to the Defendants on December 27, 2012, as well as disgorgement of any excessive compensation paid to our non-employee directors during the four fiscal years ended April 30, 2015 and other monetary relief for our benefit. The Defendants filed their answer to the Amended Complaint on February 19, 2016. We believe that the Amended Complaint is without merit and intend to vigorously defend the action. In addition, due to the early stage of this matter, we cannot reasonably estimate the possible loss or range of loss, if any, that may result from this matter.