Commitments & Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2017
Commitments & Contingencies [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES Leases In September, 2014, we entered into lease for a facility of approximately 69,000 square feet. The lease is for a term of seven years, has an option to extend for five years, and carries an initial base rent of $46,871.72. In accordance with the terms of the lease, the Company is responsible for common area charges. Rent expense charged to operations amounted to $674,876and $603,440 for the years ended February 29,2016 and February 28, 2015, respectively. The Company moved out of the facility in June 2015 to a much smaller facility in Stanton California. In the new Stanton California facility, the Company is on a month-to-month lease. During the next 12 months, the Company plans to move to a new, larger facility. Joint Venture On January 27, 2017, the Company entered into a joint venture (JV) agreement with a Chinese company to manufacture, market and distribute certain mobile power products based on Aura’s patented technology solely for the Peoples Republic of China territories. The JV is owned 49% by the Company and 51% by the Chinese company. The Company has contributed $250,000 and a license to specific technology and the Chinese company is required to contribute $9,750,000. In addition, the Chinese company will invest $2,000,000 in Aura at $0.20 per share for a total of 10,000,000 shares of common stock. Additionally, the Chinese company will purchase a minimum of $1,250,000 of product supported by letters of credit for distribution until the joint venture factory is built, equipped, and staffed. In order to assure proper training of joint venture personnel, Aura has also committed to supply instructional personnel for six months at no cost other than reimbursement for travel, room and board. The agreement was subject to the approval of the Chinese Government which was received in April, 2017. Contingencies We are subject to the legal proceedings and claims discussed below as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Our management evaluates our exposure to these claims and proceedings individually and in the aggregate and evaluates potential losses on such litigation if the amount of the loss is estimable and the loss is probable. However, the outcome of legal proceedings and claims brought against the Company is subject to significant uncertainty. Although management considers the likelihood of such an outcome to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. The Company settled certain matters subsequent to year end that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or operating results. Subsequent to year end, the Company was sued in 2016 by a former employee for a work-related injury. The plaintiff is seeking $45,000. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted. Subsequent to year end, the Company was sued by a customer for an alleged failure to partially deliver against an advanced payment of approximately $120,000. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted. Subsequent to year end, the Company’s former COO has been awarded approximately $238,000 in accrued salary and related charges by the California labor board. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted. Subsequent to year end, the Company and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Melvin Gagerman, are among several defendants named in a lawsuit filed by two secured creditors demanding repayment of loans totaling $125,000 plus accrued interest and exemplary damages. In January 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with all secured creditors other than the two plaintiffs which became binding on all of the secured creditors, including the two plaintiffs. That agreement, among other provisions, waives all past events of default. It is the Company’s position that the two plaintiffs are not entitled to any payment or other relief at this time and therefore that they have no valid claim against the Company or Mr. Gagerman. In March 2017, plaintiffs moved for partial summary adjudication against the Company and Mr. Gagerman which was denied by the Court. Thereafter, the Court sustained demurrers by Mr. Gagerman and the Company but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. In response to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, both the Company and Mr. Gagerman intend to further demurrer seeking dismissal of this action. In June 2015, the landlord of the Company’s primary facility in Redondo Beach, California initiated litigation against us seeking to terminate the Company’s lease and require the Company to vacate the premises prior to the scheduled lease end. As a result of that litigation, the Company was forced to vacate its primary facility and relocate to its present facility in Stanton, California. To date, no action seeking damages or any other amount has been filed against the Company by the landlord, nor does the Company believe it has any further liability to the landlord.

NOTE 9 - COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES

Leases

In September, 2014, we entered into lease for a facility of approximately 69,000 square feet. The lease is for a term of seven years, has an option to extend for five years, and carries an initial base rent of $46,871.72. In accordance with the terms of the lease, the Company is responsible for common area charges. Rent expense charged to operations amounted to $674,876and $603,440 for the years ended February 29,2016 and February 28, 2015, respectively. The Company moved out of the facility in June 2015 to a much smaller facility in Stanton California. In the new Stanton California facility, the Company is on a month-to-month lease. During the next 12 months, the Company plans to move to a new, larger facility.

Joint Venture

On January 27, 2017, the Company entered into a joint venture (JV) agreement with a Chinese company to manufacture, market and distribute certain mobile power products based on Aura’s patented technology solely for the Peoples Republic of China territories. The JV is owned 49% by the Company and 51% by the Chinese company. The Company has contributed $250,000 and a license to specific technology and the Chinese company is required to contribute $9,750,000. In addition, the Chinese company will invest $2,000,000 in Aura at $0.20 per share for a total of 10,000,000 shares of common stock. Additionally, the Chinese company will purchase a minimum of $1,250,000 of product supported by letters of credit for distribution until the joint venture factory is built, equipped, and staffed. In order to assure proper training of joint venture personnel, Aura has also committed to supply instructional personnel for six months at no cost other than reimbursement for travel, room and board. The agreement was subject to the approval of the Chinese Government which was received in April, 2017.

Contingencies

We are subject to the legal proceedings and claims discussed below as well as certain other legal proceedings and claims that have not been fully resolved and that have arisen in the ordinary course of business. Our management evaluates our exposure to these claims and proceedings individually and in the aggregate and evaluates potential losses on such litigation if the amount of the loss is estimable and the loss is probable. However, the outcome of legal proceedings and claims brought against the Company is subject to significant uncertainty. Although management considers the likelihood of such an outcome to be remote, if one or more of these legal matters were resolved against the Company for amounts in excess of management’s expectations, the Company’s consolidated financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. The Company settled certain matters subsequent to year end that did not individually or in the aggregate have a material impact on the Company’s financial condition or operating results.

Subsequent to year end, the Company was sued in 2016 by a former employee for a work-related injury. The plaintiff is seeking $45,000. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted.

Subsequent to year end, the Company was sued by a customer for an alleged failure to partially deliver against an advanced payment of approximately $120,000. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted.

Subsequent to year end, the Company’s former COO has been awarded approximately $238,000 in accrued salary and related charges by the California labor board. The Company has made the plaintiff a settlement offer which, as of the date of this filing, has not been accepted.

Subsequent to year end, the Company and the Company’s Chief Executive Officer, Melvin Gagerman, are among several defendants named in a lawsuit filed by two secured creditors demanding repayment of loans totaling $125,000 plus accrued interest and exemplary damages. In January 2017, the Company entered into an agreement with all secured creditors other than the two plaintiffs which became binding on all of the secured creditors, including the two plaintiffs. That agreement, among other provisions, waives all past events of default. It is the Company’s position that the two plaintiffs are not entitled to any payment or other relief at this time and therefore that they have no valid claim against the Company or Mr. Gagerman. In March 2017, plaintiffs moved for partial summary adjudication against the Company and Mr. Gagerman which was denied by the Court. Thereafter, the Court sustained demurrers by Mr. Gagerman and the Company but granted plaintiffs leave to amend. In response to the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, both the Company and Mr. Gagerman intend to further demurrer seeking dismissal of this action.

In June 2015, the landlord of the Company’s primary facility in Redondo Beach, California initiated litigation against us seeking to terminate the Company’s lease and require the Company to vacate the premises prior to the scheduled lease end. As a result of that litigation, the Company was forced to vacate its primary facility and relocate to its present facility in Stanton, California. To date, no action seeking damages or any other amount has been filed against the Company by the landlord, nor does the Company believe it has any further liability to the landlord.