Commitments & Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Nov. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES Leases Prior to Fiscal 2022, our facilities consisted primarily of approximately 20,000 square feet in Stanton, California and a storage facility in Santa Clarita, California. Effective February 28, 2021, we vacated both facilities and consolidated our administrative offices, operations including warehousing within a 17,700 square foot facility in Lake Forest, California under a 66-month rental agreement covering March 1, 2021 through November 30, 2026, with an initial monthly rental rate of approximately $22,000 increasing to a monthly rate of approximately $26,000 in 2026. At February 28, 2021, in accordance with ASC Topic 842, we recognized a right of use (“ROU”) asset and an operating lease liability of approximately $1.2 million, respectively, of which approximately $0.1 million was classified as a current liability and $1.1 million as non-current liability at February 28, 2021. The lease liability is determined by discounting the future lease payments under the lease terms and applying a 10% per annum discount rate to determine the current lease liability. Operating expenses estimated to be approximately $4,000 per month are considered a variable lease component and excluded from the determination of the ROU asset and the lease liability. Other operating expenses, such as utilities and property taxes, are similarly excluded in the calculation of the ROU as they do not represent goods and services provided by the lessor under the terms of the lease. At November 30, 2021, the ROU asset balance was approximately $1,044,000 and the total lease liability was approximately $1,087,000, of which approximately $173,000 was classified as a current liability. 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 financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected. In 2017, the Company’s former COO was awarded approximately $238,000 in accrued salary and related charges by the California labor board. In September 2021, the Company reached a settlement by which the Company agreed to pay approximately $330,000, representing the principal award plus accrued interest. As of the time of this filing, the Company has paid approximately $109,000 toward the settlement amount. The remaining balance of approximately $228,000, including accrued interest of $7,500 for the period September 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, is to be paid no later than September 1, 2022 and accrues interest of 10% per annum until paid. The Company is presently engaged in a dispute with one of its former directors, Robert Kopple, relating to approximately $11.9 million (representing approximately $5.4 million loaned to the Company over the course of 2013 to 2016; approximately $170,000 Mr. Kopple claims to have advanced or paid to third parties on Aura’s behalf; and approximately $6.3 million Mr. Kopple claims to be owed for interest, loan fees and late payment charges) and approximately 3.33 million warrants which Mr. Kopple claims to be owed to him and his affiliates by the Company. In July 2017, Mr. Kopple filed suit against the Company as well as against current director Mr. Diaz-Verson and former directors Mr. Breslow and Mr. Howsmon, as well as Mr. Gagerman, our former CEO and a former director, in connection with these allegations. In 2018, the Court dismissed Mr. Diaz-Verson, Mr. Breslow, Mr. Howsmon and Mr. Gagerman from the suit. While the Company believes that it has certain valid defenses in these matters, the Company is currently in settlement discussions with Mr. Kopple. However, to-date, no settlement has been reached in large part because Mr. Kopple continues to demand that as part of any such settlement, he receive unilateral control over significant aspects of the Company’s financial and management functions such as, but not limited to, the right to unilaterally direct the Company’s ordinary business expenditures and requiring the Company to seek his approval for the hiring of nearly all personnel, all to the exclusion of the Company’s management team and stockholder-elected Board of Directors. The Company believes that allowing Mr. Kopple such level of operational control over the Company without any accountability would be highly detrimental to the Company and is incompatible with the Board of Directors’ duties to shareholders and creditors as a whole. On March 26, 2019, various stockholders of the Company controlling a combined total of more than 27.5 million shares delivered a signed written consent to the Company removing Ronald Buschur as a member of the Company’s Board and electing Cipora Lavut as a director of the Company. On March 27, 2019, those same stockholders delivered a further signed written consent to the Company removing William Anderson and Si Ryong Yu as members of the Company’s Board and electing Robert Lempert and David Mann as directors of the Company. These written consents represented a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as of March 26, 2019 and March 27, 2019, respectively. Because of Aura’s refusal to recognize the legal effectiveness of the consents, on April 8, 2019 the stockholders filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporations Law, seeking an order confirming the validity of the consents and declaring that Aura’s Board consists of Ms. Lavut, Mr. Mann, Dr. Lempert, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Diaz-Versón, Jr. On July 8, 2019 the Court of Chancery entered final judgment in favor of the stockholder plaintiffs, confirming that (a) Ronald Buschur, Si Ryong Yu and William Anderson had been validly removed by the holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding stock acting by written consent (b) Ms. Lavut, Mr. Mann and Dr. Lempert had been validly elected by the holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding stock acting by written consent, and (c) the Company’s Board of Directors validly consists of Cipora Lavut, David Mann, Robert Lempert, Gary Douglas and Salvador Diaz-Versón, Jr. As a result of prior management’s unsuccessful opposition to this stockholders’ action filed in the Court of Chancery, such stockholders may be potentially entitled to recoup their litigation costs from the Company under Delaware’s corporate benefit doctrine and/or other legal provisions. To-date, no final determination has been made as to the amount of recoupment, if any, to which such stockholders may be entitled.

Commitments & Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Nov. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

NOTE 7 – COMMITMENTS & CONTINGENCIES

Leases

Prior to Fiscal 2022, our facilities consisted primarily of approximately 20,000 square feet in Stanton, California and a storage facility in Santa Clarita, California. Effective February 28, 2021, we vacated both facilities and consolidated our administrative offices, operations including warehousing within a 17,700 square foot facility in Lake Forest, California under a 66-month rental agreement covering March 1, 2021 through November 30, 2026, with an initial monthly rental rate of approximately $22,000 increasing to a monthly rate of approximately $26,000 in 2026. At February 28, 2021, in accordance with ASC Topic 842, we recognized a right of use (“ROU”) asset and an operating lease liability of approximately $1.2 million, respectively, of which approximately $0.1 million was classified as a current liability and $1.1 million as non-current liability at February 28, 2021. The lease liability is determined by discounting the future lease payments under the lease terms and applying a 10% per annum discount rate to determine the current lease liability. Operating expenses estimated to be approximately $4,000 per month are considered a variable lease component and excluded from the determination of the ROU asset and the lease liability. Other operating expenses, such as utilities and property taxes, are similarly excluded in the calculation of the ROU as they do not represent goods and services provided by the lessor under the terms of the lease. At November 30, 2021, the ROU asset balance was approximately $1,044,000 and the total lease liability was approximately $1,087,000, of which approximately $173,000 was classified as a current liability.

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 financial statements for that reporting period could be materially adversely affected.

In 2017, the Company’s former COO was awarded approximately $238,000 in accrued salary and related charges by the California labor board. In September 2021, the Company reached a settlement by which the Company agreed to pay approximately $330,000, representing the principal award plus accrued interest. As of the time of this filing, the Company has paid approximately $109,000 toward the settlement amount. The remaining balance of approximately $228,000, including accrued interest of $7,500 for the period September 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021, is to be paid no later than September 1, 2022 and accrues interest of 10% per annum until paid.

The Company is presently engaged in a dispute with one of its former directors, Robert Kopple, relating to approximately $11.9 million (representing approximately $5.4 million loaned to the Company over the course of 2013 to 2016; approximately $170,000 Mr. Kopple claims to have advanced or paid to third parties on Aura’s behalf; and approximately $6.3 million Mr. Kopple claims to be owed for interest, loan fees and late payment charges) and approximately 3.33 million warrants which Mr. Kopple claims to be owed to him and his affiliates by the Company. In July 2017, Mr. Kopple filed suit against the Company as well as against current director Mr. Diaz-Verson and former directors Mr. Breslow and Mr. Howsmon, as well as Mr. Gagerman, our former CEO and a former director, in connection with these allegations. In 2018, the Court dismissed Mr. Diaz-Verson, Mr. Breslow, Mr. Howsmon and Mr. Gagerman from the suit. While the Company believes that it has certain valid defenses in these matters, the Company is currently in settlement discussions with Mr. Kopple. However, to-date, no settlement has been reached in large part because Mr. Kopple continues to demand that as part of any such settlement, he receive unilateral control over significant aspects of the Company’s financial and management functions such as, but not limited to, the right to unilaterally direct the Company’s ordinary business expenditures and requiring the Company to seek his approval for the hiring of nearly all personnel, all to the exclusion of the Company’s management team and stockholder-elected Board of Directors. The Company believes that allowing Mr. Kopple such level of operational control over the Company without any accountability would be highly detrimental to the Company and is incompatible with the Board of Directors’ duties to shareholders and creditors as a whole.

On March 26, 2019, various stockholders of the Company controlling a combined total of more than 27.5 million shares delivered a signed written consent to the Company removing Ronald Buschur as a member of the Company’s Board and electing Cipora Lavut as a director of the Company. On March 27, 2019, those same stockholders delivered a further signed written consent to the Company removing William Anderson and Si Ryong Yu as members of the Company’s Board and electing Robert Lempert and David Mann as directors of the Company. These written consents represented a majority of the outstanding shares of the Company’s common stock as of March 26, 2019 and March 27, 2019, respectively. Because of Aura’s refusal to recognize the legal effectiveness of the consents, on April 8, 2019 the stockholders filed suit in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware pursuant to Section 225 of the Delaware General Corporations Law, seeking an order confirming the validity of the consents and declaring that Aura’s Board consists of Ms. Lavut, Mr. Mann, Dr. Lempert, Mr. Douglas and Mr. Diaz-Versón, Jr. On July 8, 2019 the Court of Chancery entered final judgment in favor of the stockholder plaintiffs, confirming that (a) Ronald Buschur, Si Ryong Yu and William Anderson had been validly removed by the holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding stock acting by written consent (b) Ms. Lavut, Mr. Mann and Dr. Lempert had been validly elected by the holders of a majority of the Company’s outstanding stock acting by written consent, and (c) the Company’s Board of Directors validly consists of Cipora Lavut, David Mann, Robert Lempert, Gary Douglas and Salvador Diaz-Versón, Jr. As a result of prior management’s unsuccessful opposition to this stockholders’ action filed in the Court of Chancery, such stockholders may be potentially entitled to recoup their litigation costs from the Company under Delaware’s corporate benefit doctrine and/or other legal provisions. To-date, no final determination has been made as to the amount of recoupment, if any, to which such stockholders may be entitled.