COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES Commitments We have purchase commitments, consisting of supply and inventory related agreements, totaling approximately $12.2 million as of June 30, 2014. These purchase order commitments include our purchase obligations to purchase VSpro specialty analyzers and related cartridges from SMB of Denmark through calendar year 2016 and obligations to purchase Diatron hematology instruments from Diatron of Hungary through fiscal year 2015. Patent Licensing Agreement. Effective January 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Alere. Under our license agreement, we licensed co-exclusively certain worldwide patent rights related to lateral flow immunoassay technology in the field of animal health diagnostics in the professional marketplace. The license agreement provides that Alere shall not grant any future rights to any third parties under its current lateral flow patent rights in the animal health diagnostics field in the professional marketplace. The license agreement enables us to develop and market products under rights from Alere to address animal health and laboratory animal research markets. In exchange for the license rights, we (i) paid an up-front license fee of $5.0 million to Alere in January 2009, (ii) agreed to pay royalties during the term of the agreement, based solely on sales of products in a jurisdiction country covered by valid and unexpired claims in that jurisdiction under the licensed Alere patent rights, and (iii) agreed to pay a yearly minimum license fee of between $500,000 to $1.0 million per year, which fee will be creditable against any royalties due during such calendar year. The royalties, if any, are payable through the date of the expiration of the last valid patent licensed under the agreement that includes at least one claim in a jurisdiction covering products we sell in that jurisdiction. The yearly minimum fees are payable for so long as we desire to maintain exclusivity under the agreement. Litigation On October 1, 2012, St. Louis Police Retirement System, a purported shareholder of Abaxis, filed a lawsuit against certain officers and each of the directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information in our 2010 proxy statement, breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly violating the terms of our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose alleged material information in our 2012 proxy statement regarding (1) the events leading up to our proposal to amend the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan to eliminate the limit on the number of shares that may be issued pursuant to restricted stock units, and (2) the effects of the proposed amendment on certain settled and outstanding restricted stock units. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought, and on October 23, 2012, the court issued, an order preliminarily enjoining our shareholder vote on Proposal 2 in our 2012 proxy statement, regarding an amendment to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, until such time as additional disclosures could be made. We filed with the SEC and mailed to shareholders supplemental proxy materials approved by the court, the injunction was lifted and our shareholders approved the proposal to amend our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims was held on May 7, 2013. On October 1, 2013, before the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement of the lawsuit. On January 16, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, and the following day, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval. On April 15, 2014, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties have agreed, subject to court approval, that the claims against the defendants will be dismissed with prejudice and will be granted the release of certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought later in the court arising out of the same allegations. We have agreed that if the proposed settlement terms are approved by the court, we will adopt certain corporate governance measures, such measures to be in effect for at least five years. The plaintiff has petitioned the court for an attorney’s fee award of $1.7 million. A hearing on the motion for final approval of the settlement and plaintiff’s petition for attorney’s fees was held on June 17, 2014. The court has not yet issued a decision. The settlement is not contingent on the payment of any attorney’s fee award. We believe that any attorney’s fees that would be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel would not have a material adverse effect on Abaxis, our consolidated financial position or our results of operations. We are involved from time to time in various litigation matters in the normal course of business. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

NOTE 9. COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

Commitments

We have purchase commitments, consisting of supply and inventory related agreements, totaling approximately $12.2 million as of June 30, 2014. These purchase order commitments include our purchase obligations to purchase VSpro specialty analyzers and related cartridges from SMB of Denmark through calendar year 2016 and obligations to purchase Diatron hematology instruments from Diatron of Hungary through fiscal year 2015.

Patent Licensing Agreement. Effective January 2009, we entered into a license agreement with Alere. Under our license agreement, we licensed co-exclusively certain worldwide patent rights related to lateral flow immunoassay technology in the field of animal health diagnostics in the professional marketplace. The license agreement provides that Alere shall not grant any future rights to any third parties under its current lateral flow patent rights in the animal health diagnostics field in the professional marketplace. The license agreement enables us to develop and market products under rights from Alere to address animal health and laboratory animal research markets.

In exchange for the license rights, we (i) paid an up-front license fee of $5.0 million to Alere in January 2009, (ii) agreed to pay royalties during the term of the agreement, based solely on sales of products in a jurisdiction country covered by valid and unexpired claims in that jurisdiction under the licensed Alere patent rights, and (iii) agreed to pay a yearly minimum license fee of between $500,000 to $1.0 million per year, which fee will be creditable against any royalties due during such calendar year. The royalties, if any, are payable through the date of the expiration of the last valid patent licensed under the agreement that includes at least one claim in a jurisdiction covering products we sell in that jurisdiction. The yearly minimum fees are payable for so long as we desire to maintain exclusivity under the agreement.

Litigation

On October 1, 2012, St. Louis Police Retirement System, a purported shareholder of Abaxis, filed a lawsuit against certain officers and each of the directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California alleging, among other things, that the directors violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly failing to disclose material information in our 2010 proxy statement, breached their fiduciary duties by allegedly violating the terms of our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, and breached their fiduciary duties by failing to disclose alleged material information in our 2012 proxy statement regarding (1) the events leading up to our proposal to amend the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan to eliminate the limit on the number of shares that may be issued pursuant to restricted stock units, and (2) the effects of the proposed amendment on certain settled and outstanding restricted stock units. The plaintiff seeks, among other things, damages, disgorgement and attorney’s fees. In addition, the plaintiff sought, and on October 23, 2012, the court issued, an order preliminarily enjoining our shareholder vote on Proposal 2 in our 2012 proxy statement, regarding an amendment to the 2005 Equity Incentive Plan, until such time as additional disclosures could be made. We filed with the SEC and mailed to shareholders supplemental proxy materials approved by the court, the injunction was lifted and our shareholders approved the proposal to amend our 2005 Equity Incentive Plan. A hearing on defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims was held on May 7, 2013.

On October 1, 2013, before the court ruled on the motions to dismiss, the parties notified the court that they had reached a settlement of the lawsuit. On January 16, 2014, the parties entered into a Stipulation of Settlement, and the following day, the plaintiff filed a motion for preliminary approval. On April 15, 2014, the court issued an order granting preliminary approval of the settlement. The parties have agreed, subject to court approval, that the claims against the defendants will be dismissed with prejudice and will be granted the release of certain known or unknown claims that have been or could have been brought later in the court arising out of the same allegations. We have agreed that if the proposed settlement terms are approved by the court, we will adopt certain corporate governance measures, such measures to be in effect for at least five years. The plaintiff has petitioned the court for an attorney’s fee award of $1.7 million. A hearing on the motion for final approval of the settlement and plaintiff’s petition for attorney’s fees was held on June 17, 2014. The court has not yet issued a decision. The settlement is not contingent on the payment of any attorney’s fee award. We believe that any attorney’s fees that would be awarded to plaintiff’s counsel would not have a material adverse effect on Abaxis, our consolidated financial position or our results of operations.

We are involved from time to time in various litigation matters in the normal course of business. There can be no assurance that existing or future legal proceedings arising in the ordinary course of business or otherwise will not have a material adverse effect on our business, consolidated financial position, results of operations or cash flows.