19. Litigation

12 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2016

Disclosure Text Block Supplement [Abstract]

Legal Matters and Contingencies [Text Block]

19.                Litigation

Contingencies are recorded in the consolidated financial statements when it is probable that a liability will be incurred and the amount of the loss is reasonably estimable, or otherwise disclosed, in accordance with Accounting Standards Codification 450, Contingencies (ASC 450). Significant judgment is required in both the determination of probability and the determination as to whether a loss is reasonably estimable. In the event the Company determines that a loss is not probable, but is reasonably possible, and it becomes possible to develop what the Company believes to be a reasonable range of possible loss, then the Company will include disclosures related to such matter as appropriate and in compliance with ASC 450. To the extent there is a reasonable possibility that the losses could exceed the amounts already accrued, the Company will, when applicable, adjust the accrual in the period the determination is made, disclose an estimate of the additional loss or range of loss or if the amount of such adjustment cannot be reasonably estimated, disclose that an estimate cannot be made.

On March 24, 2009, Aeroflex Wichita, Inc. (“Aeroflex”) filed a petition against the Company and two of its employees in the District Court, Sedgwick County, Kansas, Case No. 09 CV 1141 (the “Aeroflex Action”), alleging that the Company and its two employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in connection with the Company winning a substantial contract from the U.S. Army (the “Award”), to develop new Mode-5 radar test sets and kits to upgrade the existing TS-4530 radar test sets to Mode 5. Aeroflex’s petition alleges that in connection with the Award, the Company and its named employees misappropriated Aeroflex’s trade secrets; tortiously interfered with its business relationship; conspired to harm Aeroflex and tortiously interfered with its contract and seeks injunctive relief and damages. The central basis of all the claims in the Aeroflex Action is that the Company misappropriated and used Aeroflex proprietary technology and confidential information in winning the Award.  In February 2009, subsequent to the Company winning the Award, Aeroflex filed a protest of the Award with the Government Accounting Office (“GAO”). In its protest, Aeroflex alleged, inter alia, that the Company used Aeroflex’s proprietary technology in order to win the Award, the same material allegations as were later alleged in the Aeroflex Action. On or about March 17, 2009, the U.S. Army Contracts Attorney and the U.S. Army Contracting Officer each filed a statement with the GAO, expressly rejecting Aeroflex’s allegations that the Company used or infringed Aeroflex proprietary technology in winning the Award, and concluding that the Company had used only its own proprietary technology. On April 6, 2009, Aeroflex withdrew its protest.

In December 2009, the Kansas District Court dismissed the Aeroflex Action on jurisdiction grounds. Aeroflex appealed this decision. In May 2012, the Kansas Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the Aeroflex Action to the Kansas District Court for further proceedings. The Company has been engaged in discovery and depositions for the last three quarters, which has resulted in substantially higher legal expense.

On May 23, 2016, the Company filed a motion for summary judgment based on Aeroflex’s lack of jurisdictional standing to bring the case. The motion asserts that Aeroflex does not own the intellectual property at issue since it is a bare licensee of Northrop Grumman. Northrop Grumman has declined to join this suit as plaintiff. Aeroflex lacks standing to sue alone. Also, the motion raises the fact that in December 2011 Aeroflex allowed the license to expire, so that Aeroflex’s claims are either moot or it lacks standing to sue for damages allegedly accruing after the license ended. Tel believes we have a solid legal position and it is expected that this action will be heard in the September 2016 timeframe.  The June 2, 2016 Amended Supplemental Modified Scheduling Order has the trial date set for February 13, 2017 and is estimated to last three weeks, but this date may be subject to postponement. The Company is optimistic as to the outcome of this litigation. However, the outcome of any litigation is unpredictable and an adverse decision in this matter could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations or liquidity.

Other than the matters outlined above, we are currently not involved in any litigation that we believe could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition or results of operations. There is no action, suit, proceeding, inquiry or investigation before any court, public board, government agency, self-regulatory organization or body pending or, to the knowledge of executive officers of our Company, threatened against or affecting our Company, or our common stock in which an adverse decision could have a material effect.