Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2017
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 13 . Commitments and Contingencies Under the terms of the PCD Agreement, we are required to pay contingent consideration if the cumulative revenues for our process challenge device business for the three years subsequent to the acquisition meet certain levels. The potential consideration payable ranges from $0 to $1,500,000 and is based upon a sliding scale of three -year cumulative revenues between $9,900,000 and $12,600,000. Based upon both historical and projected growth rates, we initially recorded $300,000 of contingent consideration payable which represented our best estimate of the amount that would ultimately be paid. We paid $150,000 of the contingent consideration during the year ended March 31, 2016 ( based upon the then current run rate projected over the entire three -year contingent consideration period). Since the initial payment, the revenues have significantly increased and as a result, during the year ended March 31, 2017 we recorded an additional $450,000 accrual (which is included in other expense, net in our consolidated statements of income for the year ended March 31, 2017). We paid an additional $450,000 of the contingent consideration in our third quarter ending December 31, 2016. The remaining contingent consideration amount is also subject to modification at the end of the third year of the earn-out period based upon the actual revenues earned over the contingent consideration period. Any changes to the contingent consideration ultimately paid will result in additional income or expense in our consolidated statements of income. We will continue to monitor the results of our process challenge device business and we will adjust the contingent liability on a go forward basis, based on then current information. On November 6, 2013, we completed a business combination (the “Amega Acquisition”) whereby we acquired substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Amega Scientific Corporation’s (“Amega”) business which provides continuous monitoring systems to regulated industries. Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement (the “Amega Agreement”), we were required to pay contingent consideration (the “Amega Earn-Out”) if the cumulative revenues for our Continuous Monitoring Division for the three years subsequent to the acquisition met certain levels. The potential consideration payable ranged from $0 to $10,000,000 and was based upon a sliding scale of three -year cumulative revenues between $31,625,000 and $43,500,000. Based upon both historical and projected growth rates, we recorded $500,000 of contingent consideration payable which represented our best estimate of the amount that would ultimately be paid. Any changes to the contingent consideration ultimately paid would have resulted in additional income or expense in our consolidated statements of income. The contingent consideration would have been payable in the third quarter of our year ending March 31, 2017. In November 2014, Amega and its owner Anthony Amato (“Amato”) filed a complaint ( Anthony Amato and Amega Scientific Corporation v. Mesa Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:14 -cv- 03228 ) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado asserting, among other items, that our termination of Amato as an employee impacted his ability to maximize the potential consideration payable under the Amega Earn-Out and to exercise stock options that failed to vest. The plaintiff was seeking an immediate maximum payout of $10,000,000 under the Amega Earn-Out, the immediate acceleration of the 10,000 stock options granted Amato upon his initial employment along with other consequential damages in excess of $500,000, lost future earnings and punitive damages. In addition, Amato alleged that we improperly withheld $704,065.86 from the holdback consideration under the Amega Agreement. In January 2015, we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice. In October 2015, we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Amato Settlement”) whereby we paid Amato $3,165,000. In exchange, Amato agreed to dismiss the complaint, release Mesa of any and all claims by Amega and Amato, and relieve us of any future payment obligation under the Amega Earn-Out. Insurance covered $415,000 of the settlement payment and we had $1,041,000 accrued on our consolidated balance sheet remaining from the original hold back and contingent consideration payable. The remaining $1,709,000 was recorded as general and administrative expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of income for the year ended March 31, 2016. A company is required to collect and remit state sales tax from certain of its customers if that company is determined to have “nexus” in a particular state. The determination of nexus varies state by state and often requires knowledge of each jurisdiction’s tax case law. During the year ended March 31, 2013, we determined that there are states in which we likely had established nexus during prior periods without properly collecting and remitting sales tax. We recorded an estimate of $100,000 associated with one specific state but we were unable to estimate our remaining exposure at that time. During the year ended March 31, 2014, we completed our analysis associated with the remaining states and we recorded an estimate of $1,408,000, which was included in other accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets and in general and administrative expense on the consolidated statements of income for the year ended March 31, 2014. That estimate was based upon facts and circumstances known at such time and our ultimate liability was subject to change as further analysis was completed and state sales tax returns were filed. During the year ended March 31, 2015 we successfully completed and filed several state sales tax returns which concluded our obligation for historical sales taxes in those states. In addition, we continued to work through the process in the remaining states. As a result of this work, we determined that our exposure had increased above and beyond our original accrual and as a result, we recorded an additional accrual of $460,000 during the year ended March 31, 2015. During the year ended March 31, 2016, we successfully completed and filed additional state sales tax returns which concluded our obligation for historical sales taxes in those remaining states.

Note

. Commitments and Contingencies

Under the terms of the PCD Agreement, we are required to pay contingent consideration if the cumulative revenues for our process challenge device business for the

three

years subsequent to the acquisition meet certain levels. The potential consideration payable ranges from

$1,500,000

and is based upon a sliding scale of

three

-year cumulative revenues between

$9,900,000

and

$12,600,000.

Based upon both historical and projected growth rates, we initially recorded

$300,000

of contingent consideration payable which represented our best estimate of the amount that would ultimately be paid. We paid

$150,000

of the contingent consideration during the year ended

March 31, 2016 (

based upon the then current run rate projected over the entire

three

-year contingent consideration period). Since the initial payment, the revenues have significantly increased and as a result, during the year ended

March 31, 2017

we recorded an additional

$450,000

accrual (which is included in other expense, net in our consolidated statements of income for the year ended

March 31, 2017).

We paid an additional

$450,000

of the contingent consideration in our

third

quarter ending

December 31, 2016.

The remaining contingent consideration amount is also subject to modification at the end of the

third

year of the earn-out period based upon the actual revenues earned over the contingent consideration period. Any changes to the contingent consideration ultimately paid will result in additional income or expense in our consolidated statements of income. We will continue to monitor the results of our process challenge device business and we will adjust the contingent liability on a go forward basis, based on then current information.

November 6, 2013,

we completed a business combination (the “Amega Acquisition”) whereby we acquired substantially all of the assets and certain liabilities of Amega Scientific Corporation’s (“Amega”) business which provides continuous monitoring systems to regulated industries. Under the terms of the Acquisition Agreement (the “Amega Agreement”), we were required to pay contingent consideration (the “Amega Earn-Out”) if the cumulative revenues for our Continuous Monitoring Division for the

three

years subsequent to the acquisition met certain levels. The potential consideration payable ranged from

$10,000,000

and was based upon a sliding scale of

three

-year cumulative revenues between

$31,625,000

and

$43,500,000.

Based upon both historical and projected growth rates, we recorded

$500,000

of contingent consideration payable which represented our best estimate of the amount that would ultimately be paid. Any changes to the contingent consideration ultimately paid would have resulted in additional income or expense in our consolidated statements of income. The contingent consideration would have been payable in the

third

quarter of our year ending

March 31, 2017.

November 2014,

Amega and its owner Anthony Amato (“Amato”) filed a complaint (

Anthony Amato and Amega Scientific Corporation v. Mesa Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action

No.

1:14

-cv-

03228

) in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado asserting, among other items, that our termination of Amato as an employee impacted his ability to maximize the potential consideration payable under the Amega Earn-Out and to exercise stock options that failed to vest. The plaintiff was seeking an immediate maximum payout of

$10,000,000

under the Amega Earn-Out, the immediate acceleration of the

10,000

stock options granted Amato upon his initial employment along with other consequential damages in excess of

$500,000,

lost future earnings and punitive damages. In addition, Amato alleged that we improperly withheld

$704,065.86

from the holdback consideration under the Amega Agreement. In

January 2015,

we filed a motion to dismiss the complaint with prejudice.

October 2015,

we entered into a settlement agreement (the “Amato Settlement”) whereby we paid Amato

$3,165,000.

In exchange, Amato agreed to dismiss the complaint, release Mesa of any and all claims by Amega and Amato, and relieve us of any future payment obligation under the Amega Earn-Out. Insurance covered

$415,000

of the settlement payment and we had

$1,041,000

accrued on our consolidated balance sheet remaining from the original hold back and contingent consideration payable. The remaining

$1,709,000

was recorded as general and administrative expense in the accompanying consolidated statements of income for the year ended

March 31, 2016.

A company is required to collect and remit state sales tax from certain of its customers if that company is determined to have “nexus” in a particular state. The determination of nexus varies state by state and often requires knowledge of each jurisdiction’s tax case law. During the year ended

March 31, 2013,

we determined that there are states in which we likely had established nexus during prior periods without properly collecting and remitting sales tax. We recorded an estimate of

$100,000

associated with

one

specific state but we were unable to estimate our remaining exposure at that time. During the year ended

March 31, 2014,

we completed our analysis associated with the remaining states and we recorded an estimate of

$1,408,000,

which was included in other accrued expenses on the consolidated balance sheets and in general and administrative expense on the consolidated statements of income for the year ended

March 31, 2014.

That estimate was based upon facts and circumstances known at such time and our ultimate liability was subject to change as further analysis was completed and state sales tax returns were filed.

During the year ended

March 31, 2015

we successfully completed and filed several state sales tax returns which concluded our obligation for historical sales taxes in those states. In addition, we continued to work through the process in the remaining states. As a result of this work, we determined that our exposure had increased above and beyond our original accrual and as a result, we recorded an additional accrual of

$460,000

during the year ended

March 31, 2015.

During the year ended

March 31, 2016,

we successfully completed and filed additional state sales tax returns which concluded our obligation for historical sales taxes in those remaining states.