Note 13 - Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Notes to Financial Statements
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	Note 13 . Commitments and Contingencies In February 2018, we were sued in a putative civil class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division whereby it was alleged that we sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiff in this lawsuit is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of $500 for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to $1,500 for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting the further transmission of unsolicited fax advertising in the future. We intend to vigorously defend this case however we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages. Under the terms of the PCD Agreement, we were required to pay contingent consideration if the cumulative revenues for our process challenge device business for the three years subsequent to the acquisition met certain levels. The potential consideration payable ranged from $0 to $1,500,000 and was based upon a sliding scale of three -year cumulative revenues between $9,900,000 and $12,600,000, with payments made annually. 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 for these products significantly increased and as a result, during the year ended March 31, 2017 we recorded an additional $450,000 accrual (which was paid in our third quarter ending December 31, 2016). During the year ended March 31, 2018, process challenge device (“PCD”) product revenues continued to increase which resulted in an additional $300,000 accrual, which is included in other income, net in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended March 31, 2018. We paid the remaining contingent consideration due of $450,000 in November 2017. 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 Cold Chain 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 operations for the year ended March 31, 2016.

Note

. Commitments and Contingencies

February 2018,

we were sued in a putative civil class action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division whereby it was alleged that we sent unsolicited advertisements to telephone facsimile machines in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (“TCPA”), as well as analogous state statutes and state consumer protection laws. The plaintiff in this lawsuit is seeking various forms of relief, including statutory damages of

$500

for each violation of the TCPA or, in the alternative, treble damages of up to

$1,500

for each knowing and willful violation of the TCPA, as well as payment of interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, and certain injunctive relief prohibiting the further transmission of unsolicited fax advertising in the future. We intend to vigorously defend this case however we cannot predict with any degree of certainty the outcome of the lawsuit or determine the extent of any potential liability or damages.

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

three

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

$1,500,000

and was based upon a sliding scale of

three

-year cumulative revenues between

$9,900,000

and

$12,600,000,

with payments made annually. 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 for these products significantly increased and as a result, during the year ended

March 31, 2017

we recorded an additional

$450,000

accrual (which was paid in our

third

quarter ending

December 31, 2016).

During the year ended

March 31, 2018,

process challenge device (“PCD”) product revenues continued to increase which resulted in an additional

$300,000

accrual, which is included in other income, net in the accompanying consolidated statement of operations for the year ended

March 31, 2018.

We paid the remaining contingent consideration due of

$450,000

November 2017.

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 Cold Chain 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 operations for the year ended

March 31, 2016.