COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Jul. 31, 2020
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]	NOTE M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board, filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch seeks compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008, and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch had originally also sought a declaratory judgment and claims for damage to his reputation and a derivative claim on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch removed those claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020, which the Company and the Director Defendants opposed on July 10, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion seeks an order that the Company is liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. The Parties’ respective motions are pending. The Company and the Director Defendants believe that the Board was justified in its decision to terminate Mr. Bloch “for cause” and that Mr. Bloch’s complaint is entirely without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of Mr. Bloch’s allegations. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine whether liability, if any, arising out of these matters is probable or the possible loss, if any that could result from an unfavorable outcome arising out of these matters. In addition, Mr. Bloch sought to initiate two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration is brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statements of Claim in both arbitrations on May 4, 2020. In both proceedings, Mr. Bloch claims that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He seeks an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs. On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claims that Mr. Bloch may not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The motion is currently pending. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of success of this petition. On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended, for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch sought to initiate. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the Company’s motion on July 2, 2020. The motion is currently pending. Defendants dispute all of Bloch’s claims and intend to continue to vigorously defend the Company in this special proceeding. The likelihood of any outcome of this proceeding cannot be determined at this time.

NOTE M – COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

On January 28, 2020, Martin B. Bloch, the former Chief Scientist of the Company and a former member of the Company’s Board, filed a complaint against the Company and Jonathan Brolin, Lance W. Lord, Russell M. Sarachek, Richard Schwartz and Stanton D. Sloane, each in their capacity as members of the Board (collectively, the “Director Defendants”), in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., et al., Index No. 601369/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed Jan. 28, 2020)). Mr. Bloch seeks compensatory damages and costs and attorney’s fees, among other things, based on allegations that he was wrongfully terminated “for cause” pursuant to his employment agreement, dated March 17, 2008, and that the Company and the Director Defendants discriminated against him based on his age. Mr. Bloch had originally also sought a declaratory judgment and claims for damage to his reputation and a derivative claim on behalf of the Company alleging that the Director Defendants breached their fiduciary duty in rendering their decision to terminate Mr. Bloch’s employment with the Company. However, Mr. Bloch removed those claims from a subsequently filed amended complaint after the Company and the Director Defendants moved to dismiss them. On June 11, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants filed their answer to the amended complaint. Mr. Bloch filed a motion for summary judgment on June 23, 2020, which the Company and the Director Defendants opposed on July 10, 2020. Mr. Bloch’s motion seeks an order that the Company is liable for breach of his employment agreement because he purportedly resigned from the Company before he was terminated. On July 10, 2020, the Company and the Director Defendants opposed Mr. Bloch’s motion and also filed a motion for summary judgment seeking the dismissal of all claims in Mr. Bloch’s amended complaint. The Parties’ respective motions are pending. The Company and the Director Defendants believe that the Board was justified in its decision to terminate Mr. Bloch “for cause” and that Mr. Bloch’s complaint is entirely without merit. The Company intends to vigorously defend against all of Mr. Bloch’s allegations. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine whether liability, if any, arising out of these matters is probable or the possible loss, if any that could result from an unfavorable outcome arising out of these matters.

In addition, Mr. Bloch sought to initiate two arbitration proceedings under the AAA Rules (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc., the Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Frequency Electronics, Inc., and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008). One arbitration is brought under a deferred compensation agreement dated March 27, 1980 and the other under a second amended and restated deferred compensation agreement, dated March 7, 2008. Bloch submitted his Statements of Claim in both arbitrations on May 4, 2020. In both proceedings, Mr. Bloch claims that defendants violated ERISA rules by denying him deferred compensation benefits. He seeks an award for allegedly past due deferred compensation benefits plus interest, clarification as to his future rights to deferred compensation benefits, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

On June 2, 2020, the Company filed a petition for a stay of arbitration and related declaratory relief against Mr. Bloch, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County (Frequency Electronics, Inc. v. Martin B. Bloch, Index No. 652191/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 2, 2020)). The Company claims that Mr. Bloch may not arbitrate his claims for deferred compensation because he did not timely appeal the Company’s denial of those claims, and because he failed to comply with the arbitration procedures in the applicable deferred compensation agreement. Mr. Bloch filed a motion on June 16, 2020 seeking a change of venue to the County of Nassau, which the Company opposed on July 7, 2020. The motion is currently pending. At this time, the Company does not have sufficient information to determine the likelihood of success of this petition.

On June 5, 2020, Mr. Bloch filed a petition against the Company, the Compensation Committee of the Company’s Board of Directors, and the Deferred Compensation Plan Agreement Dated March 7, 2008, as amended, for the appointment of an arbitrator in one of the arbitration proceedings that Mr. Bloch sought to initiate. The petition was filed in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau (Bloch v. Frequency Electronics, Inc. et al., Index No. 605380/2020 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. filed June 5, 2020)). On June 22, 2020, the Company moved to dismiss Mr. Bloch’s petition, and he opposed the Company’s motion on July 2, 2020. The motion is currently pending. Defendants dispute all of Bloch’s claims and intend to continue to vigorously defend the Company in this special proceeding. The likelihood of any outcome of this proceeding cannot be determined at this time.