COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2015
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES	COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES LEASES We have capital lease obligations covering a facility and computer equipment. In May 2011, we completed the sale of certain assets and liabilities of the Pavilion Theatre and ceased to operate it at that time. We have remained the primary obligor on the Pavilion capital lease and therefore, the capital lease obligation and the related assets under the capital lease continue to be reflected on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015. We have entered into a sub-lease agreement with an unrelated third party purchaser who makes all payments related to the lease and therefore, we have no continuing involvement in the operation of the Pavilion Theatre. We also operate from leased properties under non-cancelable operating lease agreements, certain of which contain escalating lease clauses. LITIGATION Gaiam Dispute In October 2013, we acquired a division of Gaiam Americas, Inc. and Gaiam, Inc. (together, “Gaiam”) that maintained exclusive distribution rights agreements with large independent studios/content providers, and distributed entertainment content through home video, digital and television distribution channels (“GVE” or the “GVE Acquisition”). In August 2014, we initiated mediation with Gaiam with respect to certain claims resulting from the GVE Acquisition in accordance with the requirements of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the ”MIPA”). On January 13 and 16, 2015, Gaiam and we participated in a two-day mediation to determine whether the parties’ disputes could be resolved informally without arbitration. The mediation was not successful, and, therefore, we are pursuing our claims against Gaiam through arbitration. We believe that (i) Gaiam materially breached its representations and warranties under the MIPA, including a representation that the financial statements provided to us were consistent with GAAP; (ii) Gaiam engaged in fraud and tortious acts in connection with the sale; (iii) the amount of working capital in the business unit was substantially below the working capital target identified in the MIPA and is subject to a working capital adjustment; (iv) Gaiam breached the Transition Services Agreement, resulting in additional costs to us and potential losses associated with the non-collection our accounts receivable; and (v) Gaiam breached the terms of other agreements related to the transfer of cash from collected accounts receivable, including mishandling post-closing collections. Among other things, we believe that significant sections of the financial statements that Gaiam provided to us, both before and after the GVE Acquisition, were not consistent with GAAP, despite Gaiam’s contractual obligations to ensure GAAP compliance, and that Gaiam’s financial statements did not fairly present the financial position and results of GVE as of the date of the transaction. Our investigation of these issues is ongoing. We demanded that Gaiam agree to participate in an expedited arbitration before a nationally recognized accounting firm to determine the value of the working capital in accordance with the relevant procedures set forth in the MIPA (“the Working Capital Arbitration”). We also demanded that Gaiam agree simultaneously to participate in a separate arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“the AAA Arbitration”) to resolve the parties’ non-working capital disputes. Gaiam initially asserted that the AAA Arbitration should occur prior to the Working Capital Arbitration and refused to proceed with the Working Capital Arbitration until after the AAA Arbitration was completed. Therefore, we commenced legal proceedings against Gaiam to comply with the MIPA and compel Gaiam to participate in the Working Capital Arbitration without further delay. By Order dated May 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Gaiam to proceed with the Working Capital Arbitration forthwith. Although Gaiam initially filed an appeal of the Order with the Ninth Circuit, that appeal has been dismissed. The parties are currently proceeding with the Working Capital Arbitration. In addition, the parties are proceeding with their respective non-working capital claims in the AAA Arbitration. The relief requested by us exceeds $30.0 million and includes unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, and all other appropriate relief including punitive damages. Gaiam has disputed our allegations and asserted its own claims against us, including seeking working capital reimbursement from us of over $6.0 million. We believe that the claims that we have asserted against Gaiam in the Working Capital Arbitration and the AAA Arbitration have merit, and we intend to pursue our claims vigorously. Conversely, we believe that Gaiam’s claims are without merit. At this early stage, there can be no assurance as to the likelihood of success on the merits. We are subject to certain legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We do not expect any such items to have a significant impact on our financial position and results of operations and liquidity.

COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES

LEASES

We have capital lease obligations covering a facility and computer equipment. In May 2011, we completed the sale of certain assets and liabilities of the Pavilion Theatre and ceased to operate it at that time. We have remained the primary obligor on the Pavilion capital lease and therefore, the capital lease obligation and the related assets under the capital lease continue to be reflected on our Consolidated Balance Sheets as of June 30, 2015 and March 31, 2015. We have entered into a sub-lease agreement with an unrelated third party purchaser who makes all payments related to the lease and therefore, we have no continuing involvement in the operation of the Pavilion Theatre.

We also operate from leased properties under non-cancelable operating lease agreements, certain of which contain escalating lease clauses.

LITIGATION

Gaiam Dispute

In October 2013, we acquired a division of Gaiam Americas, Inc. and Gaiam, Inc. (together, “Gaiam”) that maintained exclusive distribution rights agreements with large independent studios/content providers, and distributed entertainment content through home video, digital and television distribution channels (“GVE” or the “GVE Acquisition”). In August 2014, we initiated mediation with Gaiam with respect to certain claims resulting from the GVE Acquisition in accordance with the requirements of the Membership Interest Purchase Agreement (the ”MIPA”). On January 13 and 16, 2015, Gaiam and we participated in a two-day mediation to determine whether the parties’ disputes could be resolved informally without arbitration. The mediation was not successful, and, therefore, we are pursuing our claims against Gaiam through arbitration.

We believe that (i) Gaiam materially breached its representations and warranties under the MIPA, including a representation that the financial statements provided to us were consistent with GAAP; (ii) Gaiam engaged in fraud and tortious acts in connection with the sale; (iii) the amount of working capital in the business unit was substantially below the working capital target identified in the MIPA and is subject to a working capital adjustment; (iv) Gaiam breached the Transition Services Agreement, resulting in additional costs to us and potential losses associated with the non-collection our accounts receivable; and (v) Gaiam breached the terms of other agreements related to the transfer of cash from collected accounts receivable, including mishandling post-closing collections. Among other things, we believe that significant sections of the financial statements that Gaiam provided to us, both before and after the GVE Acquisition, were not consistent with GAAP, despite Gaiam’s contractual obligations to ensure GAAP compliance, and that Gaiam’s financial statements did not fairly present the financial position and results of GVE as of the date of the transaction. Our investigation of these issues is ongoing.

We demanded that Gaiam agree to participate in an expedited arbitration before a nationally recognized accounting firm to determine the value of the working capital in accordance with the relevant procedures set forth in the MIPA (“the Working Capital Arbitration”). We also demanded that Gaiam agree simultaneously to participate in a separate arbitration before the American Arbitration Association (“the AAA Arbitration”) to resolve the parties’ non-working capital disputes. Gaiam initially asserted that the AAA Arbitration should occur prior to the Working Capital Arbitration and refused to proceed with the Working Capital Arbitration until after the AAA Arbitration was completed. Therefore, we commenced legal proceedings against Gaiam to comply with the MIPA and compel Gaiam to participate in the Working Capital Arbitration without further delay.

By Order dated May 5, 2015, the United States District Court for the Central District of California ordered Gaiam to proceed with the Working Capital Arbitration forthwith. Although Gaiam initially filed an appeal of the Order with the Ninth Circuit, that appeal has been dismissed. The parties are currently proceeding with the Working Capital Arbitration. In addition, the parties are proceeding with their respective non-working capital claims in the AAA Arbitration.

The relief requested by us exceeds $30.0 million and includes unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, costs and interest, and all other appropriate relief including punitive damages. Gaiam has disputed our allegations and asserted its own claims against us, including seeking working capital reimbursement from us of over $6.0 million.

We believe that the claims that we have asserted against Gaiam in the Working Capital Arbitration and the AAA Arbitration have merit, and we intend to pursue our claims vigorously. Conversely, we believe that Gaiam’s claims are without merit. At this early stage, there can be no assurance as to the likelihood of success on the merits.

We are subject to certain legal proceedings in the ordinary course of business. We do not expect any such items to have a significant impact on our financial position and results of operations and liquidity.