Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2021
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Note 15 — Commitments and Contingencies Promotional Rights Certain of the Company’s content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees and require that the Company makes upfront minimum guarantee payments. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to make guaranteed payments as follows: $0.8 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining nine months), $0.4 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. These agreements also provide for a revenue share that ranges between 35% and 50% of net revenues. In addition, there are other licenses, production and/or distribution agreements that provide for a revenue share of 50% on net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guaranteed payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events. Contractual Obligations As of June 30, 2021, the Company is obligated under agreements with Content Providers and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $6.8 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining nine months), $6.5 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $5.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. On a quarterly basis, the Company records the greater of the cumulative actual content acquisition costs incurred or the cumulative minimum guarantee based on forecasted usage for the minimum guarantee period. The minimum guarantee period is the period of time that the minimum guarantee relates to, as specified in each agreement, which may be annual or a longer period. The cumulative minimum guarantee, based on forecasted usage, considers factors such as listening hours, revenue, subscribers and other terms of each agreement that impact the Company’s expected attainment or recoupment of the minimum guarantees based on the relative attribution method. Several of the Company’s content acquisition agreements also include provisions related to the royalty payments and structures of those agreements relative to other content licensing arrangements, which, if triggered, could cause the Company’s payments under those agreements to escalate. In addition, record labels, publishers and performing rights organizations with whom the Company has entered into direct license agreements have the right to audit the Company’s content acquisition payments, and any such audit could result in disputes over whether the Company has paid the proper content acquisition costs. However, as of June 30, 2021, the Company does not believe it is probable that these provisions of its agreements discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows. Legal Proceedings In March 2018, Manatt Phelps& Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”) served the Company with a complaint filed on February 22, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of promissory note. Plaintiff is seeking damages of $0.2 million, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer that generally denied all the claims in the complaint. On February 19, 2019, in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff’s Delaware action (as discussed below), the parties settled this matter agreeing that the Company would repay this note and accrued interest in full by June 30, 2019. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019, and the plaintiff dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. No additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. At June 30, 2021 the promissory note has not been paid and is currently past due. Refer to Note 8 – Notes Payable where the related amounts are disclosed. On April 10, 2018, Joseph Schnaier, Danco Enterprises, LLC (an entity solely owned by Mr. Schnaier, “Danco”), Wantmcs Holdings, LLC (Mr. Schnaier is the managing member) and Wantickets (Mr. Schnaier is the 90% beneficial owner) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against each of the Company, LXL Tickets, Robert S. Ellin, Alec Ellin, Blake Indursky and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”). Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed all claims against Alec Ellin and Blake Indursky. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier’s investment (through Danco) of $1.25 million into the Company in 2016, the Company’s purchase of certain operating assets of Wantickets pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 5, 2017, and Mr. Schnaier’s employment with LXL Tickets, including claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion, and defamation. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have also sued Computershare for negligence and for injunctive relief relating to the refusal to transfer certain restricted shares of the Company’s common stock owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages of approximately $26.7 million, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied plaintiffs’ claims. The Company believes that the complaint is an intentional act by the plaintiffs to publicly tarnish the Company’s and its senior management’s reputations through the public domain in an effort to obtain by threat of litigation certain results for Mr. Schnaier’s self-serving and improper purposes. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. On June 26, 2018, the Company and LXL Tickets, filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract (including under the Asset Purchase Agreement), fraudulent inducement, and other causes of action, seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may award. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial proceedings, including continuing discovery efforts with the trial not expected to commence, if any, until the Company’s fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (unless further delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic). In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA, the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. As of March 31, 2021, all of plaintiffs’ claims other than fraudulent inducement and breach of the employment agreement were dismissed or addressed by the parties or the court. While a trial date has not yet been set, the Company expects to commence trial sometime during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend all defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims. As of June 30, 2021, while the Company has assessed the likelihood of a loss, if any, is not probable, the outcome of this lawsuit is inherently uncertain and the potential range of loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations. In July 2021, Simply Greatness Productions, LLC (“SGP”) served the Company with a complaint filed on July 21, 2021 in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company and Paul Cazers. The complaint seeks damages for an alleged breach of contract by the Company and an alleged breach of contract by Mr. Cazers related to the “Social Gloves: Battle of the Platforms” boxing event (the “Event”), alleges that the Company fraudulently induced SGP to commit to an oversize production budget based upon the Company’s knowing or negligent misrepresentation as to the anticipated pay-per-view sales for the Event, and seeks an accounting on the performance of the Event. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the claims. On July 22, 2021, the Company filed its complaint against SGP, Austin McBroom, Catherine Paiz McBroom and Allen McBroom in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. The complaint arises from defamatory statements the defendants made following the Event claiming that the Company lied about the ticket sales. SGP’s financial auditor has validated the Company’s representations. In addition, the complaint alleges a breach of contract based on SGP’s willful failure to collaborate with the Company on marketing the Event resulting in poor ticket sales which, in turn, meant reduced fees to the Company. The complaint further alleges fraud and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Company is asking the court to award no less than $100 million in damages. During each of the quarters ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, the Company recorded aggregate legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties of $0.1 million and $0, respectively. During the quarters ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, the full amounts were expensed and included in general and administrative expenses. From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities. Many of these proceedings may be at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not currently expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2021

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

Note 15 — Commitments and Contingencies

Promotional Rights

Certain of the Company’s content acquisition agreements contain minimum guarantees and require that the Company makes upfront minimum guarantee payments. As of June 30, 2021, the Company has licenses, production and/or distribution agreements to make guaranteed payments as follows: $0.8 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining nine months), $0.4 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $0.3 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024. These agreements also provide for a revenue share that ranges between 35% and 50% of net revenues. In addition, there are other licenses, production and/or distribution agreements that provide for a revenue share of 50% on net revenues; however, without a requirement to make future minimum guaranteed payments irrespective to the execution and results of the planned events.

Contractual Obligations

As of June 30, 2021, the Company is obligated under agreements with Content Providers and other contractual obligations to make guaranteed payments as follows: $6.8 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (remaining nine months), $6.5 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2023, and $5.7 million for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024.

On a quarterly basis, the Company records the greater of the cumulative actual content acquisition costs incurred or the cumulative minimum guarantee based on forecasted usage for the minimum guarantee period. The minimum guarantee period is the period of time that the minimum guarantee relates to, as specified in each agreement, which may be annual or a longer period. The cumulative minimum guarantee, based on forecasted usage, considers factors such as listening hours, revenue, subscribers and other terms of each agreement that impact the Company’s expected attainment or recoupment of the minimum guarantees based on the relative attribution method.

Several of the Company’s content acquisition agreements also include provisions related to the royalty payments and structures of those agreements relative to other content licensing arrangements, which, if triggered, could cause the Company’s payments under those agreements to escalate. In addition, record labels, publishers and performing rights organizations with whom the Company has entered into direct license agreements have the right to audit the Company’s content acquisition payments, and any such audit could result in disputes over whether the Company has paid the proper content acquisition costs. However, as of June 30, 2021, the Company does not believe it is probable that these provisions of its agreements discussed above will, individually or in the aggregate, have a material adverse effect on its business, financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

Legal Proceedings

In March 2018, Manatt Phelps& Phillips, LLP (“Manatt”) served the Company with a complaint filed on February 22, 2018 in the Supreme Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company. The complaint alleges, among other things, breach of contract and breach of promissory note. Plaintiff is seeking damages of $0.2 million, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. On April 12, 2018, the Company filed an answer that generally denied all the claims in the complaint. On February 19, 2019, in connection with the settlement of the plaintiff’s Delaware action (as discussed below), the parties settled this matter agreeing that the Company would repay this note and accrued interest in full by June 30, 2019. Such settlement was approved by the court on March 4, 2019, and the plaintiff dismissed this action against the Company without prejudice. No additional consideration was paid by the Company to the plaintiff related to this settlement. At June 30, 2021 the promissory note has not been paid and is currently past due. Refer to Note 8 – Notes Payable where the related amounts are disclosed.

On April 10, 2018, Joseph Schnaier, Danco Enterprises, LLC (an entity solely owned by Mr. Schnaier, “Danco”), Wantmcs Holdings, LLC (Mr. Schnaier is the managing member) and Wantickets (Mr. Schnaier is the 90% beneficial owner) filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of New York against each of the Company, LXL Tickets, Robert S. Ellin, Alec Ellin, Blake Indursky and Computershare Trust Company, N.A. (“Computershare”). Plaintiffs subsequently voluntarily dismissed all claims against Alec Ellin and Blake Indursky. The complaint alleged multiple causes of action arising out of Schnaier’s investment (through Danco) of $1.25 million into the Company in 2016, the Company’s purchase of certain operating assets of Wantickets pursuant to the Asset Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 5, 2017, and Mr. Schnaier’s employment with LXL Tickets, including claims for fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, conversion, and defamation. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs have also sued Computershare for negligence and for injunctive relief relating to the refusal to transfer certain restricted shares of the Company’s common stock owned by the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs are seeking injunctive relief, damages of approximately $26.7 million, plus interest, attorneys’ fees and costs and other such relief as the court may award. The Company has denied plaintiffs’ claims. The Company believes that the complaint is an intentional act by the plaintiffs to publicly tarnish the Company’s and its senior management’s reputations through the public domain in an effort to obtain by threat of litigation certain results for Mr. Schnaier’s self-serving and improper purposes. The Company is vigorously defending this lawsuit, and the Company believes that the allegations are without merit and that it has strong defenses. On June 26, 2018, the Company and LXL Tickets, filed counterclaims against the plaintiffs for breach of contract (including under the Asset Purchase Agreement), fraudulent inducement, and other causes of action, seeking injunctive relief, damages, attorneys’ fees and expenses and such other relief as the court may award. The parties are currently engaged in pre-trial proceedings, including continuing discovery efforts with the trial not expected to commence, if any, until the Company’s fiscal year ending March 31, 2022 (unless further delayed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic). In October 2018, pursuant to the terms of the APA, the Company submitted a formal demand to Wantickets, Mr. Schnaier and Danco to indemnify the Company, among other things, for its costs and expenses incurred in connection with this matter. As of March 31, 2021, all of plaintiffs’ claims other than fraudulent inducement and breach of the employment agreement were dismissed or addressed by the parties or the court. While a trial date has not yet been set, the Company expects to commence trial sometime during the fiscal year ended March 31, 2022. The Company intends to continue to vigorously defend all defendants against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the remaining claims. As of June 30, 2021, while the Company has assessed the likelihood of a loss, if any, is not probable, the outcome of this lawsuit is inherently uncertain and the potential range of loss could have a material adverse effect on the Company’s business, financial condition and results of operations.

In July 2021, Simply Greatness Productions, LLC (“SGP”) served the Company with a complaint filed on July 21, 2021 in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles against the Company and Paul Cazers. The complaint seeks damages for an alleged breach of contract by the Company and an alleged breach of contract by Mr. Cazers related to the “Social Gloves: Battle of the Platforms” boxing event (the “Event”), alleges that the Company fraudulently induced SGP to commit to an oversize production budget based upon the Company’s knowing or negligent misrepresentation as to the anticipated pay-per-view sales for the Event, and seeks an accounting on the performance of the Event. The Company intends to vigorously defend itself against any liability to the plaintiffs with respect to the claims.

On July 22, 2021, the Company filed its complaint against SGP, Austin McBroom, Catherine Paiz McBroom and Allen McBroom in the Superior Court of the State of California County of Los Angeles. The complaint arises from defamatory statements the defendants made following the Event claiming that the Company lied about the ticket sales. SGP’s financial auditor has validated the Company’s representations. In addition, the complaint alleges a breach of contract based on SGP’s willful failure to collaborate with the Company on marketing the Event resulting in poor ticket sales which, in turn, meant reduced fees to the Company. The complaint further alleges fraud and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. The Company is asking the court to award no less than $100 million in damages.

During each of the quarters ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, the Company recorded aggregate legal settlement expenses relating to potential claims arising in connection with litigation brought against the Company by certain third-parties of $0.1 million and $0, respectively. During the quarters ended June 30, 2021 and 2020, the full amounts were expensed and included in general and administrative expenses.

From time to time, the Company is involved in legal proceedings and other matters arising in connection with the conduct of its business activities. Many of these proceedings may be at preliminary stages and/or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. In the opinion of management, after consultation with legal counsel, such routine claims and lawsuits are not significant and we do not currently expect them to have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations, or liquidity.