Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	10. Contingencies The following is a brief summary of litigation filed against the Company related to the Arrangement Agreement: Jason Simpson v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011726-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 24, 2013; Gabriella Rago v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03261-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed December 30, 2013; Matthew John Leonard v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011811-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 31, 2013; Michelangelo Lombardo v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-000095-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 3, 2014; and Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No. 14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 6, 2014. The five pending, substantially similar lawsuits were filed in connection with the Arrangement contemplated by the Arrangement Agreement. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class of all of the Company’s shareholders other than the defendants and any person or entity related to or affiliated with any defendant. Four of the lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the Company’s directors, Prospect, and the Prospect affiliates that are parties to the Arrangement Agreement (collectively, Prospect and such affiliates are referred to as the “Prospect Parties”). The fifth lawsuit names those same parties as defendants, with the exception of two of the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff alleges that the consideration to be paid for the Company’s Common Shares is inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement are contrary to the interests of the Company’s public shareholders. Each plaintiff asserts a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Company’s directors, and an aiding and abetting claim against the Company and/or certain of the Prospect Parties. The plaintiff to the U.S. District Court action also asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, the Company’s directors and/or Prospect, alleging that the Registration Statement on Form N-14 filed by Prospect on January 13, 2014 misrepresents and omits certain material information related to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or damages with respect to the proposed transaction, and an award of attorneys’ fees. The Prospect Parties, the Company and the Company’s directors do not believe that there is any merit to any of the pending actions, and they intend to defend vigorously against such actions.

Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Dec. 31, 2013

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. Contingencies

The following is a brief summary of litigation filed against the Company related to the Arrangement Agreement:

Jason Simpson v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011726-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 24, 2013; Gabriella Rago v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:13-cv-03261-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed December 30, 2013; Matthew John Leonard v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 13-011811-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed December 31, 2013; Michelangelo Lombardo v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 14-000095-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 3, 2014; and Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No. 14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 6, 2014. The five pending, substantially similar lawsuits were filed in connection with the Arrangement contemplated by the Arrangement Agreement. Each plaintiff purports to represent a class of all of the Company’s shareholders other than the defendants and any person or entity related to or affiliated with any defendant. Four of the lawsuits name as defendants the Company, the Company’s directors, Prospect, and the Prospect affiliates that are parties to the Arrangement Agreement (collectively, Prospect and such affiliates are referred to as the “Prospect Parties”). The fifth lawsuit names those same parties as defendants, with the exception of two of the Prospect Parties. Each plaintiff alleges that the consideration to be paid for the Company’s Common Shares is inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement are contrary to the interests of the Company’s public shareholders. Each plaintiff asserts a breach of fiduciary duty claim against the Company’s directors, and an aiding and abetting claim against the Company and/or certain of the Prospect Parties. The plaintiff to the U.S. District Court action also asserts claims under Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against the Company, the Company’s directors and/or Prospect, alleging that the Registration Statement on Form N-14 filed by Prospect on January 13, 2014 misrepresents and omits certain material information related to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff seeks declaratory relief, injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or damages with respect to the proposed transaction, and an award of attorneys’ fees. The Prospect Parties, the Company and the Company’s directors do not believe that there is any merit to any of the pending actions, and they intend to defend vigorously against such actions.