Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Contingencies	10. Contingencies The following is a brief summary of litigation filed against the Company and its directors related to the Arrangement contemplated in the recently terminated Arrangement Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and Prospect Capital Corporation (“Prospect”) and three of its subsidiaries, on the other hand: 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; Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No. 14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 6, 2014; Marvin Biver v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed February 3, 2014; and Richard Abrons v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00583-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed March 10, 2014. These seven substantially similar lawsuits were filed in connection with the Arrangement contemplated in the Arrangement Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and Prospect and three Prospect subsidiaries, on the other hand. On April 30, 2014, the Biver and the Abrons lawsuits were consolidated (hereafter, the “Biver lawsuit”). On May 8, 2014, the Rago lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. Each plaintiff to the lawsuits purported 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. Each plaintiff alleged that the consideration to be paid for the Company’s Common Shares was inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement were contrary to the interests of the Company’s public shareholders. Each plaintiff sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or unspecified damages with respect to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff, except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, also sought an award of attorneys’ fees. From July 8, 2014 to July 15, 2014, following the Company’s June 12, 2014 announcement that the Company’s Board of Directors had determined to terminate the Arrangement Agreement, each pending lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. No monies or other consideration were exchanged between the plaintiffs and defendants. The Company currently is not a party to any pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business, none of which, if decided adversely to the Company, would, in the opinion of management, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.

Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Jun. 30, 2014

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. Contingencies

The following is a brief summary of litigation filed against the Company and its directors related to the Arrangement contemplated in the recently terminated Arrangement Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and Prospect Capital Corporation (“Prospect”) and three of its subsidiaries, on the other hand:

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; Edward Opton v. Stephen Bragin, et al., Case No. 14-000139-CI (Circuit Court, Pinellas County, Florida), filed January 6, 2014; Marvin Biver v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00250-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed February 3, 2014; and Richard Abrons v. Nicholas Financial, Inc., et al., Case No. 8:14-cv-00583-VMC-TGW (U.S. District Court, Tampa, Florida), filed March 10, 2014. These seven substantially similar lawsuits were filed in connection with the Arrangement contemplated in the Arrangement Agreement between the Company, on the one hand, and Prospect and three Prospect subsidiaries, on the other hand. On April 30, 2014, the Biver and the Abrons lawsuits were consolidated (hereafter, the “Biver lawsuit”). On May 8, 2014, the Rago lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed.

Each plaintiff to the lawsuits purported 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. Each plaintiff alleged that the consideration to be paid for the Company’s Common Shares was inadequate and that certain terms of the Arrangement Agreement were contrary to the interests of the Company’s public shareholders. Each plaintiff sought declaratory relief, injunctive relief, other equitable relief and/or unspecified damages with respect to the proposed transaction. Each plaintiff, except for the plaintiffs in the Biver lawsuit, also sought an award of attorneys’ fees. From July 8, 2014 to July 15, 2014, following the Company’s June 12, 2014 announcement that the Company’s Board of Directors had determined to terminate the Arrangement Agreement, each pending lawsuit was voluntarily dismissed. No monies or other consideration were exchanged between the plaintiffs and defendants.

The Company currently is not a party to any pending legal proceedings other than ordinary routine litigation incidental to its business, none of which, if decided adversely to the Company, would, in the opinion of management, have a material adverse effect on the Company’s financial condition or results of operations.