10. Fair Value Measurements

The FASB has established a framework for measuring fair value in generally accepted accounting principles. That framework provides a fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the inputs to valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The hierarchy gives the highest priority to unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities (level 1 measurements) and the lowest priority to unobservable inputs (level 3 measurements). The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described as follows:

Level 1.  Inputs to the valuation methodology are unadjusted quoted prices for identical assets or liabilities in active markets.

Level 2.  Inputs to the valuation methodology include:

If the asset or liability has a specified (contractual) term, the level 2 input must be observable for substantially the full term of the asset or liability.

Level 3.  Inputs to the valuation methodology are unobservable and significant to the fair value measurement.

The asset or liability’s fair value measurement level within the fair value hierarchy is based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to the fair value measurement. Valuation techniques used need to maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs.

The table below presents our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis during Fiscal 2018 and are categorized using the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):

The table below presents our assets and liabilities that are measured at fair value on a recurring basis during Fiscal 2017 and are categorized using the fair value hierarchy (in thousands):

Cash equivalents include cash held in money market and U.S. Treasury Funds at March 31, 2017.

Basis for Valuation

The carrying values reported in the consolidated balance sheets for cash and cash equivalents, restricted cash, accounts receivable and accounts payable approximate fair values because of the immediate or short-term maturities of these financial instruments. As the Company’s obligations under the Credit Facility are based on adjustable market interest rates, the Company has determined that the carrying value approximates the fair value. The carrying values and estimated fair values of these obligations are as follows (in thousands):

Adoption of ASU 2017-11

The Company changed its method of accounting for warrants through the early adoption of ASU 2017-11 during the three months ended June 30, 2017 on a full retrospective basis. Accordingly, the Company reclassified the warrant liability to additional paid in capital on its March 31, 2017 consolidated balance sheets, which increased additional paid-in capital by $2.9 million and decreased warrant liability by $2.9 million. In addition, because of the retrospective adoption, the Company credited change in fair value of warrant liability on its consolidated statements of operations by $1.3 million for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2017. The change in unrealized gain/loss on warrant liability was offset by a $1.3 million credit to accumulated deficit on the consolidated balance sheets. Adoption of ASU 2017-11 had no impact on the Company’s consolidated statement of cash flows in the current or previous interim and annual reporting periods. The following table provides a reconciliation of warrant liability, additional paid-in capital, accumulated deficit and change in fair value of warrant liability on the consolidated balance sheets for the year ended March 31, 2017 (in thousands):