Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	9. Commitments and Contingencies Leases The Company has entered into several non-cancellable operating leases for the rental of certain manufacturing and office space, equipment and automobiles expiring in various years through 2021. The principal building lease provides for a monthly rental of approximately $26,000. The Company also leases certain office equipment and automobiles under operating leases expiring through March 2019. Class Action Securities Litigation On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the Company’s stock price was artificially inflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016 as a result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company’s securities filings concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent a putative class of all persons (other than defendants, officers and directors of the Company, and their affiliates) who purchased publicly traded Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016. Scalfani was seeking an unspecified amount of damages for himself and for the putative class under the federal securities laws. On March 24, 2017, the Court appointed Scalfani and another individual Misonix shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, as lead plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the putative class. The lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, and the Company reached a settlement in principle under which the Company would pay $500,000 to resolve the matter. The district court approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in an order dated December 16, 2017. The Company has paid its $250,000, representing its insurance retention. The balance was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier. Former Chinese Distributor - FCPA With the assistance of outside counsel, the Company conducted a voluntary investigation into the business practices of the independent Chinese entity that previously distributed its products in China and the Company’s knowledge of those business practices, which may have implications under the FCPA, as well as into various internal controls issues identified during the investigation. On September 27, 2016 and September 28, 2016, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC and the DOJ, respectively, to advise both agencies of these potential issues. The Company has provided and will continue to provide documents and other information to the SEC and the DOJ, and is cooperating fully with these agencies in their ongoing investigations of these matters. Although the Company’s investigation is complete, additional issues or facts could arise which may expand the scope or severity of the potential violations. The Company has no current information derived from the investigation or otherwise to suggest that its previously reported financial statements and results are incorrect. At this stage, the Company is unable to predict what, if any, action the DOJ or the SEC may take or what, if any, penalties or remedial measures these agencies may seek. Nor can the Company predict the impact on the Company as a result of these matters, which may include the imposition of fines, civil and criminal penalties, which are not currently estimable, as well as equitable remedies, including disgorgement of any profits earned from improper conduct and injunctive relief, limitations on the Company’s conduct, and the imposition of a compliance monitor. The DOJ and the SEC periodically have based the amount of a penalty or disgorgement in connection with an FCPA action, at least in part, on the amount of profits that a company obtained from the business in which the violations of the FCPA occurred. During its distributorship relationship with the prior Chinese distributor from 2010 through 2016, the Company generated revenues of approximately $8 million. Further, the Company may suffer other civil penalties or adverse impacts, including lawsuits by private litigants in addition to the lawsuits that already have been filed, or investigations and fines imposed by local authorities. The investigative costs to date are approximately $2.8 million, of which approximately $0.1 million and $0.3 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2018, respectively, compared with $0.6 million and $2.1 million for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2017. Former Chinese Distributor – Litigation On April 5, 2017, the Company’s former distributor in China, Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company improperly terminated its contract with the former distributor. The complaint sought various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance and preliminary and post judgment injunctive relief, and asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. On October 7, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all of the tort claims asserted against it, and also granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them. The only claim remaining in the case is for breach of contract against the Company. The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend the action. The case is at its earliest stages; discovery is just beginning and there is no trial date. Stockholder Derivative Litigation On June 6, 2017, Irving Feldbaum, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against the Company’s board of directors, its former CEO and CFO, certain of its former directors, and the Company as a nominal defendant for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the Company incurred damages as a result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company’s securities filings concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s February 4, 2016 Proxy Statement contained false and misleading statements regarding executive compensation. The complaint seeks the recovery of damages on behalf of the Company and the implementation of changes to corporate governance procedures. On June 16, 2017, Michael Rubin, another individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a case alleging similar claims in the same district court. On July 21, 2017, the district court consolidated the two actions for all purposes. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been no discovery and there is no trial date. The Company is not able either to estimate the amount of potential loss it may recognize, if any, from these claims or to identify any changes in corporate governance procedures it may undertake, if any, as a result of these claims.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2018

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

9. Commitments and Contingencies

Leases

The Company has entered into several non-cancellable operating leases for the rental of certain manufacturing and office space, equipment and automobiles expiring in various years through 2021. The principal building lease provides for a monthly rental of approximately $26,000. The Company also leases certain office equipment and automobiles under operating leases expiring through March 2019.

Class Action Securities Litigation

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former CEO and CFO in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging violations of the federal securities laws. The complaint alleges that the Company’s stock price was artificially inflated between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016 as a result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company’s securities filings concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. Scalfani filed the action seeking to represent a putative class of all persons (other than defendants, officers and directors of the Company, and their affiliates) who purchased publicly traded Misonix securities between November 5, 2015 and September 14, 2016. Scalfani was seeking an unspecified amount of damages for himself and for the putative class under the federal securities laws. On March 24, 2017, the Court appointed Scalfani and another individual Misonix shareholder, Tracey Angiuoli, as lead plaintiffs for purposes of pursuing the action on behalf of the putative class. The lead plaintiffs, on behalf of the putative class, and the Company reached a settlement in principle under which the Company would pay $500,000 to resolve the matter. The district court approved the settlement and dismissed the lawsuit with prejudice in an order dated December 16, 2017. The Company has paid its $250,000, representing its insurance retention. The balance was paid by the Company’s insurance carrier.

Former Chinese Distributor - FCPA

With the assistance of outside counsel, the Company conducted a voluntary investigation into the business practices of the independent Chinese entity that previously distributed its products in China and the Company’s knowledge of those business practices, which may have implications under the FCPA, as well as into various internal controls issues identified during the investigation.

On September 27, 2016 and September 28, 2016, the Company voluntarily contacted the SEC and the DOJ, respectively, to advise both agencies of these potential issues. The Company has provided and will continue to provide documents and other information to the SEC and the DOJ, and is cooperating fully with these agencies in their ongoing investigations of these matters.

Although the Company’s investigation is complete, additional issues or facts could arise which may expand the scope or severity of the potential violations. The Company has no current information derived from the investigation or otherwise to suggest that its previously reported financial statements and results are incorrect.

At this stage, the Company is unable to predict what, if any, action the DOJ or the SEC may take or what, if any, penalties or remedial measures these agencies may seek. Nor can the Company predict the impact on the Company as a result of these matters, which may include the imposition of fines, civil and criminal penalties, which are not currently estimable, as well as equitable remedies, including disgorgement of any profits earned from improper conduct and injunctive relief, limitations on the Company’s conduct, and the imposition of a compliance monitor. The DOJ and the SEC periodically have based the amount of a penalty or disgorgement in connection with an FCPA action, at least in part, on the amount of profits that a company obtained from the business in which the violations of the FCPA occurred. During its distributorship relationship with the prior Chinese distributor from 2010 through 2016, the Company generated revenues of approximately $8 million.

Further, the Company may suffer other civil penalties or adverse impacts, including lawsuits by private litigants in addition to the lawsuits that already have been filed, or investigations and fines imposed by local authorities. The investigative costs to date are approximately $2.8 million, of which approximately $0.1 million and $0.3 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2018, respectively, compared with $0.6 million and $2.1 million for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2017.

Former Chinese Distributor – Litigation

On April 5, 2017, the Company’s former distributor in China, Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against the Company and certain officers and directors of the Company in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, alleging that the Company improperly terminated its contract with the former distributor. The complaint sought various remedies, including compensatory and punitive damages, specific performance and preliminary and post judgment injunctive relief, and asserted various causes of action, including breach of contract, unfair competition, tortious interference with contract, fraudulent inducement, and conversion. On October 7, 2017, the court granted the Company’s motion to dismiss all of the tort claims asserted against it, and also granted the individual defendants’ motion to dismiss all claims asserted against them. The only claim remaining in the case is for breach of contract against the Company. The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend the action. The case is at its earliest stages; discovery is just beginning and there is no trial date.

Stockholder Derivative Litigation

On June 6, 2017, Irving Feldbaum, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. The complaint alleges claims against the Company’s board of directors, its former CEO and CFO, certain of its former directors, and the Company as a nominal defendant for alleged violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and state law claims for breach of fiduciary duty, waste of corporate assets, and unjust enrichment. The complaint alleges that the Company incurred damages as a result of alleged false and misleading statements in the Company’s securities filings concerning the Company’s business, operations, and prospects and the Company’s internal control over financial reporting. The complaint also alleges that the Company’s February 4, 2016 Proxy Statement contained false and misleading statements regarding executive compensation. The complaint seeks the recovery of damages on behalf of the Company and the implementation of changes to corporate governance procedures. On June 16, 2017, Michael Rubin, another individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a case alleging similar claims in the same district court. On July 21, 2017, the district court consolidated the two actions for all purposes. The case is at its earliest stages; there has been no discovery and there is no trial date. The Company is not able either to estimate the amount of potential loss it may recognize, if any, from these claims or to identify any changes in corporate governance procedures it may undertake, if any, as a result of these claims.