Commitments and Contingencies	9 Months Ended
Mar. 31, 2019
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	10. 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 $28,000. Class Action Securities Litigation On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former chief executive officer and chief financial officer 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 the Company’s products in China and the Company’s knowledge of those business practices, which may have had implications under the FCPA, as well as into various internal controls issues identified during the investigation (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 information to the SEC and the DOJ, if requested, and is cooperating fully with these agencies in their 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, including costs of litigation relating to the Company’s former Chinese distributor as described below, are approximately $3.7 million, of which approximately $0.2 million and $0.6 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019, respectively, compared with $0.1 million and $0.3 million for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2018. Former Chinese Distributor - Litigation On April 5, 2018, 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, 2018, 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 currently remaining in the case is for breach of contract against the Company; the plaintiff has moved to amend its complaint to add tort claims, which the Company intends to oppose. The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend the action. Fact discovery in the case is currently scheduled to end on May 31, 2019, and there is no trial date currently set. 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 chief executive officer and chief financial officer, 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. On July 16, 2018, counsel for the Company and counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin informed the District Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. On May 7, counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, to which the executed settlement agreement is an exhibit. The Company has agreed to certain corporate governance reforms in resolving the case and to pay counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin an attorneys fee of $500,000 which is expected to be covered by Misonix’s insurance carrier. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the settlement will remain subject to the district court's final approval.

Commitments and Contingencies

9 Months Ended

Mar. 31, 2019

Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]

10. 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 $28,000.

Class Action Securities Litigation

On September 19, 2016, Richard Scalfani, an individual shareholder of Misonix, filed a lawsuit against the Company and its former chief executive officer and chief financial officer 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 the Company’s products in China and the Company’s knowledge of those business practices, which may have had implications under the FCPA, as well as into various internal controls issues identified during the investigation (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 information to the SEC and the DOJ, if requested, and is cooperating fully with these agencies in their 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, including costs of litigation relating to the Company’s former Chinese distributor as described below, are approximately $3.7 million, of which approximately $0.2 million and $0.6 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three and nine months ended March 31, 2019, respectively, compared with $0.1 million and $0.3 million for the three and nine months ended March 31, 2018.

Former Chinese Distributor - Litigation

On April 5, 2018, 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, 2018, 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 currently remaining in the case is for breach of contract against the Company; the plaintiff has moved to amend its complaint to add tort claims, which the Company intends to oppose. The Company believes it has various legal and factual defenses to the allegations in the complaint, and intends to vigorously defend the action. Fact discovery in the case is currently scheduled to end on May 31, 2019, and there is no trial date currently set.

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 chief executive officer and chief financial officer, 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. On July 16, 2018, counsel for the Company and counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin informed the District Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. On May 7, counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin filed a motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, to which the executed settlement agreement is an exhibit. The Company has agreed to certain corporate governance reforms in resolving the case and to pay counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin an attorneys fee of $500,000 which is expected to be covered by Misonix’s insurance carrier. If the court preliminarily approves the settlement, the settlement will remain subject to the district court's final approval.