Commitments and Contingencies	3 Months Ended
Sep. 30, 2018
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. 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 (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 $3.1 million, of which approximately $0.1 million and $0.2 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017 respectively. 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 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 has opposed. 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. On July 16, 2018, the Company and counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin informed the District Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. There are aspects of the settlement that remain to be negotiated and documented, and the settlement is subject to approval by the District Court after notice to the Company’s shareholders.

Commitments and Contingencies

3 Months Ended

Sep. 30, 2018

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.

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 (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 $3.1 million, of which approximately $0.1 million and $0.2 million was charged to general and administrative expenses during the three months ended September 30, 2018 and 2017 respectively.

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 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 has opposed. 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. On July 16, 2018, the Company and counsel for Mr. Feldbaum and Mr. Rubin informed the District Court that the parties had reached a settlement in principle. There are aspects of the settlement that remain to be negotiated and documented, and the settlement is subject to approval by the District Court after notice to the Company’s shareholders.