As highlighted in this prior post, in 2016 Misonix made a voluntary disclosure to the DOJ and SEC to “inform both agencies that the Company may have had knowledge of certain business practices of the independent Chinese entity that distributes its products in China, which practices raise questions under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.”
In 2017 Cicel (Beijing) Science & Technology Co. Ltd. brought a variety of civil claims against Misonix concerning its business relationship with the company. Among the claims brought by Cicel was a breach of contract claim. Misonix acknowledged that it terminated the contract, but argued that it “was justified in doing so because of Misonix’s FCPA investigation” regarding Cicel. In response, Cicel claimed that the investigation “was a ruse for breaching the contract.”
As highlighted in this prior post, a judge allowed Cicel’s claim to proceed beyond the motion to dismiss stage.
Recently, a judge granted Misonix’s motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The decision (2022 WL 188994) provides a rare public view into the origin’s of Misonix’s scrutiny and investigation.
