Contingencies
 9 Months Ended
Feb. 28, 2014
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]  
Contingencies
Contingencies.
The Company is involved in various proceedings, legal actions and claims arising in the normal course of business, including proceedings related to product liability, governmental investigations, intellectual property, commercial litigation and other matters. The outcomes of these matters will generally not be known for an extended period of time. In certain of the legal proceedings, the claimants seek damages, as well as other compensatory relief, which could result in the payment of significant claims and settlements. For legal matters for which management has sufficient information to reasonably estimate the Company’s future obligations, a liability representing management’s best estimate of the probable cost, or the minimum of the range of probable losses when a best estimate within the range is not known, for the resolution of these legal matters is recorded. The estimates are based on consultation with legal counsel, previous settlement experience and settlement strategies. The Company’s accrual for contingencies, except for claims associated with metal-on-metal hip products was $38.7 million and $40.0 million at February 28, 2014 and May 31, 2013, respectively, and primarily relate to certain product liability claims and the Massachusetts U.S. Department of Justice EBI products investigation described below.
Other than the Massachusetts U.S. Department of Justice EBI products investigation, claims associated with metal-on-metal hips and certain product liability claims, for which the estimated loss is included in the accrual amounts disclosed within this footnote, the relatively early stages of the other governmental investigations and other product liability claims described below, and the complexities involved in these matters, the Company is unable to estimate a possible loss or range of possible loss for such matters until the Company knows, among other factors, (i) what claims, if any will survive dispositive motion practice, (ii) the extent of the claims, including the size of any potential class, particularly when damages are not specified or are indeterminate, (iii) how the discovery process will affect the litigation, (iv) the settlement posture of the other parties to the litigation and (v) any other factors that may have a material effect on the litigation.
U.S. Department of Justice EBI Products Investigations and Other Matters

In June 2013, Biomet received a subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of New Jersey requesting various documents relating to the fitting of custom-fabricated or custom-fitted orthoses, or bracing, to patients in New Jersey, Texas and Washington. The Company has produced responsive documents and is fully cooperating with the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will be needed to devote to this inquiry or its final outcome.
In February 2010, Biomet received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services requesting various documents relating to agreements or arrangements between physicians and the Company’s Interpore Cross subsidiary for the period from 1999 through the present and the marketing and sales activities associated with Interpore Cross’ spinal products. Biomet is cooperating with the request of the Office of the Inspector General. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will be needed to devote to this inquiry or its final outcome.
In April 2009, Biomet received an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts requesting various documents relating primarily to the Medicare reimbursement of and certain business practices related to the Company’s EBI subsidiary’s non-invasive bone growth stimulators. It is the Company’s understanding that competitors in the non-invasive bone growth stimulation market received similar subpoenas. The Company received subsequent subpoenas in connection with the investigation in September 2009, June 2010, February 2011 and March 2012 along with several informal requests for information. Biomet has produced responsive documents and is fully cooperating in the investigation.

In April 2009, the Company became aware of a qui tam complaint alleging violations of the federal and various state False Claims Acts filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts, where it is currently pending. Biomet, Parent, and several of the Company’s competitors in the non-invasive bone growth stimulation market were named as defendants in this action. The allegations in the complaint are similar in nature to certain categories of requested documents in the above-referenced administrative subpoenas. The U.S. government has not intervened in the action. The Company is vigorously defending this matter and intends to continue to do so. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will be needed to devote to this investigation or its final outcome.
U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division Investigation
In September 2010, Biomet received a Civil Investigative Demand (“CID”) issued by the U.S. Department of Justice—Civil Division pursuant to the False Claims Act. The CID requests that the Company provide documents and testimony related to allegations that Biomet, OtisMed Corp. and Stryker Corp. have violated the False Claims Act relating to the marketing of, and payment submissions for, OtisMed’s OtisKnee® (a registered trademark of OtisMed Corporation) knee replacement system. The Company has produced responsive documents and is fully cooperating in the investigation.
U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) Informal Investigation
On September 25, 2007, Biomet received a letter from the SEC informing the Company that it was conducting an informal investigation regarding possible violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, in the marketing and sale of medical devices in certain foreign countries by companies in the medical devices industry. The FCPA prohibits domestic concerns, including U.S. companies and their officers, directors, employees, shareholders acting on their behalf and agents, from offering, promising, authorizing or making payments to foreign officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business abroad or otherwise obtaining an improper advantage. This law also requires issuers of publicly registered securities to maintain records which fairly and accurately reflect transactions and to maintain an adequate system of internal controls. In many countries, hospitals and clinics are government-owned and, therefore, healthcare professionals employed by such hospitals and clinics, with whom we regularly interact, may meet the definition of a foreign official for purposes of the FCPA. On November 9, 2007, the Company received a letter from the DOJ requesting that any information provided to the SEC also be provided to the DOJ on a voluntary basis.
On March 26, 2012, Biomet resolved the DOJ’s and SEC’s investigations by entering into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, or DPA, with the DOJ and a Consent to Final Judgment, or Consent, with the SEC. Pursuant to the DPA, the DOJ has agreed to defer prosecution of Biomet in connection with this matter, provided that Biomet satisfies its obligations under the agreement over the three-year term of the DPA. The DOJ has further agreed to not continue its prosecution and seek to dismiss its indictment should Biomet satisfy its obligations under the agreement over the three-year term of the DPA.
In addition, pursuant to the terms of the DPA, an independent external compliance monitor has been appointed to review Biomet’s compliance with the DPA, particularly in relation to Biomet’s international sales practices, for at least the first 18 months of the three-year term of the DPA. The monitor has divided his review into two phases. The first phase consisted of the monitor familiarizing himself with our global compliance program, assessing the effectiveness of the program and making recommendations for enhancement of our compliance program based on that review. The second phase commenced in June 2013 and consists of the monitor testing implementation of his recommended enhancements to our compliance program. The monitor recently identified that certain of the Company’s compliance enhancements have been implemented too recently to be satisfactorily tested, and the Company continues to work with the monitor to allow for such transactional testing. The Consent Biomet entered into with the SEC mirrors the DPA’s provisions with respect to the compliance monitor. Compliance with the DPA requires substantial cooperation of the Company’s employees, distributors and sales agents and the healthcare professionals with whom they interact. These efforts not only involve expense, but also require management and other key employees to focus extensively on these matters.
Biomet agreed to pay a monetary penalty of $17.3 million to resolve the charges brought by the DOJ. The terms of the DPA and the associated monetary penalty reflect Biomet’s full cooperation throughout the investigation. Biomet further agreed in its Consent to disgorge profits and pay prejudgment interest in the aggregate amount of $5.6 million.
Product Liability
The Company has received claims for personal injury associated with its metal-on-metal hip products. The Company’s accrual for contingencies for claims associated with metal-on-metal hip products at February 28, 2014 and May 31, 2013 is $123.5 million and $23.5 million, respectively. The pre-trial management of certain of these claims has been consolidated in a multi-district proceeding in a federal court in South Bend, Indiana. Certain other claims are pending in various state courts. The Company believes the number of claims continues to increase incrementally due to the negative publicity regarding metal-on-metal hip products generally. The Company believes it has data that supports the efficacy and safety of its metal-on-metal hip products, and the Company intends to vigorously defend itself in these matters. The Company currently accounts for these claims in accordance with its standard product liability accrual methodology on a case by case basis. Given the substantial or indeterminate amounts sought in these matters, and the inherent unpredictability of such matters, an adverse outcome in these matters in excess of the amounts included in the Company’s accrual for contingencies could have a material adverse effect on our financial condition, results of operations and cash flow.
The Company accrues anticipated costs of settlement, damages, and loss of product liability claims based on historical experience or to the extent specific losses are probable and estimable. If the estimate of a probable loss is in a range and no amount within the range is more likely, the Company accrues the minimum amount of the range. Such estimates and any subsequent changes in estimates may result in adjustments to the Company’s operating results in the future. The Company has self-insured reserves against product liability claims with insurance coverage above the retention limits. There are various other claims, lawsuits and disputes with third parties, investigations and pending actions involving various allegations against it. Product liability claims are routinely reviewed by the Company’s insurance carriers and management routinely reviews all claims for purposes of establishing ultimate loss estimates.

As of March 27, 2014, the Company is a defendant in 1,513 product liability lawsuits relating to metal-on-metal hip implants, most of which were filed in 2013. The majority of these cases involve the M2a-Magnum™ hip system, 311 cases involve the M2a-38™ hip system, 47 involve the M2a-Taper™ system, and six involve the M2a-Ringloc™ system. The cases are currently venued in various state and federal courts. The cases in federal court have been consolidated in one multi-district proceeding in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.
On February 3, 2014, the Company announced the settlement of the Multi-District Litigation entitled MDL 2,391 – In Re: Biomet M2a Magnum™ Hip Implant Product Liability Litigation. As of March 27, 2014, there were 1,396 lawsuits pending in the MDL. Additional lawsuits filed in the MDL by April 15, 2014 may participate in the settlement. The Company continues to evaluate the inventory of lawsuits in the MDL pursuant to the categories and procedures set forth in the settlement agreement. The final amount of payments under the settlement is uncertain. As of February 28, 2014, we have accrued $123.5 million for contingencies associated with metal-on-metal hip products, which is increased from $50.0 million as of November 30, 2013. 
The Company believes that the payments under the settlement will exhaust its self-insured retention under the Company’s insurance program, which is $50.0 million. If this should occur, the Company would submit an insurance claim for the amount by which ultimate losses under the settlement exceed the self-insured retention amount. The Company maintains $100.0 million of third-party insurance coverage. The Company’s insurance carriers have been placed on notice of the claims associated with metal-on-metal hip products that are subject to the settlement and have been placed on notice of the terms of the settlement. As is customary in these situations, certain of the Company’s insurance carriers have reserved all rights under their respective policies. The Company has received a letter from one of its carriers denying coverage, and certain of its other insurance carriers could also deny coverage for some or all of the Company’s insurance claims. The Company continues to believe its contracts with the insurance carriers are enforceable for these claims and the settlement agreement. However, the Company would be responsible for any amounts that its insurance carriers do not cover or for the amount by which ultimate losses exceed the amount of the Company’s third-party insurance coverage. The settlement does not affect certain other claims relating to the Company’s metal-on-metal hip products that are pending in various state courts, or other claims that may be filed in the future. The Company is currently assessing any potential receivables to be recorded for recoveries from the insurance carriers.
Future revisions in the Company’s estimates of these provisions could materially impact its results of operations and financial position. The Company uses the best information available to determine the level of accrued product liabilities, and the Company believes its accruals are adequate.
Intellectual Property Litigation

On May 3, 2013, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, a company formed to hold certain patents acquired from Dr. Peter M. Bonutti and an affiliate of patent licensing firm Acacia Research Group LLC, filed suit against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging a failure to pay royalties due under a license agreement with Dr. Bonutti, misuse of confidential information and infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,921,986; 6,099,531; 6,423,063; 6,638,279; 6,702,821; 7,070,557; 7,087,073; 7,104,996; 7,708,740; 7,806,896; 7,806,897; 7,828,852; 7,931,690; 8,133,229; and 8,147,514. The lawsuit seeks damages in an amount yet to be determined and injunctive relief. Prior to the filing of this lawsuit, on March 8, 2013, the Company filed a complaint for declaratory judgment with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana seeking a judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the patents at issue. On September 17, 2013, the case filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas was dismissed. The Company is vigorously defending this matter and believes that its defenses against infringement are valid and meritorious. The Company can make no assurances as to the time or resources that will be needed to devote to this litigation or its final outcome.    

In January 2009, Heraeus Kulzer GmbH initiated legal proceedings in Germany against Biomet, Biomet Europe BV and certain other subsidiaries, alleging that the Company and Biomet Europe BV misappropriated Heraeus Kulzer trade secrets when developing its current lines of European bone cements, which were first marketed in 2005. The lawsuit seeks damages in excess of €30 million and injunctive relief to preclude the Company from producing its current line of European bone cements. On December 20, 2012, the trial court ruled that Biomet did not misappropriate trade secrets and consequently dismissed Biomet, Biomet Europe BV, Biomet Deutschland GmbH and other defendants from the lawsuit. Biomet Orthopaedics Switzerland GmbH (“Biomet Switzerland”) remains as the only defendant in the lawsuit and the trial court has ruled that Heraeus Kulzer will not be permitted to review certification materials of Biomet Switzerland for purposes of determining whether there is any evidence that would support a claim of trade secret misappropriation by that entity. Heraeus has appealed the trial court’s decision and the Company is continuing to vigorously defend this matter.
Other Matters 
There are various other claims, lawsuits, disputes with third parties, investigations and pending actions involving various allegations against the Company incident to the operation of its business, principally product liability and intellectual property cases. Each of these matters is subject to various uncertainties, and it is possible that some of these matters may be resolved unfavorably to the Company. The Company accrues for losses that are deemed to be probable and subject to reasonable estimate.
Based on the advice of the Company’s counsel in these matters, it is unlikely that the resolution of any of these matters and any liabilities in excess of amounts provided will be material to the Company’s financial position, results of operations or cash flows.